A question for religious creationists who want absolute proof of evolution

Great Debates
41

So, the evil atheists are making theists argue for 6-day creationism so they’ll look stupid and atheism will look like the only reasonable choice? Boy, we’re sneaky little buggers.

Capacitor, saying that evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive is a fine thing. But WTF is with claiming that creationism is a straw man created by evolutionists to promote atheism!? You’re displaying as much ignorance as a creationist here: “I don’t like inconvienient fact A. (That some religious people argue for creationism and it can make their religion look a bit silly/there is a boatload of scientific evidence for evolution and none for 6-day creationism) Therefore, it must be a conspiracy by those evil atheists.”

42

I’ve said it before, and I will say it again:

Evolutionists DO NOT sit around attempting to come up with new ways to disprove the existence of God. They sit around and attempt to explain the processes which most likely resulted in the current patterns of biological form / function / relationships. There is no grand conspiracy to promote atheism (an ‘evolutionist agenda’?). In fact, about the only time God and/or Creationism is ever brought up is when attempting to set Creationists straight about their gross misconceptions about the roles of science and what evolutionary theories really are. This is not because evolutionists are all Godless atheists, this is because that’s how science as a whole works. Creationism, no matter how much anyone might believe in it, is not science. Evolution is not theology. The two realms (theology and science) are independent (one can certainly study both, but realize that one asks different questions in theology than one asks in science).

And please pay attention to this part:

Evolutionists do not, in general, concern themselves with explaining the Big Bang. Talk to a Cosmologist if you have issues with that theory.

43

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Gaudere *
**

Actually, I was the one that made the mutually exclusive comment.

In any case, I guess I should’ve read his statement a little more carefully, because I don’t buy the “straw man” theory.

Actually, I’d rather deal with an extreme atheist than an extreme creationist.

I’d like to say this to the Creationists:

I do believe in God, and I believe that regardless of the mechanism, He did create us. However, He gave us a brain, and free will to do the best we can with. Do you honestly believe that He would leave all this evidence for evolution around if it were false? No. There’s no reason for it to be false, not even as a test of our faith.

Ugh… I thought I had something more profound to say about it…

44

[hijack]
I apologize for this, but if I ask it in GQ it’ll turn into a debate anyway, and the bright people seem to be here. :slight_smile:

First of all, I accept the current theory of evolution. I am also a Christian (Catholic, so we’re cool with that). In the morning I listen for kicks to an evangelical Protestant radio program whose hosts are absolutely wedded to 6 literal days of creation some 6000 years ago, and often have on the usual suspects from CRI and the like to beat up on various straw men of their devising.

I have a question. It certainly won’t bring down their entire world view, but I’d like to ask it here just to see if anyone here knows what a “scientific” creationist’s reponse to it would be. Here goes:

In junior high, I was taught that we classify animals and plants according to the following system–

Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

Would a creationist accept this system? Would he or she accept it only for all animals besides humans? It goes to the whole “tree” concept discussed earlier–this classification system ties humans in with our closest living relatives. If a creationist does not accept this clasification, then why the demands to show speciation occuring now? If a creationist does accept this, is it not tacit acceptance of evolution?

Am I missing something here? Thanks for your help.

I’ve got another question regarding speciation, but I don’t want to push my luck with yet another hijack. :smiley:

[/hijack]

45

I would define ‘proof’ as anything that convinces the person asking to the point of believing. A creationist wants you to inspire belief by any means, they do not refer to scientific proof as shown by the lack of understanding of the meaning of scientific theory. How can a creationist be convinced? I have no idea, but here is how i might try, and seeing that there are some ‘non-evolutionists’ in here this may do some good.

To say that evolution is in conflict with creationism shows that you do not understand the definition of evolution, the context of evolution, and the purpose of scientific study as well as the purpose of religion. Science deals with how, religion deals with why, and who. This statement isn’t totally accurate because of the whole genesis thing… seeing that as an explanation of ‘how’ and all… but it does allow you to see my point.
Evolution does not conflict with any part of the Bible ( that i have read ), unless you take every word literally.
To take the Bible too literally is dangerous because what you are reading is an edited, translated version that is no longer in context with the time it was written, this does not mean it is untrue. How can a theory stating “man comes from apes” (i know this isn’t accurate) NOT conflict with the story of adam and eve?
The answer, (if) God created the earth, I’ve read genesis, in there it states that God created all the creatures that inhabits it as well. NOWHERE does it explain HOW God decided to arange all those particles or what method He used, this is the point of science, to understand God’s method better. What about 6-day creation? The Bible also never defines how long a day is to God and in heaven, or how fast heaven is moving :). Ever notice how short or lives are compared to God? And we (according to the Bible) are made somewhat in his image… How long would the portion of God’s life equivolent to a day in ours be? (OK this looks like i’m saying that God is gonna die, which i’m not so i’ll stop :)) You see my point i’m sure.

cheezit used the argument ‘what blew up?’ and ‘the nothing blew up’. This is also mixing religion and science in a way that the just don’t mix. For starters ‘in the begining, there was nothing’ is NOT a scientific theory :slight_smile: I believe that’s the bible

The Big Bang merely theorizes that all the matter in the universe (perhaps in the form of energy) was once condensed into a very small space, and something caused it to no longer be able to exist in that small space. Here’s a few ideas for you that you might find intereseting, if God was there in the begining, and nothing else, perhaps this glob of unified energy and particles IS God. ( now leaving the realm of science totally ) And this is why we have the urge to belive that god is present in all things. If that sounds to out there for you, you may simply accept that god created the blob of energy, arranged it in a way that suited him and then set the whole thing in motion. OR, God created the world, the world is in ‘reality’ young in age, but God was forced to ( wanted to if you prefer ) allow the world to have physical properties and natural laws that govern life and allow it to exist, So God makes the universe billions of years old at the start, laying it out in a way that everything is perfect, already organized in a fassion that supports human life and starts the clock… i could go on but i’ll leave it to you.
Summing up, religion concerns the will of god, science concerns the face of god.
Such a long post to make that point. think i’ll end it now-harold,
ps. I’m not a creationist, i’m not a huge bible supporter, i just don’t deny that it could be true, however the book itself is not something i tend to follow.
also forgive my typos

46

Its not that they use literal interpretation of the bible as a straw man. Its that they have such a great faith in science that they think its infalable.(yes yes i know scientifically you can prove science but thats just circular) So its a clash of the 2 and they outnumber you:)

47

Palandine:

The Linnaean hierarchy that you mentioned was based purely on similarity of form; it was not based upon evolutionary relationships. So, as such, creationists could reasonably accept it without compromising their beliefs. They need only accept that there are patterns in nature, which I can’t imagine anyone not acknowledging.

It turns out (assuming that one accepts evolution, anyway) that these similar patterns are a result of common ancestry, but systematics does not typically concern itself with these relationships. Cladistics, another classification system, attempts to use the presence, or lack thereof, of certain characteristics to not only classify organisms, but also establish evolutionary relationships between them. I would guess that cladograms (the branching diagrams produced as a result of cladistic analyses) would most likely not be accepted by creationists.

As to your question about speciation, you are certainly free to start another thread, either in GQ if you are looking for a factual response, or here in GD if you think it might invoke a discussion :slight_smile:

48

Um… No. As has been said a million times, science “proves” nothing. Evidence, however, allows science to make very solid statements.

You know, on a board devoted to stamping out ignorance, Asmodean, you are about as useful as tits on a bull.

Yer pal,
Satan

*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, two weeks, four days, 19 hours, 46 minutes and 0 seconds.
8072 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,009.12.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 40 minutes.

*THE YANKEES WIN! THAAAAAAH YANKEES WIN!
1996 · 1998 ··· WORLD CHAMPIONS ··· 1999 · 2000
26 Titles! The #1 Dynasty of all-time!
And most importantly… RULERS OF NYC!!

49

Hopefully you haven’t given up on this topic, even though some of the responses can seem harsh. It’s just that this topic has been debated here many times.

First, a clarification (just one more - - the other ones are good)…the Big Bang was not an explosion of stuff into space. It’s a common misconception that leads to confusion about cosmology.
http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/cosm/bang.html

As far as your ultimate question (“what blew up”?)…science says “we don’t know”. Science is great at explaining the universe since the beginning (with lots of great evidence), but there is no evidence that can be gathered from before the Big Bang. There are some mathematical/physics ideas, but no evidence.

So it may be that there was a Creator. Maybe not. It’s a question for faith. But like Satan was saying, science explains the way the universe works. And, as has been said by many religious and scientific figures, it can be a way to study/understand/appreciate God’s work.

50

Oh, no, ANOTHER ONE!!! [bangs head against wall]

Oh, no, ANOTHER ONE!!![bangs head against wall]

Repeat as necessary until creationist goes away.

51

Jab: Just curious, as you weren’t terribly clear – whose head are you banging against the wall?

:wink:

52

Have you seen this site?

http://www.trueorigin.org

I took a quick glance at it, it seemed like more smoke and mirrors.

53

That’s my “quick glance” opinion as well. I checked out the article that claims to give the theory of creation and, surprise surprise, it’s bullshit. More amusingly, it has a side-by-side comparison of the way creationist work and the way evolutionists work, and they claim that those who support evolution reject creationism a priori because of religious/philosophical differences.

So, I would say there’s definitely a lot of smoke, and that table is a mirror image of reality…

54

OK, sorry, but I’m gonna have to hijack too…

[hijack]
Anyone here think that that classic illustration of evolution… y’know, the picture with the monkey/ape/whatever stooping on the left side, followed by increasingly tall, erect-standing creatures all the way to homo sapiens on the right… is a dangerously misleading picture? One look at that, and you’d get exactly the wrong impression, that over time monkeys gradually turned into humans!

I hope nobody ever actually uses that illustration anywhere to make a point about evolution…
[/hijack]

55

I think it’s misleading for more reasons than one. Remember that the picture is somewhat representative of what we were all taught – that human evolution was a straight line, unlike the evolutionary trees of all other animal species. There are several scientists challenging this notion now, and you can read about it in the recent book, Extinct Humans, by Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey Schwartz. I recommend it highly.

56

I forget. (Must’a been all that headbanging.)

57

The only problem with Tattersall is that he is a “splitter” – nothing wrong with that; how one classifies human fossils says a lot more about the paleoanthropologist than the fossils, in my and my wife’s opinion. But it’s something to keep in mind in reading him, that Johanson or Richard Leakey or Thorne would probably not segment out some of the “species” that Tattersall describes as though there were no disagreement with his views.

58

Oh, I know he’s a splitter – and that’s what I like! I think what he has been saying makes more sense that those who have been lumping things together.

59

Here’s a link to a BBC story provided by JonF on another thread about salmon in Washington State that have split into two separate species since they were placed into the lake in 1937.

I told the folks at the Pizza Parlor about it. Wonder what response I’ll get…?

60

First off, and someone correct me if I’m wrong, before you can say that the theory of evolution is wrong, you have to know what it is…

You go on talking about evolution and then make the above comment about the Big Bang. The theory of Evolution and the Big Bang are two different things…

You could disprove the Big Bang theory now and that wouldn’t do a thing to the Evolution Theory.