Poll - Age Old Question Evolution or Creation

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Knowltok, polymath, voodooace, et al:

Clearly you have nothing left as far as valid arguments go, as you have resorted to name-calling and insults. Maybe it is time to accept the fact that there is more to heaven and earth than your philosophies. Change doesn't have to hurt, you know.

Think about it.

I have always accepted the fact that there is more to heaven and earth than my philosophies. Have you?

I love change. Science has changed the way we think of who we are and where we came from for all of history.

Tell you what, FL. Let's make a bet.

I bet you ToE is proven before He comes again. If I win, you admit you were wrong. If you win, I burn in hell for all eternity. Each probably equally painful, I'd think.

Deal?

 

[VoodooAce]

Dammit!

I missed the part where FL2 demolished any of my arguments. Dang. I didn't get to feel the sting, hahahaha.

I don't think you've demolished a single argument.

Its been shown here in this thread that there can be many interpretations of the Bible. Of course there can. Its a collection of stories by many, many authors written over a period of hundreds of years.

You've also introduced me to the theory of the 'Vast Scientific Conspiracy'. I don't even BEGIN to buy this.

I'm sorry, FL2, but it seems obvious to me that any science you disagree with must be the work of quacks. I don't even begin to buy this.

Once again, it boils down to logic. Is there a scientific explanation for why we're here, and how we became who we are. Or did some spirit decree it, thus it is so.

"My perfectly sound arguments, for no aparent reason besides their contradiction of revered beliefs, are dismissed as superstition and nonsense...."

We have something in common here. My perfectly sound arguments, for no apparent reason other than they contradict with some revered beliefs, are dismissed as the work of quacks, despite all of the cold hard evidence to the contrary.

I can make the same ambiguous, roundabout, double speak arguments.

Lets just put it this way. I don't think you've saved any souls in this thread.

 

[Rowan]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
I would like to hear from any non-Christian posters (if there is any)

I'm non christian.and my two cents worth is..................
..................... WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[dance] [dance]

 

[Adebisi]

Ice does not move uphill

Yes it does, if there is more ice pushing on from behind. Mostly, it moved downward though of course, like in Scandinavia, where it moved down the Scandinavian mountains.

and it doesn't have tensile strength.

lol, have you ever seen ice in real life?

Further, it can't melt and deposit its carried sediments and THEN scrape across them, BECAUSE IT ALREADY MELTED.

No, but it can melt and leave sediments, while more ice is later formed farther up in he north, which causes the ice to move downwards and scarpe across the sediments the melted part of the ice left.

Was that so hard to figure out?

A global flood, like the one attested to by every oral and written tradition in earth's history...

There is no oral tradition about a flood in Finnish mytology that I know of, since we have never been flooded. Since most cultures where formed in fertile areas like river deltas, they naturally have legends about a flood. If these legends of a flood would in fact stem from The Flood, there would be other elements of Judaism in the culture of those people.

... is would easily account for all the formations and effects that an IA cannot adequately explain, and many geologists, gritting their teeth and almost visibly suffering from the pain of admitting it, have acknowledged that many IA terrain features were more likely caused by moving water than moving ice.

The territories where the ice had melted often remained flooded, which caused terrain features. Many terrain features were caused by water, you are correct about that. The water came from the Ice though, not from God.

Seriously, lets look at the markings in the terrain. The entire landscape has been carved. If not by ice, then by what? The claws of the devil? You can't find this in any tropic. How does a flood move huge stones from the Sandinavian mountains and randomly drop them a bit here and there? How would the several hundred kilometers long ridges appear, no water can do that. There are tons of other marks in the terrain that proves it was covered by ice.

I still dont fully understand your disagreement with the Ice Age theory. It's a commonly accepted theory, since there are tons of proofs for it. Is it that some of the terrain feature possibly could be explained by a flood? Even you have to admit that there are more proof for an ice age than a flood. Why would there be evidence for ice at all if only a flood occured?

You say you want to get rid of questionable science. How are your creation and flood theories not questionable? There are nearly no proof for them compared to the proof there is for evolution and the Ice age.

A tip. Dont try and pull any of this anti-Ice Age BS on any Scandinavian. You'll get laughed at.

 

[Seraph]

There is no oral tradition about a flood in Finnish mytology that I know of

There is one I remember vaguely

One is the myth of Väinämöinen who built a boat on a mountain with the help of a god. He then ends up floating on the primordial ocean and after the creating the world, lands on the shore of the Land of Pohjola.

I may have skewed some of the details being I am remembering most of this from memory, but the above is close to the important parts of the actual story, theres a lot more too it however.

Its amazing the cultures that have flood myhts.
Africa, Middle-East, Indian, Scandinavian, Siberian, South-American, and others.




Also, Ice has a very low tensile stregth, this is why a crack in a sheet of ice on the ocean will tend to propigate in the upwind direction, thats the part of the ice in tension. However, ice does have a moderate compressive strength, on the order of 10MPa. This is actually whats important for most of the mechanics that involve ice altering the terrain.

 

[Adebisi]

Altough I haven't read the entire Kalevala myself, I think it would be a bit far-fetched to say that that is a flood myth.

I dont like to fool myself and therefore dont believe the various flood myths around the world are proof for a flood that occured such as it's told in the bible. It just raises too many questions.

 

[sumociv]

Read Pitman's "The search for Noah's flood". A pretty convincing, multifaceted study of the colossal flooding of the black sea by the Med. around 5000 B.C.
Pitman shows a correlation between groups with languages related to the dispersion caused by this event and similarities in flood myths in these cultures.
His theory is that this pivotal event in a key geographic region in the levant caused an influx of people to travel in all directions and carry their flood myth with them.

p.s. I am still waiting for FL2 to reply to the devastating summary excecution post by Polymath

 

[Magnus]

Here is a nice article on the 'Black Sea Flood'

http://www.geocities.com/ttnewsletter/091500.htm

 

[CurtSibling]

Nice to see you guys talking in friendly terms! These kind of
threads can be really informative when there are no arguments...

PS
Good link Magnus.

I read that the Aztecs believed the world was flooded 4 times...
All part of a world-renewal tradition, I think all cultures have this.

 

[Sixchan]

I think I may have the answer to the flood thing and perhaps why FL2 doesn't believe in the Ice Age (Although he may not know about this).

Evidence has been found of large religious structures underwater, suggesting an ancient civilization. The problem is, the last time the places where they are found were above Sea Level was during the Ice Age, well before any Civilization was supposed to have existed. If you look at the map below, you'll see much more land than there is today, and the end of the Ice age would have flooded any civilizations built there. This could be the root of the flood myths, although this is good evidence they weren't myths.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by sumociv
p.s. I am still waiting for FL2 to reply to the devastating summary excecution post by Polymath

Is that what it was? It read like, 'Oh yeah?, well that's what YOU say!'

Fine, I'll go pick it apart, even though it's nothing but the same red-faced denials.

Be right back.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

This is too large for the editor, so this is part One:

Originally posted by polymath
OK FL2, here goes, you say you've demolished everyone's arguments. You haven't, you've simply made ridiculous claims, which I will counter.

With equally ridiculous claims?

Originally posted by polymath
Natural selection, while it does account for in-species diversity (like grey and black moths that are otherwise identical, or St. Bernards and Doberman Pinschers), does not explain at all how the species 'moth' came from some proto-bug ancestor.
Yes, it does, it's just that you clearly don't understand how a simple process can be so powerful.[/B]

Ooh. I don't understand. Hey everybody did you hear that? I don't understand. I was under the impression that a theory was supposed to EXPLAIN something, not shroud it in even more mystery. Let me ask you Polymath, do YOU understand it? Would you care to explain it to us ignorant savages?

Originally posted by polymath
Now, I can't trot God out of the closet and prop Him up in front of a mike to answer questions, but unless there is another equally valid explanation offered (and we'll get into the validity of Creationism in another thread or at least post), I'd at least like to get evolution shoved aside as bogus
And precisely why can't God speak up for himself?

Ever hear of the Bible?

Originally posted by polymath I'm sure you've got a reason why he can't just prove it. Ah, no, he'd rather that we believe without proof, is that the kind of guy he is?

It's called faith. Look it up.

Originally posted by polymath I'm curious about this. Well, until he does prove it definitively, let's just put God aside as bogus. That's the way you work, isn't it?[/B]

I accept that Creationism requires faith. Evolutionism declares that it is science, and thus no faith is required. Therefore, Creationism does not need proof, only faith. Now if you could PROVE it wrong, that would be one thing, but the ToE is flawed.

Originally posted by polymath (Vrylakas studying anthropology is Kind of like how the Jesuits have you pore over illuminated manuscripts in seminary... But Evolutionism definitely has no similarities to religion. Nope, nosirreeBob, none whatsoever
Vrylakas studying anthropology is nothing like Jesuits poring over illuminated manuscripts. It's just you'd rather see it that way because then you don't have to claim any special knowledge of the subject (which you obviously do not have) in order to knock it down. You can just say, oh it's blind faith. You are wrong. It astonishes me that you can claim more knowledge of something than someone who has actually studied it. But this is typical of your posts in this thread.

I probably know more about the ToE than you ever knew existed. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I don't understand it. In point of fact, the opposite is true. I understand perfectly what the ToE is saying, and because of that, I reject it as a cause of speciation.

Originally posted by polymath No reputable scientist will claim that Neanderthal man was a different species anymore. The best working theory is that they were a clannish group of tribes that inbred heavily and died out
Two howlers here. You mentioned logical fallacies before. You first sentence is known as the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy, as in 'No true Scotsman would beat his wife'. It's a nothing sentence, let's throw it away.
Your second claim is more bizarre. 'The best working theory'? According to who? Sources, please, you seem so fond of them. Otherwise, let's dismiss it. Note I'm using your own particular brand of logic here, not mine, but it seems to be the only way you work.

How about Omni? Is that good enough a source for you?

Originally posted by polymath The 'right' conditions, eh? Hard radiation, meteors, vulcanism, lightning, tides, and oceans and atmospheres. Sounds like a damn hostile environment for anything to grow in, let alone some very fragile chemicals... No one without a major axe to grind would buy that claptrap. Like most of the science in the ToE, it defies logic
No it doesn't, it's just that you are arguing from a position of ignorance. We have found live forms living in superheated (hundreeds of degrees) sulphuric vents on the ocean floor. They have found bacteria that live exclusively on the radioactive rods in nuclear power stations.

And I suppose they developed there, and then spreadout?

Originally posted by polymath Just because it doesn't suit our life, doesn't mean there's no life there. But then again, you don't know much about biology, so it doesn't surprise me you don't know this.

I knew about it. I know a lot more than you want to believe I do. You suggesting that bacterium on nuclear power rods is a supporting argument for spontaneous biogenesis is a hoot though. Thanks for going to print with it.

Originally posted by polymath What pre-human remains? Boxes upon boxes of bone fragments, teeth, and funny-shaped rocks, that spend years gathering dust on a shelf until some anthropologist needs another research grant are not evidence.
Why aren't they evidence? Just because you say so? You, with no real knowledge of biology, are suddenly fit to judge what is and isn't evidence? Explain this again, because no-one will believe it.

Well, not you anyways. Okay, listen close, and try to keep up. Darwin published origin of the species, and all of a sudden, the scientific community, including the people who contribute to it, are all a-twitter with excitment. Paleontologists realise that they can get a whole lot of money for their research if they come up with plausible proto-human artifacts and such. The love of money being the root of all evil, they pounce on the opportunity. We get the Piltdown Man, and other hoaxes. People get a little testy. Now we get monkey fragments, carefully numbered and boxed, and reams of paper describing their possible relationship to humans. These get much better reception, as, like fortune teller's predictions, they are just vague enough to avoid saying anything, and just controversial enough to cause a stir. And the money comes a rollin' in.
On to Part 2

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by polymath You want evidence that we are created? Draw a breath. Look around. Listen to your heart beat. You exist, the world exists, the universe exists. Since it is all here,and it can't be proved that it got here by itself, it logically follows that it was created.
Complete rubbish! Since one thing can't be definitively proved, it must logically be something else, is that what you are saying? In fact, yes, that's exactly what you are saying! This is so dim, it's funny. It's like saying 'since it can't be proved that God exists, it logically follows that it must be something else'. Now, you can say it, but to call it logic is laughable.

Let's dumb it down a notch: There are two and only two plausible explanations for the universe (C). Either it was created (A), or it happened by itself (B).
IF A<>C THEN B=C ELSE IF B<>C THEN A=C
Whether you like it or not, I have blasted wide open the already gaping holes in the ToE. Clearly, B<>C. That leaves A=C.

Originally posted by polymath Take the two together, and they make a lot of sense. A day to Jehovah is a period of time longer than any man has ever been capable of comprehending. Moses, faced with visions of great and mighty acts of creation, explained them in the way he was inspired to do: he broke them up into specific parts, and referred to them as 'days'.
So you've looked inside the mind of Moses, have you? You know what days are like for Jehovah do you. It seems to me that your logic is just hot air.

It seems to me that you get very defensive when faced with a rational Creationist.

Originally posted by polymath I greatly respect astronomers, because they are truth-tellers, not showmen, like biologists
Hot air.

There's that hostility again. You worried about something?

Originally posted by polymath Neanderthal has been dismissed
By who? Hot air again.

Like I said, go read it in Omni.

Originally posted by polymath
We all know that the only people allowed to make observations about fossils are those trained by ES, with sheepskins that telling the truth would render worthless. Kind of makes it easy to state their outrageous claims when noone else is allowed to contradict them, doesn't it?
Again, hot air. I'll accept the views of someone who has studied fossils. Not someone who dismisses all biologists as showmen. Anyone can study fossils and make pronouncements or contradictions. But to do it without having studied them at all outside Evolution-bashing 101 takes the biscuit.

What constitutes studying them to you? I've read articles in scientific magazines (and no, none of them were Christian Science magazines, we're Talking SciAmer, Omni, PopSci, etc...),
I've read the drivel on TalkOrigins, I keep up with the latest discoveries. How much more do i have to do? Oh, wait, I know. I have to convert, right? Because not agreeing with people who have a vested interest in being right makes me wrong somehow.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by polymath I have come to accept the truth, that this universe and everything in it are the result of an intelligent Creator. You, for whatever reason (apparently it is either financial(you studied this in college, are you a paleobiologist?) or you were simply raised that way), have chosen to ignore this, and follow a fairy tale.
Hot air. You are the one peddling fairy tales, and ignoring years of study in favour of 2,000 years of stagnation.

Lol, and so's YOUR old man. What a fine rebuttal!

Originally posted by polymath Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason I don't understand evolution is because it doesn't make any sense to my logical mind?
I have an IQ (last measured just before Christmas), of 161. This puts my reasoning faculties easily in the top 1% of the population. I can follow evolution theory pretty well. I can only assume that your mind isn't as logical as you seem to think, although it is true that very few people do understand evolution and make foolish errors when talking about the way it is supposed to work. I am not claiming evolution is a fact, I am claiming that it is internally logically consistent. And it is. Whether you can follow it or not makes no difference.

At the age of 9, I tested 145 on an IQ test, and was promptly placed in the gifted program. At age 16, I was tested at 156, and given Regent's advanced courses, including Biology. So I am just as smart as you are, and apparently getting smarter too. Try to understand: I DON'T AGREE WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, NOT BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, OR BECAUSE OF DOGMA, BUT BECAUSE IT RELIES ON TWO NATURAL PHENOMENA DOING THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY CAN BE CLEARLY OBSEVED TO DO.

Originally posted by polymathEvolution is a lie that has taken on a life and inertia of its own. It started out as a whacko theory, became the latest fad, junk science, caught on in a big way in the early 1900s, and has been gaining momentum ever since.
Hot air.

Oh. Hey everybody!! Polymath is the world's foremost authority on everything, and he says I'm full of hot air. Aren't you glad he was around to nay-say me and save you from my idiocy? Again, poly, I must commend your fantastic rebuttal skills.

Originally posted by polymath No, I don't believe in intelligent life on other planets, and even if there were any, the power required for useful interstellar flight makes mere visits to inhabited systems without attempting to engage in trade ludicrous at best, and colossal wastes of effort at any rate.
So now you are an expert on interstellar travel, spaceship engines and interplanetary trade as well? Hot air.

As a matter of fact, yes. No power source exists that could make interstellar travel and trade worthwhile, other than for a race of immortals who don't care when the package arrives. So take your ignorant little puff of hot air and stick it up your ass.

Originally posted by polymath Of the two theories, which is the logical choice? One actively disproves itself. It does so by basing itself on two natural phenomena acting in a totally different manner than they can be clearly observed to act in. The other accepts as evidence a document that is known to contain a great many facts, contains no known untruths, and has survived intact and unchanged for thousands of years. In fact, the only body of study that does contradict this written work is the other theory.
You claim the bible contains no known untruths. There are so many documented ones it's pointless to list them. Unchanged for thousands of years? Ha ha ha ha! ROFLMAO. Was the original bible written in English? What happened to all the apocrypha? Do you even know what apocrypha are? The only body of study that contradicts it? I suppose the other religions the world over don't count? Not in your little world, clearly. All just hot air, FL2.

I wonder. Why do you keep dodging the fact that evolution is based on two contradicitions? As to your rants about the Bible, well, my copy is based on the earliest available manuscripts, and rather than basing it on the tranlsators dogma, they based their 'dogma' on it.

Originally posted by polymath
So, you don't think that water in sufficient amount to cover Mt Everest to a depth of about twenty fathoms would have enough turbulence to scour some topsoil?
Where do you get this stuff from? Twenty fathoms? Are you saying someone was there with a plumb line, fooling around over Mount Everest taking measurements. I'm serious here, where is this from? Peer review?

You know, it doesn't matter how well-covered Mt Everest was. It WAS covered. Everything else would have been lost in the depths, so an exact measure is irrelevant, and I'm sorry I bothered to guesstimate one. The point still stands, regardless.

Originally posted by polymath
Are you that afraid of people with open eyes? People who think for themselves, rather than mindlessly accepting as gospel any drivel set before them by a man in a white coat?
You are talking about priests here, right?

Your priests of Science, yes.

Originally posted by polymath
My perfectly sound arguments, for no aparent reason besides their contradiction of revered beliefs, are dismissed as superstition and nonsense, despite the fact that I have not once used a Bible passage to attack the ToE, but rather have fought with my opponent's supposed weapons: cold logic and facts
You have fought with hot air, argued about biology without knowing anything much about it other than you think it is bogus, made claims that wouldn't stand up anywhere but bible class, purported to have logical faculties which you clearly do not posess, etc. etc.

I couldn't possibly have ANY mental faculties, could I? After all, I disagree with your pet theory, so I must be either ignorant, stupid, or a lying fat doodyhead, right?

Originally posted by polymathYour final, monumental arrogance:
I have listened to a great many arguments on either side, and have, as any who have followed this thread can attest, demolished those I saw flaws in without hesitation. Creationists using faulty arguments have felt the sting of my words the same as Evolutionists. I feel that the questions I have raised concerning the ToE have inflicted fatal damage to it. Its two main principles, mutation and NatSel, I have carefully demolished with well-constructed arguments. I have demonstrated the dishonesty inherent in its mockery of the peer review process. I have pointed out how it uses geological theories to support it that are in turn based on the assumption that the ToE is true, proving that these are circular arguments. I have pointed out time and again how the ToE no longer makes any claim to speciation, as it no longer even cares to define a species.
You haven't demolished any flaws, you've just denied things. There is a difference, you know. The questions you raise haven't inflicted any real damage on the ToE, although some of your arguments are interesting at the least.

So why not address them?

Originally posted by polymathSpecifically your thoughts on legless Lucy are valid, but you go on to ruin this by claiming specialised knowledge of hip joints, and whether they pop or not.

I've seen skeletons, of both bipedal and quadrepedal animals. Lucy's hips look quadrepedal to me.

Originally posted by polymath Quite bizarre, especially when it is clear you really have no idea whether they would pop or not.

By disagreeing with you, that is.

Originally posted by polymath As for the ToE making no claim to speciation:
ABSOLUTE DRIVEL!
Here's some reading for you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

These guys are as reputable a source for the ToE as Jack Chick is for anything whatsoever.

Originally posted by polymath
http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences/ensatina.htm
http://www.biology.ucsc.edu/people/barrylab/public_html/classes/evolution/SPECIES.HTM
http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/paper_to_html/speciation.html

Here's a better one:
http://xserver.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/science/spandrel.htm
This guy flat-out admits that evolution doesn't work once you define a species.

Originally posted by polymath
That there was a great flood at some point, I do not doubt. There are over a hundred and seventy different flood myths from different peoples around the world. They all come up with reasons for it. Some say one thing, you say it was God, others say different things entirely. Your reason for it makes as much sense as any other primitive tribesman's reason, i.e. none. The sooner you wake up to this the better. You are just part of another tribe with another myth, yet sadly you continue to cling to it, against all evidence.
Thankfully, not all religious people are as foolish as you, so there is still hope for the world. [/B]

Sniff, sob. Oh I am soo happy! Dramatist.
Now that I am done wading through this astounding pile of bull****, I am amazed to realize that while you went to great lengths to spout bile at me, not once did you address a single one of the issues I raised. Rather, you called me ignorant and stupid, and simply shouted out loud denials. The evidence is clear.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Sixchan
I think I may have the answer to the flood thing and perhaps why FL2 doesn't believe in the Ice Age (Although he may not know about this).

Evidence has been found of large religious structures underwater, suggesting an ancient civilization. The problem is, the last time the places where they are found were above Sea Level was during the Ice Age, well before any Civilization was supposed to have existed. If you look at the map below, you'll see much more land than there is today, and the end of the Ice age would have flooded any civilizations built there. This could be the root of the flood myths, although this is good evidence they weren't myths.

Actually, I hadn't been aware of this. Call it another piece of evidence then, and now my conviction in my beliefs is even more solidly based in the empirical evidence at hand.

 

[Sixchan]

Actually, I hadn't been aware of this. Call it another piece of evidence then, and now my conviction in my beliefs is even more solidly based in the empirical evidence at hand.

Ahh, but my evidence goes neither way. You can't use it to support your theory that Mt. Everest was covered since the flood would not have covered Mt. Everest. What we can deduce though is that it seems the Civilizations did not expand far enough inland to reach parts that were not caught by the flood. While it would be incorrect to conclude that water covered the Earth from this, we can say that the flood destoyed all Civilization on Earth, and the rest may be exaggeration gained through time.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

\/\/hatever

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Sixchan
While it would be incorrect to conclude that water covered the Earth from this, we can say that the flood destoyed all Civilization on Earth, and the rest may be exaggeration gained through time.

If the flood destroyed all civilization on Earth, how did the myths survive? Someone must have survived: how? If it killed everything else...
Don't go Noah on me; one bloodline was not enough to promogate the species.

 

[CurtSibling]

I agree with Greadius.

My two pence worth;

It is obvious that natural disasters that happened in the anceint
era, like a huge flood perhaps, will take on epic proportions to
later generations.

This is what generates myths and legends and also the reason
humankind developed philosophy and religion...
to try and put answers to why things happen.

Think of a comet strike or volcano in the classical world...
Surely the anger of the gods!

But now we know better.

 

[Sixchan]

Ahh, but while it destroyed Civilization, like I say, it would not have covered the world. Thus, nomad tribes further inland would have known the effects of the flood.