scigirl

Hello FCC,

One little word called, "evidence."

And where did these questions come from, since we were talking about evolution?

Oh, you don't know the difference yet between physics and biology? Let me introduce you to <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org</a>

Vishnu comes to mind, he's MUCH cooler than YOUR sky god.

What is your point exactly? Are you claiming that God set evolution into motion?

Yeah, until you read a science book.

So it's ok if you say "nothing came from nothing" because you believe in a sky-daddy, but it's not ok for scientists to say this? I'm confused.

I would venture a guess, but I don't want to be impolite.

So why do you believe in creationism? Isn't that a theory from your religious beliefs? Please explain why creationism has to be true because you believe that you have a personal relationship with a floating sky god.

Try another one: it's wrong. It is not scientific, was never designed to be scientific, and frankly why any human being would believe that an ancient mythology book contains better science than a science text is completely beyond my comprehension.

Oh we have, we are the infidels you know!

And what exactly does this have to do with the scientific fact of evolution?

Yep that's right, even the beetles that gang-rape each other, and the viruses that make us poop for days, or bleed out of our orifices. What an amazing God!

Oh, and welcome to II by the way. If you are here to preach at us, your posts will be moved to <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=47" target="_blank">our rants and raves forum</a>. However, if you are actually hear to learn about evolution from a diverse community of scientists, etc, than happy reading, and I wish you luck.

scigirl

[Edited to remove the quote from this <a href="http://www.iranian.com/Features/2002/June/Arezou/index.html" target="_blank">newswire</a> because it didn't really fit with evolution, but wanted to leave the link because I thought it explained my beliefs fairly well.]

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

freemonkey

Books like <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1570626065/qid=1023944521/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-6772981-8680045" target="_blank">this</a>?

or <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060675012/qid=1023944521/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/002-6772981-8680045" target="_blank">this</a>?

or how about <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0192835890/qid=1023944521/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/002-6772981-8680045" target="_blank">this one</a>?

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: freemonkey ]</p>

pseudobug

Oh my, Fiestycreationistchick...

Evidence. Evolution has libraries and museums full of evidence while creationsim has zero. Evolution has testable hypotheses and it is falsifiable. Creationism has no supportive evidence unless its adherents go through mental contortions to try to make it fit. Furthermore, it postulates a supernatural entity as being responsible (which is outside of the realm of science and makes it quite easy for the cornered fundy to turn to the Bible and say "Goddidit" when they are squirmning like a worm on a fishook in the face of evidence) and is not subject to falsification. Ergo, creationsim is not science.

First, the origin of the universe has jack squat to do with the biological science of evolution and its associated theories and observations. Neither does the origin of the first life from organic chemicals; that's a field of study called abiogenesis.

As to your second question, read a little particle physics, dabble in quantum mechanics and investigate something called "Planck time". That should keep you busy for a few decades.

Not necessarily. It is equally as likely that no entity created "them"--it's a 50-50 probability.

If you are going to insist that their had to be creator/God, I will insist on their being a creator for your God. Who or what did that, the Easter Bunny?



Yes it is if one wants to close their eyes and put their hands over their ears and scream "la-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you" at the top of their lungs while ignoring the evidence from dozens of discipliines of science while believing in a fairy tale supported by no evidence.

Oh really? Then why don't you creationists crap out a falsifiable hypotheis and provide some evidence of some sort?

I'll tell you why. Because the supernatural cannot be observed and is neither testable, falsifiable or science. Creationism supports nothing but archaic, superstitious fantasies.

And again, I ask, if there has to be a cause for everything, where the heck did your God come from?

Then why the hell do you call it "God"? Don't BS us now, we can read your profile. You are interested in Christian apologetics are you not? If you aren't you are wither tap-dancing, BS'ing or apologizing.

Oh really? Do you have conversations with this invisible entity? Do be careful, won't you? Sometimes, folks are put in straight jackets and carted of to psych wards when they converse with imaginary people. Wait--check that! Millions of people get away with that sort of nonsense when they they trundle off to tens of thousands of buildings every week and talk to a figment of their imagination en masse.

Ahem...BS.

Bravo! Quite the little religious rant for someone who is "not a religious person".

So do you since you seem to insist on the formation of the universe having something to do with biological evolution. While you are at it, you might catch a clue as to what science is.

Most of us have read creationist "literature' as well. All I have seen is tortuous rhetoric backed by zero experimental data, outright lies, misquotes, etc.

You could have fooled me.

Please don't bogart the joint, will you? It is impolite not to share good weed.

Again, I must say bullshit. I won't even bother refuting this as I am sure many here will have a wonderful time giving you an education on the subject of radiometric dating methodologies.


Oh, please do. You seem like you have the potential to generate some interesting discussions.

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]</p>

pseudobug

hehehe! I hear that ol' Vishnu can pass some wicked gas when he eats too many lentils and chickpeas, scigirl.

KeithHarwood

Krishna is even cooler. He's Blue!

Automaton

Because evolutionary biology has a vast body of evidence behind it, and the "evidence" creationism relies on is the logical fallacies of false dilemma and denying the antecedent, and it does not conform to the core doctrine in science known as methodological naturalism, which makes it un-scientific. You should be asking, "why is evolution credible?" before assuming there is actually a competing theory known as this "creationism."
In case you didn't realise, reality does not conform to how you wish it to be. If you find evolution or geocentricism "hard to believe", that is your fault, not reality's. Do you know anything about cosmology? Well that's a silly question; if you did, you would not be comparing it to biological evolution. Anyway, what is your actual scientific objection to models of stellar/planetary formation via accretion discs (that you can't imagine it is meaningless, we want faults in the actual data and mathematical models)? Do you deny that balls of hydrogen/helium gas will collapse under their own weight to a central point that will form a star? Is it gravity you have a problem with? Is it the mechanism of stellar fusion producing other elements? Is it supernovae theory? Is it chemistry? Forgive me for just being a tad confused.
Uh, perhaps the Big Bang? Or do you mean the subsequent nucleosynthesis that formed the atoms as we know them?
Why? Do you believe snowflake fairies are a necessary explanation for snowflake formation? What about little chemistry fairies that guide electrons on their paths sure and true?
I answered that, nucleosynthesis. Perhaps you're confused and mean the Big Bang. Why is God necessary for the Big Bang to occur, at all, and why not simply a naturalistic force? And why your particular God? Why not Santa, as his first major gift to all the children?
I don't know. Do you?
If an alpha particle escapes an atomic nucleus due to radioactive decay, did something or someone "set it into motion"? Anyway, if every change requires a preceeding change as its explanation, where did the change in God's being (his divine decision to create) come from? And how does a timeless (remember now, time is change) God change in the first place?
I'd march up those stairs myself and close the damn window that was letting the breeze in.
Certainly not supernaturalism until I had examined the matter scientifically.
And that's why YOU believe in it, because it feels nicer to you, and has absolutely nothing to do with the evidence.
Theories don't support science, science supports theories.
And that's exactly what your God supposedly does, creates the universe from nothing. Anyway, where in biological evolution or scientific cosmology, does it say that "something formed from nothing". When physicists talk about "nothing", they're usually talking about true vacuums and such, which is extremely far from actual nothingness.
And nothing as an actual state of affairs is logically impossible. What's your point?
Well, you're assuming what you're trying to prove, because you're simply arbitrarily defining "gasses" as "created" in such a way that necessitates a creator, without actually showing that the "gasses" are created. Complex chemicals form from simpler ones all the time, does each complex molecule require an architect that puts them together from the simpler ones?
Why? It is not the job of evolution to do so.
No we are not. We look at religion as an authoritarian construct based around petty threats or promises from a fictional character (in this case, God.)
Yeah, so what's your point?
And yet you specifically associate yourself with Christianity in your profile.

• Interests: Christian Apologetics

Isn't there something in the Bible about not lying?
I have a relationship with my parents too, but I wouldn't really go so far as to say I was in "awe" of them.
Newsflash, God was created by humans as well. So was creationism. So was evolutionism. Evolutionism is the best model we have of how the diversity of life appeared on this planet. Creationism is a sham that appeals to weak minded religionists who can't be bothered looking at the evidence objectively and would rather believe in fairy tales.
It's kind of hard not to, considering that there is no such thing as a non-religious creationist, and creationism entails the belief in a fictional character that is central to religion.
We have opened our minds, that's why we don't believe in any of the multitude of gods that have been invented throughout history, including yours.
I see God as he truly is. An incoherent concept that is a prosteriori as dubious as the Easter Bunny, that believers persist in believing in due to emotional fixation.
To be emotionally "turned off" by such a being, one would have to first believe in them.
God is a concept inferior to Santa Claus in that Santa at least has a coherent definition.
I'm glad you think you know what God really is, and noone else does.
So God is just some guy that is quite a bit more powerful than humans. What is to differentiate between this "God" and a really powerful trans-universe alien? Forgive me if I find this definition insufficient.
I don't believe it requires any major qualifications in the field of human biology to have a child.
So you are telling us that you have not outgrown your childish fixation on your parents, and without their dominant presence in your adult life, you have simply created an imaginary "parent" to compensate. Hrmmm, interesting.
I'm sorry. I'll decide when you give me evidence for this "God the Father". Emotional appeals to a sky daddy are not enough.
Your whole post was "off on a tangent."
Why do you assume we have not? I have read vastly more creation literature than I have evolution literature in fact, and even being as young as I am, I can still pick it apart for the bullshit built on a foundation of bullshit it is.
You simply read the books so you could better understand "the enemy"? That is not a sign of an open mind, my friend.
I love it when creationists use one of their little buzz phrases like this. It always makes me smile when they tell me that evolution has "so many holes", and yet they won't tell me what those holes are even quantify them in any way.
Give this person a Nobel prize! I bet you're going to tell us about all these sea creatures (the mollusck shell one is a favourite among the scientifically illiterate) that have been dated wrongly with carbon dating. Carbon dating does not apply to sea creatures, who do not have the same carbon cycle as land creatures, where it does apply. Please read a book about how carbon dating works, you are desperately in the need of an education. And this was known before the sea creature "disproofs" were reported, because it is based on C-14 forming in the upper atmosphere via cosmic irradiation then being absorbed by trees and continuing on the terrestrial carbon cycle, which has little to nothing to do with the sea environment.
You said it.
Bye! I look forward to your response.

Daydreamer

We do, and many of us find it as convincing an argument for evolution as the bible is for Atheism.

Which ones?

lpetrich

FeistyCreationChick:
First of all, how is evolutionism more credible than creationism?

Descent with modification is observed to happen all the time. Special creation is simply not observed.

How is it more believable that our entire universe with it's complex make-up formed out of gases? And just exactly where did these gases come from? Didn't something or someone have to create them? If so, WHAT created these gases if God didn't? And just what or who is this "what"?

FCC, you are mixing up biology and astrophysics. And if the Big Bang had come into existence by some outside cause, then how did that outside cause come into existence? True, our Universe could be some bubble in some super-Universe, perhaps being some experiment in the lab of some of that super-Universe's inhabitants. But without positive evidence, I refuse to take such hypotheses seriously.

If a ball rolls down the stairs, you have to come to the conclusion that something or someone set it into motion. What if there was no one except you, home? What conclusion would you come to?

My pet cat bumped into it.

Here's another thought...you are looking at "GOD" as "religion". God is not religion. God is not a denomination. I am not religious, and do not affiliate myself with any religion. My belief is in a relationship with my creator, who I am in awe of. So you see, creationism has nothing to do with religion, for religion is created by humans.

Is this the latest Fundie thing -- "how irreligious I am"?

... You have to look at God as he really is: Our awesome creator who loves us and wants us to return to him for guidance. He's our Father.

Now where's the Mother?

(FCC on her parents instructing her and of God being like that...)

I am a creator of computer programs, and I try to make my creations behave correctly, at least how I judge "correctly". I do that by attempting to design them so they'll always behave correctly. I am far from being either omnipotent or omniscient, so I am often less-than-successful. However, I do try, and I don't whine and bitch and moan and groan at my programs for misbehaving.

Also, when I was a kid, I was fascinated by some pillbugs that lived in some open spaces beneath my family's house's sidewalk. I found it interesting how they had lots of little legs underneath their bodies and how they could curl themselves up into balls. But I did not feel any special attachment to them, and I did not have any taste for issuing revelations to them to the effect that they will live happily ever after in pillbug heaven if only they grovel before me as a superior being.

Oh, one more thing...you guys need to not only read evolution literature, you need to read creation literature.

I have, FCC, which is why I have a low opinion of creationism.

I have read many books on evolutionism so that I could understand what it was that I needed to debate against. I suggest you do the same.

I have read creationist literature, and some of it is good for laughs, but not much more.

You will find that there are MANY, MANY more holes in evolution than creation.

I find just the opposite. Just to name one example, Flood Geology is a big load of dinosaur excrement.

Remember, Carbon Dating has now proven to be totally inconclusive.

By who???

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Duvenoy

Originally posted by FeistyCreationChick:

"Oh, one more thing...you guys need to not only read evolution literature, you need to read creation literature."


Well Feisty, the fact is that I and all here have read it. I, for one have come away less than impressed.

I've read unadulterated codswallop about finding unfossilized dinosaur bones (why are they not on display?), dinosaur and human foot prints together (debunked but still used in the literature), a trilobite in a shod, human foot print (REALLY reaching for it, that one is), and so forth. I've read the vast wisdom of Hovind, Morris, Gish, Ham, et. al. and damn, but it sounds pretty good in places. But they have yet to come up with a single shard of empirical evidence against biological evolution. Not a scrap, nor a jot, nor a tittle. They have come up with some pretty good, if unsupported, sea-stories.

Science, on the other hand, is all but buried in evidence in favor of biological evolution which will happily be produced upon demand.

Please be cautious when you try to debunk carbon 14 dating. Consider your arguments carefully. There are people here who KNOW chapter and verse on all of the dating methods (I alas, am not one of them).

That said, welcome to II.

doov

hezekiah jones

Maybe that's part of the problem?

That's deep!

Naturally this has nothing to do with religion ...

Which of course has nothing to do with religion ...

Whew! Good thing it had nothing to do with religion.

You're right. We need to check that stuff out. Any recommendations?

Cool. Which ones?

Yes! Creation explains everything! Even the gases!

I know - it's crazy. Works great for the Shroud of Turin, but totally useless for rocks!

Please do.