Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

We find that the believers Christianity and Evolution provide us with two valid theories given that they don't share the same postulates.

---

Hello again, Info:

Nope, they don't.

In the case of scientific theories, what we do is to formulate them in such a way that they can be used to make predictions about the states of affairs in the real world. And then we confirm or corroborate the theories by making observations or experiments that deal with predictions derived from the theories. In other words, we TEST them. Indeed, the Theory of Evolution HAS been tested and withstands those tests.

The "theory" postulated by religion, on the other hand, CAN'T be tested because it's based on FAITH.

Ergo, they ain't the same. They ain't even close. They don't belong on the same planet. They CERTAINLY don't belong in the same argument. All your highfalooten talk above ain't going to change that.

excon

Please I am looking for a civil discussion. I have to go to work now, so I will give you a rebuttal this evening.

Hello again, info:

And WHAT, prey tell, is UNCIVIL about my response?? Because I said you use fancy words?? That pisses you off, huh?

Boy, you're going to be easy.

excon

I am quite enjoying this discussion...
I like your post Excon... the one above which states evolution has been tested but religion is purely based on faith... makes sense to me but I know the religious people out there will still say that evolution is completely myth and there is no way to prove it (true, but there is more proof of evolution than there is of god) They will emphatically stand by their belief the same way we stand by ours.

However I need to be in the right frame of mind to think about religion so I too will be adding my reply at a later date :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shazamataz

I am quite enjoying this discussion...
I like your post Excon...

---

Hello shaz:

Virtual **greenie**!

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

Please I am looking for a civil discussion. I have to go to work now, so I will give you a rebuttal this evening.

---

His answer was quite civil. There was no name calling or offensive language. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shazamataz

I am quite enjoying this discussion...
I like your post Excon... the one above which states evolution has been tested but religion is purely based on faith.... makes sense to me but I know the religious people out there will still say that evolution is completely myth and there is no way to prove it (true, but there is more proof of evolution than there is of god) They will emphatically stand by their belief the same way we stand by ours.

However I need to be in the right frame of mind to think about religion so I too will be adding my reply at a later date :D

---

Yep. One camp believes one thing, the other camp, another... and never the two shall meet. That's what makes these "debates" so pointless. I believe that man invented god. Nothing else makes sense to me.

I apologize for the use of the word civil, but I am not in the least bit angry. I do however find it very difficult to reason with your type of arguments. I suppose what bothers me is your lack of sources and explanation. You make a statement with out sources and very little evidence and then say that's that. Furthermore you input your opinion into fact which not only dilutes truth but has no place there.

One of my purposes in opening this discussion was to form a well structured debate. I do agree that there is no end to this debate. It is likely to go on for centuries, and thus is pointless. I however enjoy them, when there is equal opposition, and fact rather than opinion put in place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

I apologize for the use of the word civil, but I am not in the least bit angry. I do however find it very difficult to reason with your type of arguments. I suppose what bothers me is your lack of sources and explanation. You make a statement with out sources and very little evidence and then say that's that.

---

Where is the fact and "evidence" in the bible and the theory of "creationism"?

To go with the facts you present:

Evolution can be tested and has tested positive.

We find that many of the theories of evolution reside on circular thinking. I have heard many arguments appealing evolution similar to one of the following.

Q: How do we know that rock is 400 million years old.
A: It contains fossils from that era, correlates with and event that took place in that area, and has tested 1% with radiometric dating to be that old.
Q: How do we know how old the fossils are?
A: They are often found in rocks of this age.
Q: How do we know that a certain event took place at this time?
A: Its remnants have been dated via radiometric dating.
Q: How do we know radiometric dating works?
A: By comparing how much radioactive material is left in them to what was there when it was formed.
Q: How do we know how much was there when it was formed?
A: By calculating the ambient amount that was around at that age.

We find that evolution is accurate within 1% because 99% of it is its own proof. If you want to fight me on this, you must use cold hard facts, not actual aspects of evolution. In the same way I'd be criticized for using the bible to prove itself true. As far as testing it goes, there is little to test when it comes to age. Without the tests being performed for millions of years there is not valid data to compare it to. As to recent claims of evolution, there is little sound evidence.

Just a quote on the dating of fossils in the Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. J. E. O’Rourke 1976

The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately.

---

I agree that religion is based on faith. I, however, am not offering those aspects of faith as fact, only the facts as facts. The same facts many use to prove evolution can be reinterpreted as religion. In my next post I will have prepared for you many of the fallacies of evolution. If anyone would like to do some research, or knows about them, please explain them in a way that makes sense.

Ren6, I have no more proof for Creationism than I suppose anyone else to have for evolution. I am not offering that as fact or for you to believe, but rather as an alternate theory as opposed to evolution. Saying that there isn't only one practical answer.

(A)
Through out the history of the earth, based on geologic times, we can find an abundance of species. They seem to be popular for several million years unchanged by evolution. Given the next geologic period we find a new set of species abounding on the earth. This is why geologic strata have certain species in it and little to none from others. However, they show no transitional phases. There are no links in organisms that show a gradual change, but rather massive jumps of changes.

(B)
The The Punctuated Equilibrium Theory attempts to explain (A). (Gould and Eldredge) However, there is no evidence of the transitional periods, and it further limits the rate of evolution, originally suggested by phyletic gradualism. Mathematically, if a change occurs over one long period, then it occurs at x-rate. The new theory proposes that the period has not changed but rather occurred faster in in lesser periods.

(C)
It would seem to me that the general rate of genetic anomalies remains relatively constant, while major events influence what takes hold in natural selection. Why then would slow evolution not constantly occur, while major events that cause stress on a species completely wipe them out. I mean to say that major climate change seems to affect rate of genetic anomalies which is what evolution is dependent upon.

There is admittedly little proof of evolution:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. A.S. Romer 1966

In sediments of the late Silurian and early Devonian age, numerous fish-like vertebrates of varied types are present, and it is obvious that a long evolutionary history and taken place before that time. But of that history we are mainly ignorant.

---

More to Come:

I, as a believer, have not so much 'strict' thoughts about evolution. It has shown its worth, as it has shown its limits.

Yes, I do believe that some creatures do evolve, that is mutate into a species practically the same over a long period, with some characteristics changed to suit his environment better.

But if you consider Darwin himself, he started to doubt his own theory before he died. The one who started the theory of evolution and kept it going for years doubting later? This is weird for me, and contributes to that evolution may be not completely true.

Shazzy, no worry about your post. In a debate, it is always a side, trying to pull out its best arguments, harsh or not, they form part of the dabate :)

[QUOTE=InfoJunkie4Life;2015927](A)
Through out the history of the earth, based on geologic times, we can find an abundance of species. They seem to be popular for several million years unchanged by evolution. Given the next geologic period we find a new set of species abounding on the earth. This is why geologic strata have certain species in it and little to none from others. However, they show no transitional phases. There are no links in organisms that show a gradual change, but rather massive jumps of changes.

(B)
The The Punctuated Equilibrium Theory attempts to explain (A). (Gould and Eldredge) However, there is no evidence of the transitional periods, and it further limits the rate of evolution, originally suggested by phyletic gradualism. Mathematically, if a change occurs over one long period, then it occurs at x-rate. The new theory proposes that the period has not changed but rather occurred faster in in lesser periods.

(C)
It would seem to me that the general rate of genetic anomalies remains relatively constant, while major events influence what takes hold in natural selection. Why then would slow evolution not constantly occur, while major events that cause stress on a species completely wipe them out. I mean to say that major climate change seems to affect rate of genetic anomalies which is what evolution is dependent upon.

There is admittedly little proof of evolution: end quote




I hate to throw a spanner in the works here but you cannot prove evolution false because there is no proof of it being true. The same argument applies to evolutionists who cannot prove evolution true because there is not evidence of it being false.

This common fallacy is known as argumentum ad ignoratiam.

Virtual greenie TUT! :D

2 things here...

First what is "Virtual Greenie?"

Second, I have tried that argument over and over, however many people refuse to believe it so. They wish to believe that evolution is true beyond any doubts. I simply wish to pinpoint the pinholes, and bring it down to the theory that is.

It is no more relevant a belief than any religion.

Usually, you have the possibility of giving ratings on answers. A greenie means that you're giving a 'I agree' rating and a reddie 'I disagree' rating. A virtual greenie now is when you cannot give greenies as it is the case here.

Evolution is no where near proven beyond doubt. Yes, things have evolved, but the theory cannot give a satisfactory explanation how we got from a single cell organism to humans.

This does not rule out the possibility that it won't provide an explanation in the future, but at the moment I think there is still a lot of work to be done. It also may turn out the theory is wrong in the way it is formulated. That's just my opinion.

I agree.

At Home Opps

I personally do odd jobs in my spare time...