CREATION VS EVOLUTION??????????

[Guest pip]

Ok then

1st the reason i asked to keep the thread non offensive was baldie asked not to offend his faith which this thread was not about.

2nd Ratreeper you are 100% correct creationism cannot be proven But neither can evolution.

3rdDarwin was sure that evidence for his theory would materialise in his life time,it didn t it hasn t and it won t.

4thEvolution has many meanings,cosmic,chemistry,and then the forms of the theory we are discussing,biological evolution eg micro and macro.The observable form of evolution that we all see is micro which is the short term adaptability of organisms to suit their immediate changing enviroment,as JD pointed out the example of the coloured moth etc.this is the only form of actual evolution that we have evidence for,the rest,just like creationism require faith.

Going to human evolution as we have all been taught in school ,the famous stooping monkey to erect man picture,we are asked to believe that there are enough fossil remains to prove the picture im talking about.In actual fact the only remains that paeleontologists have are pieces of skull,pelvis and some extremity fractions,with so little its unbelievable that we are brain washed into taking this as a forgone conclusion,and hard for even the most militant of evolutionists to be dogmatic about.The facts are that we have no fossils directly antecedent to man.In human paeleoantology it is the only"science "where it remains possible to become famous for having an opinion.Dr David Pilbeam says that virtually all our theories about human origins are fossil free or fossil proof.The Journal Science admits that modern apes seem to have exploded out of no where and the same must be admitted for modern humans.

Neanderthal man for example has been shown recently to have almost identical DNA to modern humans,recent tests have also shown that all neanderthals tested have a striking deficiency in vitD which causes Rickets which can explain the humped and crouched position of skeletal remains.

Ramapithicus was an ape;fact Australopithecus was an ape;fact homo habilus was an ape;fact,but more concerning is the long known and little admitted and still taught in schools facts that both piltdown man and nebraske man where frauds,purposely made from a pigs tooth and bones of an ape or modern human to falsify evidence which just simply doesn t excist.

This really peeves me because i believed this stuff as fact for so long,i still read it spouted in the Times now and again ,now if you or our governments want to believe in any form of evolution,fine,but don t teach it to my children at the expense of my taxes.

My point is really don t just blindly believe stuff scientists spout out,if they want to teach evolution then let them teach it in faith classes as it has no place in science.

[Guest Macnas]

Pip

 

It's just not good enough to say one thing and then another, just because someone takes the time to have a little dig at your presumptuous generalisations.

On evidence or scarcity thereof, if science can calculate the distance, position and composition of planets using a bit of theoretical math, then imagine what they can do with actual fossil remains. But then, outer space is probably all nonsense as well I suppose. Just like this round, spherical earth mumbo-jumbo we are all supposed to accept.

And DNA, what's the hell is that all about then, If you think Neanderthal man's DNA is so close to ours, you should see how close the apes is. Or is DNA just more junk science, just like the rest of genetics.

 

Why don't you write to Dr. Pilbeam and let him know the mundane truth, and also tell him to stop wasting his fecking time researching human evolution, the thing he is most well known for. And I have to say, you have some neck, proposing the idea of militant evolutionists being dogmatic.

Militant evolutionists? what do they do then? Invade church sermons and start throwing copies of The origin Of Species at the congregation?

 

Just stop pretending to be the amazed, slightly upset guy who has just realised, hey, wait a cotton picking minute here, he's been duped by the establishment, science, schools, uncle tom cobley and all, and is now resolute in making sure he avoids all such heretical notions. That is such an old divisive hack, it's eye-watering to see you use it.

 

You believe God made man, the earth, and all things in it.

Others believe man evolved from apelike creatures.

 

That's all there is to it, even the Roman Catholics leave it up to the individual as to what they wish to believe, the important thing is the belief in God and his teachings as far as they are concerned.

 

And yes, the last statement is a leading one designed to make you jump up and down about papists.

[Guest pip]

:DYou hit the nail there Macnas choice,thats the word,people and especially kids should be told the truth about evolution being a theory,i would fight and die willingly to give every man the right to freedom of belief.

You are very knowledgable what about the "theory of the geological column",and the carbon dating fiasco,surely it says a little about the inaccuracy of carbon dating when a live snail was carbon dated at 200,000years .When things like this happen and the dates don t suit the fore ordained theory they go to the geological column,which has a fossilised tree standing upright through the horizontal layers in Yellowstone.These layers they say where layed down over millions of years?Didn t know trees lived that long.

My point again being that although you are no doubt very intelligent you choose to ignore facts,anything i have mentioned are facts , im not ignoring anything just encouraging folks to think.

With regards to religion being responsible for most of histories evils ,who can deny this ,men through religion have manipulated the minds of multitudes to commit absurd atrosities.The greatest of these religious leaders are those who preach the faith of atheism supported by Darwins bible "origin of species"eg Stalin ,Hitler,Pol pot,.

Edited October 21, 2007 by pip

[Crow 1]

JUST INCASE THIS HAS NEVER BEEN POSTED BEFORE I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN FOLKS VIEWS OF THE ABOVE AND IF POSSIBLE SOME EVIDENCE AS TO WHY YOU BELIEVE IN YOUR PARTICULAR ASPECT OF WHERE WE CAME FROM.THANKS

 

F~~k me! Mankind have been trying to prove this one way or the other for thousands of years and you want US to give some evidence.

 

[Guest Macnas]

Pip

 

Carbon dating is a reliable method of determining age, given the length and breadth of all the things on earth it's not unusual or unexpected for anomalies to occur. And as for that snail, for one thing carbon dating can only be accurately applied to something that is dead, i.e. not taking on more carbon. And in addition, calcium carbonate degrades the accuracy of such dating methods, and snail shells are mainly made up of, guess what? calcium carbonate.

 

The geologic column is not based around the concept of a fossilised tree, it's a complex derivation allowing the comparison of such remains and artefacts to be logically compared and analysed.

 

I don't ignore facts, the only facts I am dubious of is those that are cherry-picked, taken out of context, mis-used and adulterated to support fatuous arguments. Creationism is a mold, and any and every fact that can be used, abused, and cynically misrepresented is beaten into it, in order to achieve the required result.

In other words, the diametric opposite of investigative science.

 

Laying the blame for people like Hitler and Pol Pot at the feet of Darwin is breathtaking idiocy by any standard. You are scraping the bottom of the creationist barrel when you spew such quackery.

 

As for my intelligence, I am no more intelligent than anyone else, and the last place I expected to be patronised for being able to express my views in as clear a manner as is possible for me to do so, is an online hunting forum.

 

Now please, be a good fundamentalist and rise to the bait I left in my last post and have a go at the catholics.

[Scallywag 78]

A small point in the middle of all this, but when I was at school I was defintaely taught The THEORY of evolution

[Guest pip]

A hypothesis is a proposition or possibility that requires investigation.

 

A theory is a proposition that has been tested and so far found to be correct.

 

A law is a proposition that has been tested by every meticulous method and so far been found to be flawless.

 

Dr Karl Popper,writes "i have come to the conclusion that evolution is not a testable scientific theory "

GG Simpson and SJ Gould two palaeontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolution theory say that evolution theory has to be construed within a complex of particular and general "preconceptions"not the least of which is that evolution occured.[FAITH].

Popper goes on "the explanation value of the evolutionary "hypothesis"of common origin is NIL.Evolution not only conveys NO knowledge ,it seems to convey ANTI knowledge.It does seem that the knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow.We do know it ought not to be taught in high school ,and thats all we know.So is evolution even a theory?At best an hypothesis.

Macnas your replies are enjoyable and good but you seem to be branding me with some sort of "brand name "Christianity,and that i am anti Catholic,I am no such thing,with regards to your annoyance about this being in a hunting site,no better place ,people who spend time outdoors observing and considering the natural world are the people who have knowledge of nature.Also this is the GENERAL section.

Edited October 22, 2007 by pip

[Guest oldskool]

to scallywag,

 

 

yep, we done a bit of that in science lol... our R.E teacher and science teacher never got along

[Guest Macnas]

Pip

 

Copy and paste as much factoids, unsubstantiated and out of context quotes as you like, your argument is so flimsy as to not even warrant the title of hypothesis.

 

I'm not branding you as anything, I'm debating with you. I've presented as good an argument to counter your mis-use of scientific research as I could, that's all. And I'm hardly qualified either.

 

Also, I am not in any way irked about you using this site for your creationist agenda, otherwise I wouldn't bother even reading it.

My issue, such as it is, is with your poorly disguised absolutism. In one post you are banging on about choice and freedom, in another you bemoan the lack of equality with regard to the teaching of both the theory of evolution and creationism.

But in essence, your last few posts show your utter bias, and it's plain that you loathe the concept of evolution and think it evil.

 

As for trying to get you on your soapbox about Catholicism, that's just my idea of fun.

[Guest pip]

Macnas all my quotes are factual and aren t taken out of context,surely for someone to have choice and freedom in belief then they have to be given the option of alternative ideas,so im definetely not contradicting myself,and while i appreciate and enjoy the debate with you,you can t just say that i am using insubstanciated quotes without proving they are so.

It is interesting though that you have changed your stance from defending evolution with commonly taught ideas to making assumptions about my ideas.

Cut and paste? Would t know where to start.

 

 

Oh a quick question Macnas ,are there any absolutes?

Edited October 22, 2007 by pip

[Scallywag 78]

to scallywag,

 

 

yep, we done a bit of that in science lol... our R.E teacher and science teacher never got along

Funnily enough ours did!

 

Pip, it's a long time since I read Popper, but I'm pretty sure he'd say the same about creationism as he does about evolution, in that neither of them are provable within the criteria he sets. We're talking here about pardigms aren't we? Some people prefer one to another. Popper didn't think 'the truth' as such could be established irrefutably, if I remember correctly (which I might not).....

[Guest Macnas]

Pip

 

I haven't changed my stance at all, I've kept my argument fluid enough to follow your twisting and turning. You don't have any ideas that I can make out, just hatred of science dressed up as the wish for earnest debate.

 

Yes Pip, there are absolutes, you believe in them, and you are absolutely sure that evolution is bunk and that god created everything in 7 days and made man out of dust and woman from a spare rib.

You also believe in men living in the belly of a great fish, burning bushes that speak, people being turned into salt, immaculate conception and bringing people back from the dead.

 

I'm sure you have absolute faith, and as you've already said, the bible records all of the above and more and you have confidence that it is correct and able to stand scrutiny.

 

I choose to believe in evolution. It makes sense to me, it can stand a bit of prodding and poking, it's a good theory and there is always some new thing being thought about or discovered that makes it even more so.

 

I don't see it as being incompatible with christianity, most people don't and can quite happily continue being a believer in God while accepting that all is not exactly as written in the bible.

 

Pip, I know that as a fundamentalist christian, people making up their own minds about God and how to practise their faith is goading to you, and you'd prefer for everyone to do as you do.

But think of all the space you'll have in heaven while the rest of us burn in hell for all eternity.

[Guest pip]

Macnas you keep making assumptions about brands of religion and baiting me with them ,i don t even know what fundamentalist christianity is.

You say that i hate science can t see that,my reason for thinking along these lines was my interest in hunting and fishing and what i had observed during my work and excursions.I helped out on the Dessie Smyth Pearl Mussel Project,which basically was an attempt by a man to reintroduce the once common but almost extinct fresh water pearl back onto the upper Bann river.The source of the river Bann has been damed for years and local fishermen and the fellas working on the project noticed a clear distinction between the fish that lived in the dark peaty waters of the Spelga and those being caught in the clearer running waters of the river below.The fish in the dam where darker in colour and their eyes where slightly protruding further from the head than the lighter coloured fish in the river.Obviousely this was as accidently scientific as possible but there was a definate relation in the colour change and the eye position to the enviroment they had been subjected to.Evolution we all thought,where we right?Yes,but,micro evolution,more evidence of intelligent design now that i have looked at the real lack of evidence of anything more.Each species of living creature contains its own unique genetic code,within this genetic code lies the potential for essential change within the species eg the upper Bann browns contained the info for variations in colour and optic nerve ,retna expantion.However we all made a massive mistake because in no way does any of this lead to or is evidence of a change in species which takes not only a change but a permanent change in the genetic code.Similar to the case for creation ,evolution takes its evidence from assumptions including the probability that they took place by chance alone.For macro evolution to occur doesn t mean many small micro evolutionary steps to take place,it means for a beneficial mutation to take place within the DNA.Evolutionists claim that 1in 10,000 mutations are beneficial.Assuming that this info is true[it can t be tested] the genetic change would have to take place in the genes of the actual reproductive cells of the creature,and these only make up a small % of the creatures body but once again this mutation must be somehow overlooked by the cells own safe guards against mutation.For any of these mutations to make there way through and produce an advanced species with stabalised productive properties evolutionists admit that this would take many many 1000s of positive mutations and hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.This is only a change in species,for a microbe to man evolution would take billions of years and millions of positive mutations and even by the evolutionist timescale [570,000,000years]we wouldn t even have enough time.Oh and all by chance .Now to my mind evolution and creation are and should be treated on the same level,as faiths or hypothesis,im not trying to make anyone do anything just asking people to think for themselves.

[Guest pip]

to scallywag,

 

 

yep, we done a bit of that in science lol... our R.E teacher and science teacher never got along

Funnily enough ours did!

 

Pip, it's a long time since I read Popper, but I'm pretty sure he'd say the same about creationism as he does about evolution, in that neither of them are provable within the criteria he sets. We're talking here about pardigms aren't we? Some people prefer one to another. Popper didn't think 'the truth' as such could be established irrefutably, if I remember correctly (which I might not).....

Scallywag the thing i like about Popper is that he is not afraid to face the facts and speak up.Your right that he would say the same thing about creation,thats my point,Simpson and Gould are athiest but still speak up.You can t put a wildlife film on without macro evolutionary process being claimed.

Popper says in his autobiography "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deciet in the history of science,when this happens many people will pose the question;how did this ever happen?"

Macnas keeps going back to Christianity when thats not the issue.The issue is CREATION OR EVOLUTION.Both have the same standing both require personnal belief and a honest quest for evidence instead of a constant brainwashing of flabbergasting assumptions.The greatest battle for evolutionism isn t from Christians but from science as the demand for evidence get greater.

[J Darcy 5,871]

Just to add.....topips "fish" post, that often you will fiond fish living in cloudy waters are very pale indeed and lack alot of the colourful scales you would normally associate with the species concerned.

This is, i beleive, not evolution, but that individual fishes body changing due to lack of light penetrating the water. I am not saying that this is applicable inyour case pip, but it may be worth remembering ........JD