• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Creationism vs. Evolution - A Culture Divided

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Firehawk0716
Getting Comfortable
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:53 pm
14
Location: Texas

Unread post

Chris OConnor wrote:
Also if you would rather not have us on your site we will leave.
As long as you don't violate our rules you're welcome to be here. The same rules apply to all members, but a little more slack will always be given to people that have a track record of making an honest attempt to abide by the rules and contribute valuable posts to the community.

But since you're asking my personal opinion I'll give it. Yes, I'd rather you not be here. That's my personal opinion. BookTalk.org has a great reputation on the Internet and too many uneducated irrational people is simply bad for us. We cannot attract leading authors and intelligent members if we appear to be a community of fools.

Well as I said we do not stay where we are not welcome. If you speaking about personal opinions. It would be my personal opinion that you are attempting to keep all people who do not share your views away from your site, and from joining in on conversations and debates. It might do you some good however to not post your personal opinions. As the owner your personal opinion could be interpreted as the companies. That could mean that the actions and requests you have made could be considered religious persecution, which could land you in court and cost you a lot of money. Just a thought. Thank you for the open forum in which to get resources.
Firehawk0716
Getting Comfortable
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:53 pm
14
Location: Texas

Unread post

johnson1010 wrote:
Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space, and matter

This would be where hydrogen and helium came into existence from nothing.
It is well observed that protons attract electrons. One of each is hydrogen. and the funciton of gravity works to bring this raw element Hydrogen, together in clouds and eventually bodies of fuel which will form a star. The origin, as in what came before the big bang, is information we have not figured out how to access at this point. It is more honest to simply say we don't know yet, than to posit the existence of some being from beyond the limit of time and existence magic-ed it into existence.

Chemical evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen

This would be where hydrogen and helium formed the 117 elements. Can not be observed or experimented.
Not true. Stars form the denser elements. You have misused the word chemical here. The formation of lead, for instance, from less heavy attoms is a nuclear reaction, not chemical. We have observed these reactions, and we create them ourselves in nuclear reactors and bombs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_element
In chemistry, the chemical elements labeled as synthetic are too unstable to be found naturally on Earth. These synthetic elements possess half-lives so short, relative to the age of the Earth, that any atoms of these elements that may have existed when the Earth formed have long since decayed away. Because of this, atoms of synthetic elements are only present on Earth as the product of experiments involving nuclear reactors or particle accelerators via nuclear fusion or neutron absorption. Uranium and thorium have no stable isotopes, but are found naturally in the Earth's crust and atmosphere, so neither of these two elements are called synthetic. Unstable elements such as polonium, radium, and radon—which are formed through the decay of uranium and thorium—can also be found in nature despite having very short half-lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star
For most of its life, a star shines due to thermonuclear fusion in its core releasing energy that traverses the star's interior and then radiates into outer space. Almost all elements heavier than hydrogen and helium were created by fusion processes in stars.
Stellar and planetary evolution - the origin of stars and planets

This would be where the 117 elements formed stars and planets .
The first round of stars were composed of only the light elements which may exist without the pressure and energy generated by a star. Planets are the residue of stars which have gone supernova. These stars are the only natural way we know of to generate the more heavy elements. The iron in your blood? That is real, honest to goodness, star dust.

When these particles are released they coalesque through gravitation to form solid bodies.

The formaiton of stars is readily observed through telescopes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
Interstellar clouds
A spiral galaxy like the Milky Way contains stars, stellar remnants and a diffuse interstellar medium of gas and dust. The latter contains about 0.1 to 1 particles per cm3 and is typically composed of roughly 70% hydrogen by mass, with most of the remaining gas consisting of helium. (Trace amounts of heavier elements, called metals, are present.) Regions of the interstellar medium form higher density clouds, or diffuse nebulae,[1] where star formation takes place.[2]
Organic evolution - origin of life from inanimate matter

This would be where the 117 elements or the stars and planets formed the first single celled organism.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c8v0ux7t452221xv/

One of the promising examples of study underway has managed to create a cell membrane built of the same materials that would have been found in pre-life earth, or other like bodies.

Basically, there are chemicals that repel water on one side and attract it on the other, when several of these molecules come into contact they naturally form a sphere which could encapsulate some material that would constitute a set of data to be re-produced. They can spur them to reproduce now with the addition of external energy, but so far they are unable to replicate on their own.

Here again, we don't know the whole picture, but there are promising leads.

Better than betting on magic.
Macro-evolution - origin of major kind

This would be where people claim that a banana turned into a dog, or an ape turned into a man, or a cow into a whale. Can not be observed or experimented.
No one is claiming a banana turned into a dog, besides idiots. Where did you get this idea?
What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.
If you think this is what evolution is talking about, then you don't know anything about evolution.

Apes share an evolutionary heritage with us, they didnt turn into us.

Think of it this way. Lets say you and your identical brother both started off wanting to be firemen. then, at around ten years old, one of you decides that you would rather be a police officer. One goes on the path to be a police officer and the other stays the path of the fireman. You do not replace the species in your heritage, but branch off and do something different, filling a different role than the original branch.

This has been observed in the wild and in the lab.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Most easily observed with bacteria due to the short reproductive cycle. Evolution works through generations, not years.

Micro-evolution - variations with kinds

We see this every day in life. This would be variations in Kinds of animals.
This is true, but it just needs to go a step farther to become variations of species, not just breed.

Are there any other flimsy, paper-thin arguments you would like to post, or are you done now?



To summarize what you told me

Cosmic "we don't know"
Chemical you only claimed the heavier elements were formed by stars that havn't been formed yet
Planet and Star you stated that the elements were present before the stars and that the stars came before the elements in the same sentence.
Organic "we don't know"
Macro you gave examples of Micro evolution and completely bypassed macro
Micro you said the same thing I did.

Who's arguments are paper thin??

For my complete response to this post see the link below.

http://questionsaboutevolution.blogspot.com/


I would appreciate anything anyone has to offer other than I don't know or it must be true. The same thing you accuse us of doing. This will be my last post due to the owner preferring that YEC and Christians not be on his site. If you have any Proof not what somebody else Say's or thinks but actual scientific proof with references I would love to have it, please send me a Private Message of course that would be if my account is not deactivated, or post on the site above.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Unread post

Fire: "I would appreciate anything anyone has to offer other than I don't know or it must be true."

Read the book I posted. Come back for your next assignment after you're done.

PS: "I don't know" is an honest, valid answer. :P
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
14
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Unread post

That could mean that the actions and requests you have made could be considered religious persecution, which could land you in court and cost you a lot of money.
This kid is funny. Go to open mic night dude!

There are a few religous posters on this site who contribute valuable informaiton, and new ideas. We disagree, but their input is valuable.

despite re-posting my entire post, you didnt read it very thoroughly.

The lighter elements formed the first stars, which were composed of just these elements. The heavier elements did not exist at this point.

The nuclear reactions in stars create the heavier elements. Supernova create still heavier elements. When these elements are distributed throughout space, they re-form in clouds which eventually form up, through gravitation, into new stars, and planets.

evolution from one species to the next is the same evolution from parents to children. Same process, over numerous generations leads to offspring which are substantially different than their ancestors. Now, i'm not talking about your grand parents to you, I'm talking about your ancestors a few thousand generations back.

Was that so difficult?

So... what's your explaination again? God used magic to make it all happen?
Who's arguments are paper thin??
Yours.

Still yours.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
User avatar
CWT36
Sophomore
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:04 pm
14
Location: Riverhead, Long Island
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 6 times
Contact:

Unread post

Firehawk0716 wrote: Well as I said we do not stay where we are not welcome. If you speaking about personal opinions. It would be my personal opinion that you are attempting to keep all people who do not share your views away from your site, and from joining in on conversations and debates. It might do you some good however to not post your personal opinions. As the owner your personal opinion could be interpreted as the companies. That could mean that the actions and requests you have made could be considered religious persecution, which could land you in court and cost you a lot of money. Just a thought. Thank you for the open forum in which to get resources.
Dude, it might do you some good to read through the thread titled Peoples thoughts on Censorship of books/non-fiction. The owner of this site can censor the conversation on this site any way he damn well pleases.

Here is a great book to give you a basic education on our Constitution.
http://www.amazon.com/Words-Live-Annota ... 520&sr=1-1
-Colin

"Do not tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don't tell them where they know the fish." -Mark Twain
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17008
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3503 times
Been thanked: 1308 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Unread post

Firehawk0716 wrote:While it is true that jndnwy and I share a father, mother and house and we also have similar views. But it would be a fallacy to say we are the same person.
You also share the exact same password. Another coincidence?
Firehawk0716 wrote:It would be my personal opinion that you are attempting to keep all people who do not share your views away from your site, and from joining in on conversations and debates.
Not even remotely true. Most people on BookTalk.org are liberal and I'm a conservative. I haven't banned or attempted to run away a single liberal for not sharing my views. Some of them piss me off and make me want to scream too. You don't even piss me off. You simply embarrass me.

I just don't like BookTalk.org to gain an association with creationism through the search engines as it makes us look like idiots. There's no soft way to say it so I'm not going to even try. Anyone who believes our planet is only 4,000 to 6,000 years old is extremely uneducated and a borderline idiot. But hey, that's just my opinion.
Firehawk0716 wrote:It might do you some good however to not post your personal opinions.


That's a pretty stupid statement. I created BookTalk.org so that people can express their personal opinions.
Firehawk0716 wrote:As the owner your personal opinion could be interpreted as the companies.


Yeah, but only by idiots. You see, BookTalk.org is not a "company." We're not incorporated. We're not a partnership. We're not a sole-proprietorship. This is my personal web site and you're on it.
Firehawk0716 wrote:That could mean that the actions and requests you have made could be considered religious persecution, which could land you in court and cost you a lot of money.
This is exactly why I stated my personal opinion of not wanting you here. You're not that bright. Creationists tend to not be the sharpest knives in the drawer. So just like you have a warped understanding of science you also are clueless with regards to law.

I am allowed to speak my mind freely on my own web site. I can say things like, "People that believe our planet was created by an invisible superhero 6,000 years ago are either idiots, delusional or uneducated." You see? I just said it.

If this is religious persecution please call an attorney and file a lawsuit. Personally, I'd enjoy it. Have them contact me at:

Chris O'Connor
PO Box 4624
Clearwater, FL 33758

And do it soon because damn it, this sort of thing is fun to me. :smile:
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Unread post

Fire: "Who's arguments are paper thin??"

Yours, you're an idiot. Let me explain.

What you and other YEC's fail to recognize are the fundamentals of how science works. In the philosophy of science, a topic on which hundreds of books are published, you will come to realize after reading a handful of such books that science does not "prove" things true. This is not a failing of science, but an unavoidable obstacle of our physical reality. I've mentioned this before, but you've blissfully ignored it; science operates on induction. The inductive method entails searching out things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observation. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find. Induction is problematic not for any scientific reason, but for a reason fundamental to epistemic philosophy. To "prove" something true, a scientist would have to travel to every corner of the known universe to ensure his inductive research is all encompassing. Such a thing is not possible.

With that said, I'll explain how science works. The scientific method is to observe reality, then come up with a hypothesis. Once the hypothesis is formed, the scientist then figures out how to disprove his hypothesis, forming what's called an experiment. Experiments do not prove anything, they only are capable of disproving the current hypothesis or theory. After enough experiments are performed, with the hypothesis passing each and every one, the hypothesis is then passed along to the scientist's peers. During peer review, each of those scientists do their very best to formulate and perform experiments to prove the hypothesis wrong. After countless experiments by a great many people over a number of years, a hypothesis may be called a theory. The thing to note is that all the scientists have done their very best to disprove the hypothesis, and even one single experiment is enough to disprove the hypothesis. After having wasted my time teaching you this, please don't continue making the mistake of asking science to "prove" anything. This inability to "prove" does not only apply to science, it applies to YOU. You cannot prove any synthetic proposition true. Synthetic propositions rely on inductive reasoning, which is limited by the problem of induction. Within the parameters of this limitation, science is the very best method we have to understanding our world. If you disagree, then you misunderstand the philosophy of science and more importantly, are in desperate need of instruction in epistemology(philosophy of human knowledge.) This is not my information, it is the information of the philosophical elite at large, the world over.

Which brings us to the disjunction between laypeople and experts. I play racquetball with a friend, and we've gotten very good. One day, I was watching a couple of older guys play, when the person next to me told me "these guys are very good". I watched them for a while, but saw nothing they were doing that I couldn't counter. I firmly believed I could beat them. Of course, upon actually playing one of them a week later, I scored not a single point and was humiliated. This is an important lesson to the humility of personal assessment. If you aren't an expert in a field, don't pretend to know what you're talking about. The disjunction of knowledge between yourself and an evolutionary biologist is comparing a mountain to a molehill. If you choose to piggy back on the arguments of some experts who are also against evolution(extremely few, and extremely far between), that presumes you understand the periphery of evidence surrounding the argument. In all cases, those experts are shown to be wrong by their peers. But this doesn't stop the layperson from piggy backing on the "faulty argument" which they found by using Google. All it would take is the due diligence to Google the opposing argument for you to realize that the Creationist argument has already been dismantled and rejected.

Someone recently posted arguments which were dismantled and disproven 20 to 30 years ago. Scientific findings occur every day! There is a reason there are thousands of knowledgeable and intelligent evolutionary biologists who agree with each other that Evolution is a fact. To claim that the experts aren't always right is to ignore how many experts there are in this case. I wouldn't trust an expert economist who is making one claim or another, since they are often wrong. But I will trust the work of hundreds of thousands of scientists spanning over a hundred years from multiple fields of study who agree without a doubt that evolution is true. To disagree with such a collection of knowledge is to have the chipmunk level thought that the evidence for evolution somehow parallels that of the Earth being the center of the universe many centuries ago. There was, in fact, little to no evidence whatsoever that the Earth was the center of the universe. There is so much evidence for evolution that it would fill a library. Do you understand how many books that is?

Which brings me to my next point. Science is a progressive enterprise. You can't disagree that our understanding of the workings of the universe are exponentially greater than 1,000 years ago. Computers, biotics, and space travel are inarguable examples. One hundred years ago, only an idiot would claim we know everything of the universe. Ten years ago, with a hundred times as much knowledge, we still wouldn't make that claim. Today is no different. There is a piss ton about our reality which we haven't yet discovered.

Within this context, let's jump back to our meta-examination of the evidence for evolution. As an analogy, the evidence for evolution spans one hundred square miles. Interspersed throughout are, of course, areas of knowledge which we haven't yet discovered. This does not, IN ANY WAY, speak badly for Evolution. As we learned just prior, our knowledge is continually expanding and never complete. Evolutionary biologists, having so much knowledge that they can stand far back and examine great swaths of it with a distanced perspective, can be said to be up in the air in a helicopter. From that point of view, as all such experts agree(minus the rare YEC exception), that the entire 100 square mile area is perfectly, beautifully "evolution". It is a "perk" of this elevated position that evolutionary biologists are able to use (hypothetical) binoculars to zero in on miniscule specks of the landscape which still need revealing.

Meanwhile, down within that landscape, YEC's are nothing but ants, zealotously congregating on these miniscule specks by the direction of an evolutionary biologist who is also a YEC. The evolutionary biologist YEC has examined this miniscule spec for validity, and after the briefest of examinations and experiments, proclaims the area to be disconfirming evidence. He then proclaims to all his YEC fellows to join him, and they shout in unison "look at our massive piece of disconfirming evidence!". What you don't realize is that such specks are not disconfirming evidence, but are simply areas which are as yet either undiscovered by the thousands of non-YEC scientists, or in almost every other case(and all cases you've so far presented on Booktalk) already resolved. Your lack of due diligence to Google the opposing evidence makes you look like a fool. In the case where there is a vast swath of information, you demand evidence without going out and reading a book which will explain the area, in full detail.

Your idiocy is further exacerbated by fact that the Vatican has a panel of scientists who "went up in the helicopter" to examine evolution for themselves. They had every reason to find fault within the Theory of Evolution. They couldn't, so proclaimed the theory to be a fact, just as the hundreds of thousands of scientists the world over during the last dozen decades have been saying.

I also have to say that there is no good reason to believe the bible is anything other than a work of fiction. You could quote me passages such as "the bible is the word of God", or "you will be saved by your faith", but these are passages contained within this fictitious book. This is like trusting a sentence within the thousands of other fiction books which are self-proclaimed true accounts. It's lunacy! The only argument that holds any merit for religious belief is Pascal's Wager. The problem is, the likelihood that the bible is true is so infinitesimal that Pascal's Wager is a sure loss.

So instead of wasting our time here on Booktalk and derailing intelligent discussions with your rampant idiocy, why don't you go out and educate yourself. There is so much confirming evidence for evolution that even if you study it your entire life, you won't have learned anywhere near all that is available. You jump on proclamations of so called YEC evolutionary biologists without realizing that their work is flawed, and in the exceptionally few cases where they haven't been shown to be outright wrong, it is merely a matter of that area of knowledge not being discovered yet. This lengthy post can be expanded on a thousandfold, with every sentence reinforced by years of study. You won't gain an understanding of how the stars form by demanding a two paragraph explanation, since the only thing you're focused on is either what you currently don't know, or items which appear inconsistent. The only way to truly respond is to redirect you to the library's worth of information that exists on these topics. So if you want references to such books, ask. Otherwise, leave us the hell alone.
Last edited by Interbane on Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17008
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3503 times
Been thanked: 1308 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Unread post

Damn Interbane! I'm only 1/2 way through your last post, but I had to say this is a work of art. Brilliant explanation for how the process of science works. What the hell is a "piss ton?" LOL
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17008
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3503 times
Been thanked: 1308 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Unread post

Simply incredible, Interbane. I particularly enjoyed the analogy of the scientists looking down from a helicopter and seeing specks, here and there, of currently unexplored or undiscovered land. I've never seen such an understandable explanation for how gaps in our knowledge don't negate the massive quantity of evidence that actually do exist.

Something needs to be done with your post to preserve and possibly build it into something bigger and better. Maybe we need an essay section. Such a section would score higher in search engine rankings than these forum posts. We should discuss this further.
User avatar
CWT36
Sophomore
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:04 pm
14
Location: Riverhead, Long Island
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 6 times
Contact:

Unread post

Bravo my dear man. Bravo :clap2:
-Colin

"Do not tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don't tell them where they know the fish." -Mark Twain
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”