Evolution v. Creationism: Just a long-winded debate?

[ThaChozenWun]

The universe created cells, evolution created species.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

There is no debate. Science and religion say the same thing, just different languages. People are arguing over form and forgoing the meaning imo.

 

[Skeratch]

People want to hold onto their preexisting beliefs, so they will look for evidence that specifically backs up their beliefs. Young earth creationists happen to be one of the best examples of this tendency. Out of desire for a literal interpretation of an ancient creation story, they twist evidence to fit and ignore evidence that contradicts.

Evolutionists follow scientific principles for evidence and come up to their conclusions based on the science. If something contradicts the original findings, then the scientific theory is tweeked.

Science should be interpreted by science, not a holy book.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

This isn't necessarily true, as God's Will and God's Work, has featured many many instances in which science's language said nothing at all because science's evolutionists had no answers had no proof had no facts for validating God, as non-existent.

But if god is indeed non existent, what existing evidence would be laying around of its non existence? You'd think the lack of existing evidence would BE the evidence of non existence.

Same principle as purple flying donkeys not existing, because we as of yet, have found no evidence of it's existence. But in the same token, atoms didn't exist either until we found them.

 

[Skeratch]

fixed......

Present scientific evidence that refutes the current theory of evolution. I'll wait.

 

[Skeratch]

Don't wait. I won't even waste time.

You won't because you can't.

 

[alissowack]

People want to hold onto their preexisting beliefs, so they will look for evidence that specifically backs up their beliefs. Young earth creationists happen to be one of the best examples of this tendency. Out of desire for a literal interpretation of an ancient creation story, they twist evidence to fit and ignore evidence that contradicts.

Evolutionists follow scientific principles for evidence and come up to their conclusions based on the science. If something contradicts the original findings, then the scientific theory is tweeked.

Science should be interpreted by science, not a holy book.

But is it even possible for the evolutionists to have pre-existing viewpoints as well? It is not to say that there isn't any evidence in favor of evolution, but is the "evidence" sort of a motivator for any values of beliefs they hold? I could be wrong, but those who discover the "facts" about evolution do so not just saying...Oh, it's true; on to the next one. They are seeing it as "savior" in a sense that it liberates them from an ideology that once kept their minds captive.

 

[Skeratch]

But is it even possible for the evolutionists to have pre-existing viewpoints as well? It is not to say that there isn't any evidence in favor of evolution, but is the "evidence" sort of a motivator for any values of beliefs they hold? I could be wrong, but those who discover the "facts" about evolution do so not just saying...Oh, it's true; on to the next one. They are seeing it as "savior" in a sense that it liberates them from an ideology that once kept their minds captive.

The term “evolutionist” is a strange one. People who accept the roundness of the earth aren’t called “sphericists” and people who accept the theory of relativity aren’t called “relatavists.”

A scientist’s preexisting beliefs do not affect the scientific method. It might affect the direction of their research, but the way they arrive at new knowledge has to be through the scientific method. There are plenty of scientists who are theists.

 

[b*braze]

Problem is most creationists don't (or won't attempt to) understand the basics of evolution.

I smh every time I read/hear some idiot going on about evolving from monkeys or asking about why can't we see a person evolving right before our eyes.

 

[Skeratch]

Reality shows that it's not only possible but absolutely required, aliss, because that is the entire Foundation which birthed Evolutionist's aspirations.

One can not embark on a mindset nor career nor scholar, of Evolutionism, without having first convinced yourself there is no God. Thereby, causing evolutionists' entire range of Hypotheses-proven theorems to exist as 'what epitomes' a pre-existing viewpoint.

And the entire premise of your argument is contradicted by the existence of Christians who accept the theory of evolution.

 

[alissowack]

The term “evolutionist” is a strange one. People who accept the roundness of the earth aren’t called “sphericists” and people who accept the theory of relativity aren’t called “relatavists.”

A scientist’s preexisting beliefs do not affect the scientific method. It might affect the direction of their research, but the way they arrive at new knowledge has to be through the scientific method. There are plenty of scientists who are theists.

Yeah, the term is a strange one. But it is not to say that evolution does not have "followers". For some, evolution is not just fact; it is a "religion". Sure, no one calls it that nor are there places of worship for such, but there are people who not only want to prove that evolution is true, they also want to disprove everything else; not give any room for any other theories that may be out there for the origins of life; that evolution is lord of all. Religion is even put under the knife (though I think in some strange way it deserves it for un-scientific reasons). Of course the Creationists do it as well and it could as well make for a debate that turns into people hurling insults at each other.

Sure the scientific method is not affected by someone's pre-existing views, but pre-existing views can affect whether the scientific method is used or not. Who's to say that in the interest of preserving a theory, there are "dirty tactics" involved. And this can be said as well about religion (without the science of course).

 

[Skeratch]

Yeah, the term is a strange one. But it is not to say that evolution does not have "followers". For some, evolution is not just fact; it is a "religion". Sure, no one calls it that nor are there places of worship for such, but there are people who not only want to prove that evolution is true, they also want to disprove everything else; not give any room for any other theories that may be out there for the origins of life; that evolution is lord of all. Religion is even put under the knife (though I think in some strange way it deserves it for un-scientific reasons). Of course the Creationists do it as well and it could as well make for a debate that turns into people hurling insults at each other.

Sure the scientific method is not affected by someone's pre-existing views, but pre-existing views can affect whether the scientific method is used or not. Who's to say that in the interest of preserving a theory, there are "dirty tactics" involved.

I kind of see what you're getting at here. When people use science as the be-all and the end-all of existence it's called positivism. Positivism dismisses any knowledge that cannot be scientifically verified. In my opinon, it's a piss-poor way of approaching philosophy and history and it really is like a religion.

Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is an accepted scientific theory. To reject it without offering a viable and proven scientific alternative is unscientific.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

True. Although, we have plenty of evidences that God exists.

What evidence?

This is not true. Atoms always existed, long before Mankind figured that out.

Or else, Mankind's atoms wouldn't have allowed him to be alive, to find out what an atom is.

It is fine to say this after we have found it and proved it's existence, but it is not something that could have been said, or would have been said prior to that.

 

[politicalthug202]

The theory of evolution has already been proven,you can put some fruit flies in a jar and watch them evolve over a period of weeks.

you can analyze a dogs and a wolfs blood and see the sequence from series of each others DNA. I can prove to you the world is not 5,000

yrs old.

the only valid arguement that creationist have is that the primate that links humans and monkeys has not been found yet

and all that does is put 1 whole in evolution,but it does not prove creationism. just because you put a whole in 1 heory it does not prove your

own.

 

[alissowack]

The theory of evolution has already been proven,you can put some fruit flies in a jar and watch them evolve over a period of weeks.

you can analyze a dogs and a wolfs blood and see the sequence from series of each others DNA. I can prove to you the world is not 5,000

yrs old.

the only valid arguement that creationist have is that the primate that links humans and monkeys has not been found yet

and all that does is put 1 whole in evolution,but it does not prove creationism. just because you put a whole in 1 heory it does not prove your

own.

The issue isn't so much about whether evolution is proven or not. It is whether it is right for those to say that because evolution is true, that everything else is false.

 

[politicalthug202]

The issue isn't so much about whether evolution is proven or not. It is whether it is right for those to say that because evolution is true, that everything else is false.

Evolution does not prove that God does not exsist,but it does disprove the bible being interpet literally.

 

[Skeratch]

.....

oxy-moron

Really? So you would consign all of those people who profess Christianity to hell because they accept the theory of evolution?

Evolution does not prove that God does not exsist,but it does disprove the bible being interpet literally.

And there it is . . .

 

[alissowack]

Evolution does not prove that God does not exsist,but it does disprove the bible being interpet literally.

I see your point.

 

[kevmic]

I will always live by therory in which I have proven time and time again to be right. If I can't show evidence of its exsistance then the chances of it being real is still yet to be determined. We can prove evolution, we can't prove the exsistance of God or any deity for that matter. A lot of stories in the bible including the story of Christ himself have been found in other ancient texts pre-dated hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, yet we still claim that all material in the Bible is true and original. Most theologians would say that just because hard evidence isn't proven doesn't mean that it isn't true. Yet there is no other therory out in the world said to be fact without any hard evidence as proof except for religion. Who base all of their understanding on life and life as we know it on faith, which is something that can never be proven, yet instead must be believed by the one who made the claim in order for it to be true. No other field of study can even attempt to use that method except for religion, not because it's right, but because it is a time honored tradition that will never be questioned by the masses out of fear of possibly going to hell in the event that one actually exists. So I can become a pastor or priest, open a church, and I can tell the embers of the church that it was okay to snort coke, because God said so. If I can manipulate text in order to support my claim, people who believe in God would not question it because I can back up my personal claim with a book that has been changed and re-written multiple times.

 

[Skeratch]

Evolution's only objective, is to show that there might not be a God with emphasis on might, since it has never ever ever attempted to prove God doesn't exist.

Huh, and here I though that evolutionary theory's objective was to figure out how and why organisms change over successive generations.