CREATIONISM V. DARWINISM

[tuscaneer]

given the overwhelming body of evidence in favour of the darwinists and the total lack of one single piece of evidence in favour of the creationists,are there any of the latter out there in pistonheads land??

[Gaspode]

Hardly the right phrasing to tempt them out, though. You may as well have put "please stick your head above the parapet so we can point and snigger".

Mind you, creationist-baiting can be good sport. Let's hope a couple still turn up.

[enioldjoe]

The evidence for creation is exactly the same as the evidence used for evolution.

The difference lies in the presupposition the individual has when coming to the subject ie God OR matter/energy. (We believe what we want to believe....(whether you believe this or not))

The general understanding of evolution we have today - microbes to man over billions of years is far more to to do with media spin and establishment control than objective science. I am not a scientist, but I can guarantee you that there is no argument an evolutionist can make which a creationist who is a scientist and specialist in their field could not give a robust counter argument for. Strange how the media doesn't let us know about this........

Evolution: "The biggest lie in the last 150 years, perpetuated by the few and held largely in ignorance by the masses"

[joe_90]

enioldjoe said:

The evidence for creation is exactly the same as the evidence used for evolution.

The difference lies in the presupposition the individual has when coming to the subject ie God OR matter/energy. (We believe what we want to believe....(whether you believe this or not))

The general understanding of evolution we have today - microbes to man over billions of years is far more to to do with media spin and establishment control than objective science. I am not a scientist, but I can guarantee you that there is no argument an evolutionist can make which a creationist who is a scientist and specialist in their field could not give a robust counter argument for. Strange how the media doesn't let us know about this........

Evolution: "The biggest lie in the last 150 years, perpetuated by the few and held largely in ignorance by the masses"

what? You know how science works right?

The difference is with science you do not know the answer before you begin, if something changes or the results are not what you expected, then you change the answer to the question to reflect that.

With creation 'science' you start with the answer, and bend things and ignore things to fit the required answer you want.

enioldjoe said:

The evidence for creation is exactly the same as the evidence used for evolution.

That is flat out lies, there is zero evidence for creationism, bar a book written a couple of thousand years ago, based on hear say, and Chinese whispers over a few 100 years before being wrote down, modified relentlessly and bits 'selectively' removed to fit the 'fear and control' of the people'

However, I know NOTHING will change you mind at all on this.. and never will.

Edited by joe_90 on Thursday 22 April 08:23

[Sisyphus]

enioldjoe said:

The evidence for creation is exactly the same as the evidence used for evolution.

The difference lies in the presupposition the individual has when coming to the subject ie God OR matter/energy. (We believe what we want to believe....(whether you believe this or not))

The general understanding of evolution we have today - microbes to man over billions of years is far more to to do with media spin and establishment control than objective science. I am not a scientist, but I can guarantee you that there is no argument an evolutionist can make which a creationist who is a scientist and specialist in their field could not give a robust counter argument for. Strange how the media doesn't let us know about this........

Evolution: "The biggest lie in the last 150 years, perpetuated by the few and held largely in ignorance by the masses"

Well he was an easy one to winkle out, now all we need is for GilbertGrape to show up & I wont get anything done today.

[Bibbs]

enioldjoe said:

I am not a scientist

Really? Wow, fooled me.

This is really a non argument.

Retards vs normals.
Religious vs 'What actually happens'.

[tuscaneer]

Gaspode said:

Hardly the right phrasing to tempt them out, though. You may as well have put "please stick your head above the parapet so we can point and snigger".

Mind you, creationist-baiting can be good sport. Let's hope a couple still turn up.

actually,re-reading how i phrased it,it does sound a bit like a "come and have a go if you think you`re hard enough"!!
i didn`t mean it to sound so antagonistic!
it is a subject that i find interesting and i am surprised at how many scientists still hold the view that there is a god.i`m one of those people that likes to deal in facts.i can see the fossil record and it displays a timeline of evolution for all to see.i haven`t seen any evidence at all for creationist theory and nobody seems able to present any

[tuscaneer]

enioldjoe said:

The evidence for creation is exactly the same as the evidence used for evolution.

The difference lies in the presupposition the individual has when coming to the subject ie God OR matter/energy. (We believe what we want to believe....(whether you believe this or not))

The general understanding of evolution we have today - microbes to man over billions of years is far more to to do with media spin and establishment control than objective science. I am not a scientist, but I can guarantee you that there is no argument an evolutionist can make which a creationist who is a scientist and specialist in their field could not give a robust counter argument for. Strange how the media doesn't let us know about this........

Evolution: "The biggest lie in the last 150 years, perpetuated by the few and held largely in ignorance by the masses"

seriously,and i`m not trying to bait you here,where is this evidence

[jshell]

Serious, serious flaws in both explanations. Neither suitably explains the process from 'nothing' to 'now'. Evolution as a process is obvious, but there's some serious problems with the very start of the process.

I think that's why some folks go for ID.....

Me, I just dunno!

[Carfiend]

I think enioldjoe is trolling.

[paulmurr]

enioldjoe said:

Have you heard the good news?

[RobDickinson]

Creationists life rest on a rock of beliefe in God, they dont require proof.

[g3org3y]

enioldjoe said:

The evidence for creation is exactly the same as the evidence used for evolution.

The difference lies in the presupposition the individual has when coming to the subject ie God OR matter/energy. (We believe what we want to believe....(whether you believe this or not))

The general understanding of evolution we have today - microbes to man over billions of years is far more to to do with media spin and establishment control than objective science. I am not a scientist, but I can guarantee you that there is no argument an evolutionist can make which a creationist who is a scientist and specialist in their field could not give a robust counter argument for. Strange how the media doesn't let us know about this........

Evolution: "The biggest lie in the last 150 years, perpetuated by the few and held largely in ignorance by the masses"

Did I see you in A&E last night?

[Marf]

Can I just get someting in on page one?

Trying to argue facts with a religionist is fruitless given they operate on circular godlogic. Its pointless and ultimately boring.

If they want to believe that their skydaddy magicked the earth into existence let them. It does not alter the fact that science has a perfectly cogent explanation of the mechanism of biological progression.

[Bibbs]

jshell said:

Neither suitably explains the process from 'nothing' to 'now'.

That's not evolution ..

Evolution is the gradual change of a 'something'.

Abiogenesis is the 'nothing' to 'something'.

[Bibbs]

Marf said:

Can I just get someting in on page one?

Trying to argue facts with a religionist is fruitless given they operate on circular godlogic. Its pointless and ultimately boring.

If they want to believe that their skydaddy magicked the earth into existence let them. It does not alter the fact that science has a perfectly cogent explanation of the mechanism of biological progression.

You are totally right .. I just hoped we wouldn't see this guff on a UK forum.

I'd always thought it was more of a US thing.

I think I'll leave it before the whole 'faith' thing comes in and I want to smash up my PC.

[jshell]

Bibbs said:

jshell said:

Neither suitably explains the process from 'nothing' to 'now'.

That's not evolution ..

Evolution is the gradual change of a 'something'.

Abiogenesis is the 'nothing' to 'something'.

Oh, OK, I can see evolution all round me, but nothing I've heard explains what you've termed as Abiogenesis...

[Marf]

Bibbs said:

Marf said:

Can I just get someting in on page one?

Trying to argue facts with a religionist is fruitless given they operate on circular godlogic. Its pointless and ultimately boring.

If they want to believe that their skydaddy magicked the earth into existence let them. It does not alter the fact that science has a perfectly cogent explanation of the mechanism of biological progression.

You are totally right .. I just hoped we wouldn't see this guff on a UK forum.

I'd always thought it was more of a US thing.

I think I'll leave it before the whole 'faith' thing comes in and I want to smash up my PC.

I just wish the mods would act on threads like this and lock them. They are ultimately pointless, and have been done to death already.

[Pints]

I'm a creationist. (Flame away)

It's not that I don't believe in "evolution" within a species but I just don't believe we evolved from sea monkeys. Science can be proven by repeated experiments, and scientists can't repeat the experiment of evolution. I don't accept that your "evidence" of evolution is that.

I can't see this thread going well and is just going to turn into a slinging match of what complete morons you think the creationists are. This discussion has been had countless times before and I'm still unconvinced by your arguments.

Why does it bother you what I believe, anyway? I can't see how I'm harming you with my beliefs. Each to their own and all that.

[Marf]

Pints said:

Science can be proven by repeated experiments, and scientists can't repeat the experiment of evolution. I don't accept that your "evidence" of evolution is that.

bks

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacter...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evo...

Like I said, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Anyway, thats my last on the matter, if people want to argue till their blue in the face thats their lookout.

Edited by Marf on Thursday 22 April 08:59