Creation vs. Evolution is not a valid opposition.

quote:

---

As I long as I have time I will try to correspond.

---

Why, since you believe that

quote:

---

No amount of arguing about these data is going to persuade you otherwise.

---

Since you have now labelled us as closed minded and unresponsive to argument, what do you get out of any continued discussion?

quote:

---

By that I mean gather all possible evidence and try to weigh it up, rather than impose a belief system upon selected evidence.

---

Well, let's see you gather some evidence and weigh it.

Because this is a forum for the fun of debate. If you think an assertion or a link is a part of debate then the only answer I need to bother with is:
Is SO!
and http://www.talkorgins.org (with out any comment of my own)There the discussion is over. How much fun was that?I've done my homework. I disagree with you. If you want to change that you will have to show some details of basic facts that can be discussed and your own logic tying them together.If you don't want to do that then why bother posting here at all?I've read rather a lot of creationist literature and web sites. In some areas I have enough expertise to know that they are lying. In others even I can see the lack of logic. Is there some particular details that you think I have missed? If so present them in terms simple enough for me to understand.

Well, let's see you gather some evidence and weigh it.Evidence is it? Well, what is allowed and what is not?What do you personally consider evidence? Do you want me to produce bones I have dug from the ground? Do you want me to quote from other people? Do you want me to perform some kind of experiment--if so, would you like to inspect the lab first to approve of its validity?Perhaps if you list the types of evidence you use, I can compile a similar list. Then we can argue endlessly about that.Or we could try to use common sense. OOOppps will I get banned from this site for mentioning such profanity?

FREETHINKER, Yes, I would. If you want to discuss evidence with me I'll show you WHY we are strong in our beliefs. Yes it will. It will take contradictory evidence. As opposed to the mountains of corroborating evidence seen today in favour of evolution. OK, if you are willing I'll open a new thread & present evidence showing that the statistical correlation of stratigraphy & cladistics shows that the expected evolutionary pattern & ordering is present in the fossil record. Not only that, but it does so against astronomical odds of it occurring by chance.Up for it?I of course expect the same standard of you that you expect of us. I expect you to critically examine evidence rather than impose your belief system on selected evidence. Otherwise your paragraph immediately above is going to haunt you.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Since we don't all have time to actually do the work and experiments ourselves we can take references to data gathered by others. As with everything we might want to suggest why we think that the authority we are refering too is a reasonable one.Once we have agreed on some of the basic pieces of fact on a particular topic we can review the logic used to interpret them.Since the age of the earth is one of the big issues perhaps you can start there.The overwhelming majority of all scientists (and even more of those expert in the field) are comfortable with the determination of the earth's age. As with any new idea attempting to overturn the current consensus you have to take each of the details supporting that consensus and show how it is wrong.There are a lot of deatils.To see if we can agree on what is evidence why don't you suggest some? Generally we understand that evidence must be able to be corroborated by more than one individual, right? I've seen some of the bones that you menationed digging up. You can too. They seem to me to be evidence.I've measured changes in radiation levels of isotopes. You can too. That seems to me to be evidence.

quote:

---

Do you want me to produce bones I have dug from the ground? Do you want me to quote from other people? Do you want me to perform some kind of experiment--if so, would you like to inspect the lab first to approve of its validity?

---

Oh, knock it off. You are the one who said that you collect evidence and weigh it. Don't get mad at me if you don't even understand what you meant.

quote:

---

Or we could try to use common sense. OOOppps will I get banned from this site for mentioning such profanity?

---

So, do you want to engage in a rational discussion of the topic, or do you just want to make witty comments?So, since you think you have something to say, either present some evidence that you think disproves evolution, or bring up some evidence that we use in favor of evolution and explain why you don't think it's convincing.

I've read rather a lot of creationist literature and web sites.I have not read them. About five months ago I did scan through one but found the quality of the arguments variable. Why do you suppose I am a creationist? Or why do you suppose I am a creationist like the ones whose web sites you have read?But you seem to be right. I have not supplied any web sites or other things that you can argue over, or to be more precise, pour scorn upon.Yet have I in some way been illogical? Have I said that we must not explore? have I said that we must not examine evidence to determine the truth?My point to you is this: presenting 'facts' is a bit pointless when minds are locked into one way of thinking or another. While not wishing to prejudice the matter too much, I suspect that no matter what I would say will be rejected out of hand. Not because it can be proven false, but because it does not fit in with your beliefs.Creationists and evolutionists seem to be very similar, but I think evolutionists are stronger in their dogma and less open to reason. Just my impression from observations, but the aggression from evolutionists seems more intense. Perhaps this agression stems from the newness of Darwinian religion; whereas theistic religion has been around for a long, long time and its adherents seem more secure in their beliefs.As you know, however, Darwin's basic tenet does not seem that new. The idea of spontaneous creation seems almost as old as theistic creation. Darwinism's genius is that it gets round the problem of how could living things just appear from the ground. It pushes the matter back and back further into the past to an unkown time or to an unknown planet (hence NASAs attempts to find water/life on Mars) to just one spontaneous creation.This, to me, perhaps not to you, is the crux of the matter--how did this first thing/creature/DNA strand/RNA strand emerge.And yes I have read in evolutionary documents attempts to recreate RNA and also of the failures and the resignation by many scientists that it cannot be created.Can you provide evidence of the initial DNA/RNA creation. How did it happen? Where did it happen? And how you have managed to recreate the circumstances you describe to recreate RNA or DNA.I do not need to prove that it cannot be created because that has already been done. I should also not need to provide you with web sites as you should be aware of this already. These experiments have been conducted for years.

Maybe God created the first cell, about three and a half billion years ago. Then evolution produced the diversity of life we see around us.Does that take care of your objections?

Hey great! If you're not going to spam the site with a bunch of quotations that puts you in the 5% minority of creationists who have a different argument. Wonderful. Oh, sorry. You said something about not being a creationist. Even better! What flavor of anti-darwinian do you profess to be? Or am I supposed to guess?As for thinking, I do that rather well, in fact.edited kaws I kant spel[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-05-2004]

Freethinker,Abiogenesis (the beginning of life) and evolution (the speciation and diversity of life) are two different theories. If you want to just argue about abiogenesis, then fine, but do not confuse the two theories. Afterall, Darwing wrote "The Origin of Species" not "The Origin of Life." Evolutionary theories start with the first life form, everything prior to this is not covered by evolutionary theories.A quick analogy. In a 100 meter dash, do you time how long it takes the runners to get to the starting line, or do you time how long it takes to get from the starting line to the finish line? Abiogenesis is how the runners got to the starting line, evolution covers what happens between the starting line and the finish line.

Yes we could talk about the age of the earth or universe. We could use radioactive decay as a method of determining it. Yes, many Creationists believe in a young Earth--perhaps as young a 6,000 years--some believe it is a little older--some concede it could be the standard 13 billion plus years. As for me, well I am keeping an open mind on its age.Perhaps one method might be to attempt a calculation based on hydrogen content. As you know--it's a one way process from hydrogen to helium to heavier elements (using Eddington's nuclear sun idea), if so hydrogen content must tell us the age of things. The more hydrogen the younger the universe and vice versa.I am quite happy to do whatever research that is within my capabilities to gather 'evidence'.

Hello Freethinker. I have just caught up with this topic. In your first post, you sayThe branches of science you mention are dominated by the traditions and doctrines created by a few individuals== Lyell, Darwin, Eddington etc.

​

When these men wrote their bibles they new nothing of DNA (which incidently cannot be created spontaneously). Lyell seems unaware of the formation of Mars which appears to have happened without the slow weathering action of water. Eddington does not seem to have performed any experiments in developing his atomic theory of stars.Do you know anything about the scientific method? Science is a process, not a dogma. It does not contain any 'bibles'. The afore-mentioned people made great advances in science, but none of them claimed that their work 'completed' that topic. Every scientrist knows his work will be further developed by others, or perhaps refuted and discarded by new research.Your comments abnout Mars and water seem to be refuted by the latest news from the Mars probes. Einstein also did not perform any experiments (except thought experiments), yet he made one of the greatest contributions to our understanding of motion, space and time. What is your point?Now in your last post, you say that you are quite happy to keep an open mind about the age of the universe. Do you also keep an open mind about fairies, flying saucers and unicorns? Does evidence play no part in your considerations?Mike.

I think I speak for all of us when I tell you that we've already done that. We don't believe in evolution because of dogma. We believe in it because we have looked at the alternatives, and evolution is the best explanation out of all of them. It explains the most data and makes the most accurate predictions.So, don't think that you can refute evolution by pointing out that alternatives exist. We know all about them. I probably know way more about creationism than you do. We rejected the alternatives because they simply aren't true. If you want to change our minds you have to show us something we haven't seen from creationists before - evidence that can stand up to reason.Look, here's the deal. I'll stake my belief in evolution on the fact that you can't support creationism with more evidence than there is for evolution. I'll stake my belief in evolution on the fact that evolution is the most scientific explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. I'm totally convinceable. If you can provide sufficient evidence for creationism, I'll become a creationist. After all, I used to be one.But you have to be willing to do the same. Are you willing to stake your belief on the evidence? If not - if you're going to believe in creationism no matter what the evidence says - why should I bother talking with you?My mind is open to competing possibilities. They just have to be supported by evidence. How open is your mind?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-05-2004]

You want to do these calculations? Ok feel free. However, you will be disappointed in the results is what I would guess.Why would you pick this particular method?

you SAID:
Abiogenesis (the beginning of life) and evolution (the speciation and diversity of life) are two different theories. If you want to just argue about abiogenesis, then fine, but do not confuse the two theories. Afterall, Darwing wrote "The Origin of Species" not "The Origin of Life." Evolutionary theories start with the first life form, everything prior to this is not covered by evolutionary theories.You are right, of course. But Darwin didn't know about DNA. We do.I think it is a mistake in our logic to dismiss the cause and focus on the effects.Furthermore, as every species must be interlinked there has to be a common species for us all, possessing DNA. All species, mutations, variations, etc., relies on DNA.