Creation vs. Evolution

[Theunis]

Maybe your freaking a-hole of a God needs to get off his lard @$$ and protect human life and well being?

Wow, that is offensive towards God.:no

 

[Warthaug]

Dr. Robert V. Gentry is a nuclear physicist who worked for 13 years in the eighties and early nineties at the Oak Ridge National laboratory near Knoxville, TN. Please take note that when he began his research, he was a staunch evolutionist. Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced “young earth” creation scientist. His research and findings are based on studies on over 10,000 granite samples.

I wonder how he accounts for the hundreds of thousands of granite samples others have taken that radiodate back much farther than 10,000 years. Or, for that matter, the dating of millions of other kinds of rocks which also show ages much, much, much older than a few thousand years?

Don't you think atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a Creator (God)?

Why do creationists always assume that evolution has something to do with athiesm? Its a stupid argument, is completely wrong, and does more to show your inherent bias against science (and athiests) than constituting an actual argument.

I've worked as a scientist for many years, and have known many scientists of many different faiths.

As an athiest I don't "need" evolution to prove anything about my beliefs. Also, evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe/earth.

Isn't it possible that the major reason for keeping up this evolution theory is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory.

Nope. The reason evolution is so popular in scientific circles is that it is so damned useful. Without evolution biology is just a collection of facts, many of which appear inconsistent. With evolution biology - from biochemistry right through to ecology - becomes a single thread, with every odd (and apparently contradictory) fact easily explained on the basis of a robust theory.

Evolution has stood upto 150-ish years of constant scientific scrutiny, and has survived where many other thoeries have failed - including creation-like theories such as saltism. The reason it survived, while the other failed, is that it accuratly explains what we see in nature.

Nothing else provided to date does that.

Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised?

Why would jobs be lost? Scientific ideas get overturned every day. Hell, the best thing I can do for my career is overturn a long-held belief - instant fame and cred in scientific circles. You don't become a famous scientists by "toeing the line" - it is those who push the boundaries of our knowledge, and re-write the textbooks who make history.

For that matter, you cannot even get grant without pushing forward new ideas. Science thrives on conflict, new ideas, and challenging old ones. It does not survive on dogma.

Anyhow, coffee break is nearly over, so its back to the conference. Up next, tracing the evolutionary roots of endocytotic pathways...



Bryan

 

[sheck33]

Creation may not be science. But I have news for you it IS fact!!!

One obviously can't have any kind of intelligent discussion with creationists on this subject. Creationism is pseudo scientific BS, much like astrology.

 

[DiverBeth]

Creation may not be science. But I have news for you it IS fact!!!

fact |fakt|
noun
a thing that is indisputably the case : she lacks political experience—a fact that becomes clear when she appears in public | a body of fact.
• ( the fact that) used in discussing the significance of something that is the case : the real problem facing them is the fact that their funds are being cut.
• (usu. facts) a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
• chiefly Law the truth about events as opposed to interpretation : there was a question of fact as to whether they had received the letter.

Above is the definition of the word "fact" from my computer's dictionary. If creationism is a fact, where is the indisputable evidence?

 

[sheck33]

fact |fakt|
noun
a thing that is indisputably the case : she lacks political experience—a fact that becomes clear when she appears in public | a body of fact.
• ( the fact that) used in discussing the significance of something that is the case : the real problem facing them is the fact that their funds are being cut.
• (usu. facts) a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
• chiefly Law the truth about events as opposed to interpretation : there was a question of fact as to whether they had received the letter.

Above is the definition of the word "fact" from my computer's dictionary. If creationism is a fact, where is the indisputable evidence?

That evolution takes place is undenyable fact by the above definition.

 

[Thalassamania]

Clearly you are upset about my post. As I have mentioned in my post I am not an expert in this field. That is why I have to rely on opinions of experts. If you are saying that my scientific studies did not result in a basic middle school grasp of the subject, you must have refered to the scientific studies of the scientists I have quoted.

Let me provide you with the details of 2 scientists who are supporting young earth/creation rather than theory of evolution.

Dr. Robert V. Gentry is a nuclear physicist who worked for 13 years in the eighties and early nineties at the Oak Ridge National laboratory near Knoxville, TN. Please take note that when he began his research, he was a staunch evolutionist. Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced “young earth” creation scientist. His research and findings are based on studies on over 10,000 granite samples.

Gentry is hardly a "scientist." He does not have an earned PhD, the "Dr" he styles himself with is an honorary degree given to him by a religious college run by his denomination. His bizarre ideas of using radiohaloes as evidence for a young Earth are rejected by all.

Gentry has also had strong disagreements with other creationists over details of flood geology.

In 1981 Gentry was a defense witness in the McLean v Arkansas case over the constitutional validity of Act 590 that mandated that "creation science" be given equal time in public schools with evolution. The defense lost and Act 590 was ruled to be to be unconstitutional (a verdict that was influential on, and upheld by, the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard).

He has also devised his own creationist cosmology and filed a lawsuit in 2001 against Los Alamos National Laboratory and Cornell University after personnel deleted 10 of his papers about his cosmology from the public preprint server arXiv. On 23 March 2004, Gentry's lawsuit against arXiv was dismissed by a Tennessee court

Dr. Walter J. Veith is professor and chair of the Department of Zoology at the University of Western Cape, South Africa. He holds a B.S. (hons) cum laude and an M.S. in zoology from the University of Stellenbosch, and a Ph.D. in zoology from the University of Cape Town.

Formerly a strong proponent of the theory of evolution, Veith is said, by his former colleagues, to have suffered some sort of breakdown and is now a firm believer in creationism. He has wandered about in Europe, Africa and North America giving talks, and has written a number creationist tracts. More than a few churches have refused to sponsor his lectures and in a few cases have actually banned them.

Are you really saying Dr Gentry and Dr Veith studies did not result in a basic middle school grasp of the subject? :11:

Let's just say that the fact is that I know many middle schoolers who have a better grasp of the subject then either of them currently do.

Some scientists are saying that scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.

I think you mean to say, "One scientific fraud and one poor soul who used to be a scientist are saying that ...

Don't you think atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a Creator (God)?

Isn't it possible that the major reason for keeping up this evolution theory is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised?

Actually, what you suggest is perhaps the strangest flight of fancy that I've ever heard, a massive conspiracy to forgo the fame and glory that would shower anyone who could effectively shatter evolution all committed in the interests of protecting someone else's job and the profits of publishers. Now that is truly whacked, a real paranoia of the first order.

 

[Marvel]

I love the doublespeak that this conversation entails: "unborn children," and "pro-life," what's wrong with "obligate parasite" and "anti-abortion?"

Ah, but doublespeak like pro-choice is acceptable? What's wrong with pro-abortion? Seems to me that it is a pretty way of hiding the fact that a human life is being taken. Sorry, Thal- that type of insulting argument cuts both ways.

 

[Kim]

Ah, but doublespeak like pro-choice is acceptable? What's wrong with pro-abortion? Seems to me that it is a pretty way of hiding the fact that a human life is being taken. Sorry, Thal- that type of insulting argument cuts both ways.

I'm definitely pro-abortion and a woman's right to choose. In the UK the laws are based on viability of the embryo. It's not taking life if a life can't survive on it's own. If you could remove embryos from an unwilling womb and they can survive themselves, then abortion becomes virtually unnecessary. Who is anyone to dictate that a woman MUST supply her womb even if she dosn't want to?

 

[Marvel]

"God" is a Germanic word, which means "The Gothic." It is not a name, contrary to popular belief in the English speaking world, even if capitalized. The translators of the English Bible took it from Martin Luther's German translation of the Bible, in which he used "Got" capitalized for the German name of deity, translating from the Latin "Deos," which comes from the Greek "Theos," which comes from ancient Greek "Zeus" (literally ZEYS).

You must remember that English was not even invented until about 1066 A.D., and Jesus lived in 33 A.D., and Moses who inscribed the name of Jehovah Elohim in Hebrew (literally JHVH ELOHM) lived around 1400 B.C. Therefore it is rather inconsistent to give a Diety an English name since English was not around when these Characters were appearing in ancient history. And you can safely bet, whatever his name is, it was not English.

nereas- hate to tell you this but you've got the origin of God used in the Bible wrong. Check this out. Or, if you don't like that source (Heaven forbid that a link to a Biblically-based website be taken seriously around here), try wikipedia, everyone's darling source.

As to English being "invented" in 1066, that's not at all accurate either. The Norman Invasion took place in 1066 (Saturday, October 14th, to be exact ) which resulted in Norman-French becoming the language used by the ruling class. The Anglo-Saxon language already existed & it took several hundred years for the two languages to evolve into the early form of English that we speak today.

 

[sheck33]

I'm definitely pro-abortion and a woman's right to choose. In the UK the laws are based on viability of the embryo. It's not taking life if a life can't survive on it's own. If you could remove embryos from an unwilling womb and they can survive themselves, then abortion becomes virtually unnecessary. Who is anyone to dictate that a woman MUST supply her womb even if she dosn't want to?

Religious folk, not just christians, are the ones that think they have the right to dictate
that. That is the whole problem.