Properties of Creationists

[ydoaPs]

i said nothing about people that believe in god.

 

before this thread, i thought you were one of the few sane ones, but as this thread progresses you seem to be moving toward the dark side.

[-Demosthenes-]

So there are poeple that beleive in God, but not the idea that God created the earth and life? Well, as long as where talking "majorities" I think it would be nice to point out that I'm pretty sure the "majority" of people who blelieve in God believe He created the earth and Life.

[ydoaPs]

might wanna think about that one again. your last few posts were almost strawmans. you might wanna watch that.

[Silent Xenoc]

Sorry but can you explain what "strawman" is?

[-Demosthenes-]

Can't you understand where I'm coming from though?

 

It was mosly Ardvark's posts that provoked me.

...By definition all creationists are insane...

this thread if for distinguishing the people that believe in intelligent design from the mouth foaming crazys.

 

There is no difference' date=' therefore no distinction can be made.[/quote']

[BobbyJoeCool]

before I post this, I realize that almost all of you will now look down on me for saying this, but I posted in a thread in the PHI&RE section abut something similar...

 

I am an evolutionist, but I have an open mind. My best friend (honestly, she is my best friend, and the closest one I've ever had. She's closer to me than my girlfriend ever was) is a creationist, and she has an open mind. We can speak intellegently about the debates and flame wars on this particular subject, but we talk about how we both really don't like the kind of people who talk as if they ARE right and that everyone who doesn't believe what they do is wrong.

 

Evolutionists: substantially prove to me that creationisum is wrong.

Creationists: substantially prove to me tha evolutionism is wrong.

 

Now... much more importantly...

 

Creationists: substantially prove to me that creationisum is right.

Evolutionists: substantially prove to me tha evolutionism is right.

 

Most of you spend so much of your time trying to disprove the other (creationisits especially) that you forgot that you cannot prove your view either. You get so caught up believing that the other person is wrong (and as many of you have said... evil.) that you just get mad that the rest of the world doesn't believe what you believe and spend all your time proving them wrong.

 

Furthermore, a lot of things in those properties can be said of many evolutionists (especially on this website). using lack of evidence as evidence... flame.... spam (such as most of this thread)... personal attacks... ignoring LACK of evidence...

 

Say what you want, but, aside from what you believe to be true (and cannot prove), a lot of you are just the same as the "creationist" described at the beginning of this thread.

[ydoaPs]

evidence for evolution: way more than evough

 

evidence for creationism: 0

[BobbyJoeCool]

evidence for evolution: way more than evough

 

evidence for creationism: 0

 

ok. what evidence, and can you say for an ESTABLISHED FACT that evolution is true? Since I know you're going to say yes, prove it to me.

[ydoaPs]

yes, look around you...life is change.

[BobbyJoeCool]

yes, look around you...life is change.

 

*start sarcasum* that proves it... ok. I guess I was just wrong to even think than someone like you could be wrong... *end sarcasum*

[ydoaPs]

that's cuz i b >, yo.

 

the proof of evolution is every lifeform, past and present.

[BobbyJoeCool]

that's cuz i b >' date=' yo.

 

the proof of evolution is every lifeform, past and present.[/quote']

 

and a creationest would say, prove to me how those lifeforms were created (note... NOT saying created as in created by a deity). since there's no evidence of EITHER THEORY for the beginning of life, people on both sides are using lack of evidence as evidence.

[ydoaPs]

no, only creationists. pick up a text book once and a while.

 

more proof? how about breeding? it is just forced evolution.

 

or our eyes...we can literally see species change over time.

 

i will refuse to give creationism any thought until i am presented with any proof at all.

[BobbyJoeCool]

i will refuse to give creationism any thought until i am presented with any proof at all.

 

And I refuse to dismiss it completely, as you have, until given substatial prove of it not being true.

 

But back to my question a minute ago (which you didn't answer)...

 

prove life stared from the primortial soup.

 

on the same note, prove that it was "created" by some deity. you can't do either.

 

You're assuming that God doesn't exist because it cannot be proven, yet ignoring the fact the you assume that life created itself even though it cannot be proven. Things change, it could be a deity. Things reproduce, possibly through a deity's design. I mean, we wouldn't stand much chance if we couldn't reproduce.

 

Now say that I'm sounding like a "creationist," because "I'm using lack of evidence as evidence." I'm saying, that there is no ACTUAL evidence for either side of this argument. All the "evidence" you mentioned is being interpreted by you to support your cause.

 

I realize that evolution is change, but you just assume that creationism is wrong because the general definition of evolution is so vague that it's hard for it not to be wrong. bypass the idea of evolution for a second (since creationism is the theory of a beginning and evolution is a theory of what has happened since) and start trying to prove that we came from a primortial soup instead of from a deity. (and don't assume that since I'm talking about creationisum, that means I think the deity created HUMAN life...)

[ydoaPs]

1)i'm not a biologist, so i haven't had any contact with biology in years. i do, however, know enough to know that creationism is pure crap.

 

2)the spaghetti monster has more evidence than creationism:

 

3)creationism cannot be proved or disproved because it is not science.

 

4)yes there is evidence...fossil...DNA...diversity...adaptation...mutation...

 

5)this isn't what this thread is about,s o it is going back on topic now

 

6)creationists are morons

[BobbyJoeCool]

1)i'm not a biologist' date=' so i haven't had any contact with biology in years. i do, however, know enough to know that creationism is pure crap.

 

2)the spaghetti monster has more evidence than creationism:[img']http://www.venganza.org/him.jpg[/img]

 

3)creationism cannot be proved or disproved because it is not science.

 

4)yes there is evidence...fossil...DNA...diversity...adaptation...mutation...

 

5)this isn't what this thread is about,s o it is going back on topic now

 

6)creationists are morons

 

1)Using lack of evidence as evidence of the opposite.

2)See #1.

3)EVERYTHING can be proved or disproved, because science involves EVERYTHING!

4)We have those things, but where did they come from? Tell me where they come from

5)You're right... this thread was about attacking creationists as a people, which is not what this fourm is about at all. This fourm is about science. And, using the scientific method properly, there's just as much evidence to support both theories of the beginning of life.

6)Sterotype, and an assumption without basis.

 

You're taking facts, and twisting them to say the we were not "created." that we "evolved" from a sludge.

[ydoaPs]

1)Using lack of evidence as evidence of the opposite.

2)See #1.

3)EVERYTHING can be proved or disproved' date=' because science involves EVERYTHING!

4)We have those things, but where did they come from? Tell me where they come from

5)You're right... this thread was about attacking creationists as a people, which is not what this fourm is about at all. This fourm is about science. And, using the scientific method properly, there's just as much evidence to support both theories of the beginning of life.

6)Sterotype, and an assumption without basis.

 

You're taking facts, and twisting them to say the we were not "created." that we "evolved" from a sludge.[/quote']

every single one of your responses in that post are false...congratulations. are you sure you're not one of them? as for 6, it is based on the majority.

There have been a lot of threads about the validity of Evolution' date=' and well I'm going to post all the evidence that I know and from my biology texts so that there will be no confusion. I wouldn't like to over-step my bounds, but I would like to invite others to post on this thread other evidence or insights that I have missed (I hope to just cover the basics with this first post) and we could possibly use this as a reference in the future.

 

What is Evoltuion??

Evolution is the change of a population of a species over time, or if you prefer the change of alleles over time.

 

Evidence of Evolution

Fossil Record

Fossils provide a record for species that have lived in the past. Often they are in sediment layers where the deeper the layer the older the fossil. In this way scientists can see how species change over time. For example scientists have observed the change of oyster fossils (in shell size) through time on the layers of sediment. This provides conclusive evidence that species change over time.

 

Biogeography and Comparative Anantomy

Animals from different continents but similar environments are similar in structure. A very good example is the striking similarities between placental mammals (wolves, rabbits, ect.) and marsupials (Tasmanian wolves, wallaby, etc.). These species have Analogous Structures, where they have similar appendages ect. because they evolved in similar environments. This provides evidence that species evolve to their environment. Certain species also resemble each other because they evolved from a common ancestor, they have Homologous Structures. The forelimbs of cats, bars whales, and humans are all similar in how they are put together and work. This provides evidence that species evolved from common ancestors.

 

Embryology and Molecular Biology

Species that are more related have similar stages in the development of the embryo. Species that are more related share higher percentages of nucleotide and amino acid sequences of DNA than more distantly related ones. Further all living things share the same genetic code (DNA/RNA). This is strong evidence for evolution of different species through modification of ancestral genetic information.

 

 

 

 

now drop it.

[JaKiri]

ok. what evidence, and can you say for an ESTABLISHED FACT that evolution is true?

 

"Evolution" is a logical concept which is utterly, utterly true. It's not even just "science true" like gravity or the existance of sunlight.

 

Further to this, it's been demonstrated to exist in computer simulations, bacterial cultures (how do you think "superbugs" get created if not by evolution?), innumerate numbers of insects, horses, dogs, cats, fish, man, apes, trees, strawberries and sea anemones, both historically and since we've been studying the process.

 

Lets have an example. In the North East of England, there had been decades, centuries, of coal mining. Coal mining involves being placed in cramped spaces, 14 hours a day - either low, but, for most, walkable-under, ceilings (in the well trafficed areas) or areas, such as the coal face, where you had to crawl.

 

And you know what? Coal miners, from mining families, tended to be shorter than the rest of the populace around them. Of course, this could of course have been diet, but even today, when there are no pits in County Durham, and the mining families have transferred into all walks of life (the former chairman of Northern Electric came from a mining family, fior example) people from miners' families, and their offspring, tend to be shorter.

 

That, by definition, is evolution. Whether or not its the evolution of Darwin, Lamarck, or something better, is not the point. Evolution does exist, and the only argument that can take place is over the mechanism.

 

as for 6, it is based on the majority.

 

It's a rather overly wide statement, and an inflammatory one - neither of which are really desireable on this forum - the former in a conceptual sense of a "science" forum, the latter in a more general sense of a science "forum".

[Severian]

As a matter of interest, since this is a scientific forum, let's present 2 'theories':

 

1. Evolution by natural selection: the accepted worldview of biologists and evolutionary scientists everywhere.

 

2. The belief that everything was created by a divine being 6,000 years ago, with the initial conditions set up so as to exactly mimic the state of the universe which would occur in theory 1 (6000 years ago).

 

Can you present evidence between these two 'theories'? No, you can't, so it isn't a very scientific question, is it? Indeed, the second 'theory' is not really a theory at all (hence the quotation marks) since it doesn't explain how this was achieved.

 

So please don't pretent this discussion is science.

 

I personally don't find theory 2 reasonable, but I cannot say that it is wrong without making an aesthetic judgement. (Of course, creationists who say things like 'evolution doesn't happen' can be proven wrong, since we have seen it happening in organisms with very short generation times.)

[YT2095]

a Third "Theory" could be that we WERE Created, using the mechanism of Evolution.

 

That`s my own personal belief on the matter

[BobbyJoeCool]

a Third "Theory" could be that we WERE Created' date=' using the mechanism of Evolution.

 

That`s my own personal belief on the matter [/quote']

 

It's also mine. Assuming that you're saying the Life was created by a deity (who may or may not have intended it to evolve), and then it evolved into us... (of course, now we should be in the PHI&RE fourm.)

[BobbyJoeCool]

It's a rather overly wide statement, and an inflammatory one - neither of which are really desireable on this forum - the former in a conceptual sense of a "science" forum, the latter in a more general sense of a science "forum".

 

Are you talking about my comment, his or both... if it's mine, I'm sorry, I just got caught up in the heat of an argument. No offence intended to anyone...

[YT2095]

well there`s certainly no doubt that we were created or what we were created from, our evolutionary path shows this quite clearly, as for the Diety making us deliberately from basic amino acids to single cellular life or whether it was just a "Fluke" is imaterial and down to personal beleif.

 

but this 6k years is clearly not true, nor would the "Adam and Eve" bit be possible or the other genetic bottle neck of Noah and his Wife.

[yialanliu]

Wait, when you say using the bible as evidence, that can make sense if your using the new testament. The new testament has had much of its points confirmed even by nonchristians such as Josephus, Pliny the Youger, and others. Well the old testament isn't backed up as much because of less sources, the new testament has thousands of documents of translation and normally in old documents one well written document is normall all that is needed to say the sourcce is true without any other documents saying the same thing. However, the new testament does have many documents quoting or having a written a part of the many books in the new testament.

 

Also, what is your point of generalizing all creationists? I am disappointed that you catergorize us as a block of people and you have no evidence that ALL CREATIONINSTS act like this since your defining what a cxreationists mean not by scientific evidence. I want to see your evidence apply to me...I am not brainwashed, I am not gullible, I am not any of the things you mention, if you want to catergorize me in that group than I kind of feel offended because that makes me not a creationist almost and the last time I checked, I was a creationist...

[atinymonkey]

Yialanliu, could you rephrase that as a statement or a question? It's too disjointed to understand.