Evolution or Adam and Eve?

[Julius Ratus]

My problem with creationism vs. evolution is that the theists assume that creationism is the default theory. How are evolutionists different in this regard? If evolution can be disproved--which will never happen--they assume that the only other explanation is creationism--which is no explanation at all. Why can't evolution be disproven? Is your religion inately superior? Scientific theories are always changing, evolving if you will. They are constantly expanded and often disproved. Look at Quantum Physics, and Chaos Theory. Both of these are new areas in science and disprove older theories. Disproving evolution does not add to the validity of creationism Agreed. Disproving one theory dose not vallidate another. Never has. Only proof makes a theory fact and as I have stated repeatedly, Creationism is a religious belief and uses a different set of proofs to vallidate it. People who make Creationism a science are every bit a ignorant as people who make Evolutionism a Religion. There is no validity to creationism. Prove it. No ranting, please. I only want empirical data. It is simply a silly Bronze Age fairy tale and nothing more. There's a polite and tolerant statement. To invoke God as the answer to how everything started is to present the problem of an infinite regress. Who made God? Who made God's creator? And so on.

[DDickey]

My problem with creationism vs. evolution is that the theists assume that creationism is the default theory. How are evolutionists different in this regard?

 

Evolution is a theory that explains things, that answers these questions. It is the default theory by virtue of the fact that there are no other theories to explain these things. As I've explained elsewhere, creationism isn't a theory; it's a hypothesis. So evolution is the default theory because there are no other legitimate theories to explain these things. If a theory arose that better explained these events, than that would become the new, best theory we have. If, on the other hand, evolution was utterly annihilated, that in no way, shape, or form validates creationism.

 

If evolution can be disproved--which will never happen--they assume that the only other explanation is creationism--which is no explanation at all. Why can't evolution be disproven? Is your religion inately superior?

 

Evolution is not a religion. It requires no blind belief in the supernatural or the paranormal. It is logical conjecture based on observable evidence--some will say, and have said, overwhelming observable evidence. Scientific theory is the antithesis of religious belief. To refer to science as a religion is to show how little you know about both.

 

Scientific theories are always changing, evolving if you will. They are constantly expanded and often disproved. Look at Quantum Physics, and Chaos Theory. Both of these are new areas in science and disprove older theories.

 

That is the nature of human understanding. What we know now differs from what we knew during the enlightenment, for example. It is a testament to the evolution of our understanding. Which is one of my base complaints with religion. We are in the twenty-first century, and we're being taught and preached ideas that were conceived during the Bronze Age. We who trust in science have evolved beyond the need to rely on fairy tales; you who belief in the 'scriptures' are still stuck in the intellectual birth canal.

 

Disproving evolution does not add to the validity of creationism Agreed. Disproving one theory dose not vallidate another. Never has. Only proof makes a theory fact and as I have stated repeatedly, Creationism is a religious belief and uses a different set of proofs to vallidate it. People who make Creationism a science are every bit a ignorant as people who make Evolutionism a Religion.

 

See my previous post about the difference between theory and fact.

 

There is no validity to creationism. Prove it. No ranting, please. I only want empirical data.

 

In Genesis 1:25-27, it is stated that animals were created before humans. In Genesis 2:18-19, it is stated that humans were created before animals. In Genesis 1:27, it is stated that man and women were created at the same time. In Genesis 2:18-22, it is stated that man is created first, then animals, then woman. In Genesis, God creates day and night on the first day--and differentiates and defines them by naming them. Yet he didn't create the objects in the sky--the sun, stars, etc.--until the fourth day. How can light exist when there is no sun? Genesis one states that plants were created on the third day. But the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. This may have been plausible during the Bronze Age, but now that we know about a little thing called photosynthesis, we know that that order would be reversed: the sun would come before the plants.

 

Now you dare to call anything mentioned above valid? You mean to suggest that something that is so internally contradictory and in defiance of logic and reason yields a perfectly acceptable hypothesis? Surely, sir, you are joking.

 

This, of course, is an unnecessary argument. As you should know, sir, the burden of proof does not reside with me. The burden is on your shoulders to prove these claims. As the great Carl Sagan once remarked: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You can provide no evidence outside of faith--which, itself, isn't evidence; it is a cop-out that proves or disproves nothing. You ask me to prove that creationism is invalid, but the burden of proof lies with you. So you, sir, must prove your claims or concede the point.

 

It is simply a silly Bronze Age fairy tale and nothing more. There's a polite and tolerant statement.

 

I hold nothing but contempt for religion. The time to respect religious beliefs is drawing to a close. The zeitgeist is changing, and a new revolution is growing. If you, and people like you, think that their appalling beliefs should be taught to our children in the public sphere then you'd better get used to criticism; because I will fight until my dying day to make certain that my child will never have to be forcibly exposed to this obnoxious nonsense.

 

To invoke God as the answer to how everything started is to present the problem of an infinite regress. Who made God? Who made God's creator? And so on.

 

Funny that you didn't respond to this. But then theists never do. Where did God come from?

Edited February 27, 2008 by DDickey

[Viggen]

Always amazes me that people try to find stuff in a book that is thousands of years old, has been fiddled around for centuries before even translated and those translations were very often wrong?

 

..so can we all agree that god thought one day, "what the heck", lets make a big bang and let evolution play it out? Everyone wins

 

cheers

viggen