<p>"I don't see your point. No matter how implausible evolution is, it still remains more scientifically possible than Biblical creation."</p>
<p>What was that quote? "Using logic similar to evolutionary theory, a million idiots banging on a bunch of keyboards would eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare. With the advent of the Internet, we can now satisfactorily determine that this is not true."</p>
<p>Evolution is not more scientifically possible than creationism</p>
<p>The reason scientists prefer it is because it is a testament to man's reasoning, while creationism is admitting man's limitation (they're human too, and they're just as biased as we are)</p>
<p>You know, in one thread I was arguing about the age of the Earth...there's nothing quite like claiming Earth is 6000 years old to cause people to immediately call you an idiot lol</p>
<p>But you must understand that while the evidence "for" evolution is there, applying it as evidence FOR evolution is subjective...it can just as easily be applied to creation...
Example...snakes have tiny leg bones
evolutionary argument: classic example of vestigial organs
creationism argument: Fall of Man, condemnation of serpent</p>
<p>Example...certain organic objects have virtually no carbon-14
evolutionary argument: those objects are 5-50 thousand years old
creationism argument: there was less carbon-14 way back when</p>
<p>well of course if you take a million IDIOTS and tell them to bang on a computer they wont create shakespear, beacuse they are idiots. If you take a million people and tell them to bang on the coputer you can get some good works of liteature. Also most people dont go on the internet to write plays, out of your million idiots how many of them have any inclination to write anything worthwhile. Oh and by the way, shakespear was unorigonal and borrowed heavly from Greek liteature.</p>
<p>you missed the point <em>sigh</em></p>
<p>I'm talking about the mathematics of probability, NOT some literary argument</p>
<p>
[quote]
Using logic similar to evolutionary theory, a million idiots banging on a bunch of keyboards would eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare.
[/quote]
Using logic similar to creation theory, if we don't understand something, we should just assume that it's the work of a "greater being".</p>
<p>Sounds like the Dark Ages to me. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Evolution is not more scientifically possible than creationism</p>
<p>The reason scientists prefer it is because it is a testament to man's reasoning, while creationism is admitting man's limitation (they're human too, and they're just as biased as we are)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you're saying that we should admit our limitations (even if we haven't clearly met them) rather than use our reasoning?</p>
<p>You know, I once read something...if you believe in God, then you should understand that He gave us curiosity and the desire to explore and learn because He expected us to use those skills.</p>
<p>How do you do the quoteblock thing?</p>
<p>"Using logic similar to creation theory, if we don't understand something, we should just assume that it's the work of a "greater being".</p>
<p>Sounds like the Dark Ages to me. "</p>
<p>Creation theory is actually quite complicated...it's not a "it's in the Bible, and that's that"...it is a developed intellectual pursuit with investigation of scientific evidence
water canopy
moon dust
regenerating ribs</p>
<p>"So you're saying that we should admit our limitations (even if we haven't clearly met them) rather than use our reasoning?"</p>
<p>We HAVE met them in many cases, and at that point we should stop grasping at straws</p>
<p>carbon dating: we find stuff that looks "old" but has "too much" C-14
so what do the evolutionists do? they say, "Actually, there was much more C-14 way back in the day." Hmm...circular reasoning + modification of the dating system AGAINST the very premise on which it is based...notice that creation theory doesn't have to be dramatically modified every time there is a scientific discovery</p>
<p>Do this:</p>
<p>[ quote ] text to be quoted here [ /quote ]</p>
<p>Only without the spaces.</p>
<p>How many creationists feel that creation is a "developed intellectual pursuit with investigation of scientific evidence"? I was under the impression that the majority do in fact go by "it's in the Bible, and that's that". </p>
<p>I'm no expert on carbon dating by any means, in fact I hardly know what it is. =P But who knows, maybe there <em>was</em> more C-14 back in those days. I'm sure they have a better explanation for it than "it makes it fit better with evolution," and if I had some free time I'd go look it up.</p>
<p>As per "meeting our limitations", I would have to disagree. I refuse to accept that humans have already progressed as far scientifically as we can. So long as there is room for new discoveries (and there have been tons of new discoveries over the past few years...there's no reason to expect them to stop), we shouldn't just "admit our limitations."</p>
<p>At any rate, both sides of the argument are theories. Most likely, neither is 100% correct. I'm certainly a proponent of freedom of religion and freedom of beliefs, so if you wish to believe in creationism, that's cool with me. Good night.</p>
<p>God created us. No chemical stages involves. Its impossible to prove the origin of life my scientific means. the theory of evolution describes hoe we developed and became advanced being, it does not in any way explain our ORIGIN.</p>
<p>good night :)...at least one person recognizes that both are possible...</p>
<p>Most people I meet tell me, "creationism is impossible, and if you believe in it, you are an idiot"</p>
<p>carbon 14 dateing is only used to jude the age of meterial in the recent past. Since C14 has a 1/2 life of 5730 years it can be used to judge the age of things up to about 50000 years ago. The earth is billions of years old c14 is used only to judge the age of things very receinet in geological. I doubt the concentration of c14 in the atmosphere has changed a whole lot in that time period.</p>
<p>I though we were discusion about the origins of life. Carbon dating merely explains the age of a particular matter.</p>
<p>the thing with carbon dating, though, is that by showing difficulties in its use (because of changes in concentration in c14, which BOTH sides are willing to admit), it follows that Earth must be less than 30000 years old (otherwise C14 concentration would be stable)</p>
<p>Ok. I dont believe in evolution. But even if it existed, there has to be something that must trigger these change of events. These <em>triggers</em> are beyond beyond scientific research and can only be done by a superior being (God).</p>
<p>Many years ago sciencetist had solved the problem on how organic molecules were created. If you put gaseous water, methane, Hydrogen and ammonia and expose it to a spark, organic molecules will form when condensed.</p>
<p>In the early earth years the plant was much less stable then it is right now. You are assuming that organic molecules were created using the most common molecules available.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many years ago sciencetist had solved the problem on how organic molecules were created. If you put gaseous water, methane, Hydrogen and ammonia and expose it to a spark, organic molecules will form when condensed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Translation: Stanley Miller experiment. Significance: it's possible to make urine without actually urinating...how does this demonstrate abiogenesis again? He made a waste product, not a building block for life...</p>
<p>"Evidence:" meteorite found with DNA bases in it
evolutionary explanation: DNA bases can evolve
common sense explanation: meteorite landed on an unlucky creature</p>
<p>According to gelogical and astrophysical studies the early earth contained methane and ammonia, athough over time the sun broke those elements down.</p>
<p>Also if the earth is only 30000 years old how do you argue the exsistance of diamond, which take millions of years to make in the crust?</p>
<p>Where's the proof that it takes millions of years to make in the crust?
Don't forget about the Flood (i.e., crust cracking + canopy destruction), which generated huge forces to accelerate many processes</p>