Creation vs. Evolution

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
My point above, creationists, was give me one reason I should agree that your story is correct, and not any of the others I have listed above. And since you are trying to argue the concept of biblical creation as fact, please refrain from using the words "believe" or "faith." And bear in mind that if you dismiss any of the stories I listed as above as children's fables and such, that you are doing to other legitimate religions exactly as you feel that science is trying to do to yours.
 
gangrel441:
My point above, creationists, was give me one reason I should agree that your story is correct, and not any of the others I have listed above. And since you are trying to argue the concept of biblical creation as fact, please refrain from using the words "believe" or "faith." And bear in mind that if you dismiss any of the stories I listed as above as children's fables and such, that you are doing to other legitimate religions exactly as you feel that science is trying to do to yours.

Charles Darwin wrote:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for correction of spherical and chromatic aberation, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, ABSURD to the highest degree.

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (evolution)

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been oringinally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.

Also, Darwin stated this after speaking on "the holiness of God" and the grandeur of his Book : Christ Jesus and his salvation. Is not that the best theme?
 
caymaniac:
Charles Darwin wrote:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for correction of spherical and chromatic aberation, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, ABSURD to the highest degree.

It seemed absurd to many that the earth was round or that objects can fly. Your feeling just shows misunderstanding, it does not make any statement about the facts.

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (evolution)

This is such a tired argument. Please get a new one, preferably one that you understand...

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
It is commonly stated by anti-evolutionists that there are no known transitional fossils. This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is entirely plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.

Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill in several gaps and continues to do so.
 
caymaniac:
Charles Darwin wrote:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for correction of spherical and chromatic aberation, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, ABSURD to the highest degree.

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (evolution)

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been oringinally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.

Also, Darwin stated this after speaking on "the holiness of God" and the grandeur of his Book : Christ Jesus and his salvation. Is not that the best theme?

Wow...you just attempted to answer my question, but forgot one very important step...reading the question first!!!

I said nothing about evolution or Charles Darwin whatsoever. I simply asked why you believe your creation belief is any better than any of the hundreds of other creation beliefs that people of other, very different, non-judeo-christians believe. Why did it have to be God in 7 days? Why not the great black winged bird that laid an egg which split into the earth and the sky? Why not a curious god in Japan who pushed his staff into the ocean and pulled Japan out in the forms of muck from the bottom of the sea?

And as I said before, if you are going to take a crack at answering this one, please refrain from using words like "believe" and "faith." Since you are insisting that you can use science to dispute evolution, then use science to support judeo-christian creation vs. every other creation story used by the hundereds, maybe thousands of religions world-wide that christianity has made the most noble and concerted effort to wipe off the planet in the last thousand or so years...
 
gangrel441:
Wow...you just attempted to answer my question, but forgot one very important step...reading the question first!!!

And as I said before, if you are going to take a crack at answering this one, please refrain from using words like "believe" and "faith." Since you are insisting that you can use science to dispute evolution, then use science to support judeo-christian creation vs. every other creation story used by the hundereds, maybe thousands of religions world-wide that christianity has made the most noble and concerted effort to wipe off the planet in the last thousand or so years...

I would dispute that Christianity has tried to wipe off the planet. For instance, in the 17th century an explorer Sir Wilfred Laurier discovered a settlement of over 100,000 Hurons in Canada who within 3 years were totally wiped out by the Iroquois. Or then there is Japan that tortured and eliminated all Christians in their country before the 18th century. These are some of the small instances that would dispute your statement.
I agree there was the Spanish inquisition as well as other wars but there was never a plan to wipe out the planet.
If you read my answer I have not used words like "faith or belief". I was stating a position made by Darwin who many people think discovered the "theory of evolution" when they don't realize he was a Christian. All Darwin has done was theorize the way in which God created the world in which we live.
Yes there are many theories as to how the world was created, and that's what they are pure theories, nobody was there to see it happen except the Creator. Darwins theory is currently the most scientific explanation in our world today of the forming of our world. Since you don't want to hear about "belief or faith" then the only choice would be scientific. I think that Darwins theory corelates well with the Creation theory. If you are choosing then you have few choices the way I see it, put me down for a Creationist point of view.
The hundreds or thousands of stories you mention have no scientific foundation for creation. The contemporary societies of todays world are very scientific, myself included and if you are asking for proof for everything then, you will find very little. This is where faith and belief come in even though you don't want to hear about it.
 
caymaniac:
I would dispute that Christianity has tried to wipe off the planet. For instance, in the 17th century an explorer Sir Wilfred Laurier discovered a settlement of over 100,000 Hurons in Canada who within 3 years were totally wiped out by the Iroquois. Or then there is Japan that tortured and eliminated all Christians in their country before the 18th century. These are some of the small instances that would dispute your statement.
I agree there was the Spanish inquisition as well as other wars but there was never a plan to wipe out the planet.
If you read my answer I have not used words like "faith or belief". I was stating a position made by Darwin who many people think discovered the "theory of evolution" when they don't realize he was a Christian. All Darwin has done was theorize the way in which God created the world in which we live.
Yes there are many theories as to how the world was created, and that's what they are pure theories, nobody was there to see it happen except the Creator. Darwins theory is currently the most scientific explanation in our world today of the forming of our world. Since you don't want to hear about "belief or faith" then the only choice would be scientific. I think that Darwins theory corelates well with the Creation theory. If you are choosing then you have few choices the way I see it, put me down for a Creationist point of view.
The hundreds or thousands of stories you mention have no scientific foundation for creation. The contemporary societies of todays world are very scientific, myself included and if you are asking for proof for everything then, you will find very little. This is where faith and belief come in even though you don't want to hear about it.

You are talking to someone who spent 5 years in the Roman Catholic seminary system. I have said nothing of what my personal beliefs are. If you believe that evolution occurred and was guided by some higher power, but it did in fact occur over hundreds of millions of years, then the only place I disagree with you is in that I would state "may or may not" instead of "was." I have no problem with faith and beliefs. I was simply eliminating that variable from the equation.

If on the other hand, you believe that the earth is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days, well....I am done wasting my time trying to bring reason to the irrational.

Oh...and recheck your facts on the whole Japan deal...the Japanese evicted the Europeans because the Europeans didn't seem to understand their place in Japanese society. This included the Christian missionaries. The introduction of guns, which the Japanese embraced while the Europeans were there, then shunned after they were kicked out, is one such example. Any culture which wasn't Christian was regarded as "barbarians" in European eyes. This held true in Japan as well, and the Japanese did not take kindly to being related to as "barbarians."
And it happened in the 17th century, not the 18th. 1604 is when Tokugawa Ieyassou became Shogun and began the movement to kick the Europeans out.

You give on the inquisition...very noble of you....what about the Crusades? The Conquistadores? All those stories of "missionaries" storming through villages with a bible in one hand and a sword in the other, instructing the natives to choose which one...? Your picture is a rather rosy one compared to what the history books have told me...
 
caymaniac:
Charles Darwin wrote:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for correction of spherical and chromatic aberation, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, ABSURD to the highest degree.

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (evolution)

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been oringinally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.

Also, Darwin stated this after speaking on "the holiness of God" and the grandeur of his Book : Christ Jesus and his salvation. Is not that the best theme?

There's an entire chapter or two at least on this exact topic in The Blind Watchmaker complete with intermediate steps of eye formation that exist in species that are currently living. The intermediate steps of the intermediate steps are unlikely to have been successful organisms and you're unlikely to encouter them in the fossil record statistically. There are several well-formed steps from single-cell photosensitive patches up to fully formed eyeballs that we can point to in existing species, however.
 
gangrel441:
And it happened in the 17th century, not the 18th.

You give on the inquisition...very noble of you....what about the Crusades? The Conquistadores? All those stories of "missionaries" storming through villages with a bible in one hand and a sword in the other, instructing the natives to choose which one...? Your picture is a rather rosy one compared to what the history books have told me...

If you read my answer I said " before the 18th century" thus it would mean the 17th....

The crusades were more about borders, and politics than the religious situation although I do "believe" that there were those who fought and thought that they were doing a religious thing. I never painted a rosy picture, the world is not changed all that much since the begginning. Technology has advanced our particular country well ahead of almost all others. We are certainly a people of science in this country, myself included. The world is still full of those that would kill you because you are you and not one of their tribe or religion. We are currently in a border dispute with Mexico, there are countries (Asia, Africa) in which there are slaves being bought and sold. There are terrorists that would kill you and your family your country with a nuke if they had the means. The history I've read is not a rosy picture, nor is this contemporary time period a rosy picture. There is plenty of greed, hatred and jealousy in our world.

But, there is hope.

I will say that I believe the world was created in 6 "days of the Lord" and I'm not privy to how long a "day of the Lord" is, and I do believe in adaptation.

The difference between you and I is that I "believe" the world "was" and you have stated that you believe it "may be or may not be" created.

One cannot get away from saying "I believe" because there is nobody that was there when the world was created except the Creator. If you are a stict evolutionist then you would have to "believe" it because it is just a theory or belief.
 
I ran your posts through the plagiarism checking software at the university and guess what? Most of what you posted appears to be cribbed off the web. In any case your use is without proper attribution and, in my class, would be considered plagiarism as well as lacking in any critical analysis or thought. The give away is the misspelling of the work “aberation” in an identical context.
caymaniac:
Charles Darwin wrote: To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for correction of spherical and chromatic aberation, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, ABSURD to the highest degree.
Your misquote and misunderstanding demonstrates that you’ve never read Darwin, only tracts from those with a religious axe to grind. Had you read Darwin yourself you’d have noted that Darwin said, "The difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." That is, the "difficulty" cannot be considered real.

caymaniac:
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (evolution) .
This was clipped (as usual in your case, out of context) from something one Fritz Wuehler posted on 25 Jan 2006 (or, once again, descends with Mr. Wuehler from a common ancestor):


“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”
I can guess why Darwin’s last line not included:

"The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Darwin understood and was correct despite the fact that he could not have know that not all environments were good for fossilization, but that all have been subjected to many hundreds of millions of years of tectonic forces and weathering.
caymaniac:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been oringinally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.
Again you quote out of context: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."


caymaniac:
Also, Darwin stated this after speaking on "the holiness of God" and the grandeur of his Book : Christ Jesus and his salvation. Is not that the best theme?
Darwin simply never said that. This base canard was the whole cloth construct of one Elizabeth Reid Hope an evangelist who, in 1915, claimed (with no evidence) that she had spoken with Darwin on his deathbed in 1882. Darwin’s family branded the claim a lie and clearly stated that she, “was not present during his last illness, or any illness.” If you are going to plagiarize, at least check the facts and the spelling you’re flitching.
 
TheDivingPreacher:
After that is clear we could move on to the next argument being the origin of life.
Well that one at least is rather simple ...

Men are from Mars
Women are from Venus
Kids are from Uranus ... or somewhere reasonably close to there ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom