Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion

[leomarley]

No, I don't care if you believe in creation or not.  You can verify that from my previous posts.
 
What I do care about is that when you say something is a fact, you'd better be prepared to prove it.
 
You keep making general statements that there is evidence for evolution, yet when challenged to point out a specific piece of proof, all you can come up with is a lizard that stayed a lizard.

read on my reply to you regarding your "evolution should change a lizard into a bird" statement.

to understand you more, though, what is your stand? how do you think we came about?

[barrister]

to understand you more, though, what is your stand? how do you think we came about?

At least you're willing to listen.
 
My stand is that religion and science should be kept separate.
 
I believe in the creation story of Genesis, but I don't impose that belief on anyone.
 
I don't believe that all living things evolved from a common ancestor because there is no evidence that proves it.
 
My view is that it is not possible to prove evolution, and it is also not possible to prove creation.  Notice that I do not only oppose someone who says evolution is a fact; I also object when someone says the Big Bang proves creation and Intelligent Design.
 
However, just because it is not possible to prove evolution, it does not automatically mean that creation is true.  That would be a big speculative jump that is unscientific.
 
Just admit that evolution is speculation rather than fact, and I'm satisfied.   

[leomarley]

At least you're willing to listen.
 
My stand is that religion and science should be kept separate.
 
I believe in the creation story of Genesis, but I don't impose that belief on anyone.
 
I don't believe that all living things evolved from a common ancestor because there is no evidence that proves it.
 
My view is that it is not possible to prove evolution, and it is also not possible to prove creation.  Notice that I do not only oppose someone who says evolution is a fact; I also object when someone says the Big Bang proves creation and Intelligent Design.
 
However, just because it is not possible to prove evolution, it does not automatically mean that creation is true.  That would be a big speculative jump that is unscientific.
 
Just admit that evolution is speculation rather than fact, and I'm satisfied.   

Sorry but i can't say that it is speculation because there are evidences. Evidences that are scientifically accepted. Scientists do not make compromises. Evolution, whether or not you believe in it, is true. You cannot make scientists say that Evolution is just mere speculation because it is true. Macroevolution, as you creationists would like to argue doesn't happen, has tons of evidences. Macroevolution is just multiple microevolution with the inclusion of other factors over time. it is a gradual change and not a sudden change from one specie to another. Macroevolution does not mean that a lizard will suddenly become a bird after evolving.

below is a good read regarding Macroevolution:

Antievolutionists try to make out that macroevolution is a tautology, the way they claim that natural selection is a tautology. The implication is that macroevolution cannot be tested and shown to be wrong, and therefore it is not science.

To clarify this, consider what it is that scientists test when they test a hypothesis. Let's suppose that we are testing the idea that global warming is caused by a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. There are two parts to this – one claim is that CO­2 causes the retention of solar and other heat, and the second is that this has happened in the past and is actually happening now. If you show that in a particular case global warming didn't happen (say, in the period of the last interglacial), you haven't thereby shown that CO2 doesn't cause global warming, nor that it isn't doing so now. All you have tested is a particular case.

We can test a particular claim of macroevolution. We can test, for example, if weasels are more closely related to red pandas than bears are (Flynn and Nedbal 1998, Flynn et al. 2000). This is a test of a particular evolutionary tree or scenario. It tests a historical reconstruction. If shown, on the basis of the evidence and the best data, to be wrong, then that history has indeed been falsified. But can we test the idea of common descent? It is not possible to show that something never occurred, but it is very easy to show that where it ought to occur, it either has or it hasn't. Science will not retain a bad idea when it is shown repeatedly not to explain what we have a right to expect it to explain (this is one reason why creationism was dropped from science back in the 1850s). If macroevolution persistently were shown to run counter to the data, then science would drop it and look for another solution.

Moreover, science has to an extent falsified the initial conception of macroevolution. The original idea was that evolution formed only tree-like patterns – species split like branches. A growing consensus has argued that both hybridisation (species recombining) and lateral genetic transfer (genes crossing the taxonomic boundaries individually or as part of symbiotic organisms that are taken into the "host" taxon's cellular machinery) are more common than we had previously thought. Macroevolution of species is still regarded as the most common way that the diversity of life has developed, but the "tree" now has "vines" that hang across the branches of single celled organisms (Fig. 4).



'Vines'd
Figure 4. Evolutionary "vines" Lateral genetic transfer across the tree of life. Taken from Carl Zimmer's blog, The Loom, based on work done by Victor Kunin, et al. This image covers only bacteria and archaea, but the same conclusions apply at the wider scale of other single celled organisms. [Full-sized image]   

So the Common Descent Hypothesisas we might call the general idea, or the notion of Descent with modification as Darwin called it in his correspondence, is tested every time a particular hypothesis is tested. When there are problems in enough phylogenies, then Common Descent may be rejected. So far, though, it is a very good first approximation, and the fact that revisions can be and have been made show that it is neither dogma, nor insulated from data.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#what

[RU9]

Just because you don't believe in creation, it doesn't automatically mean that evolution is a fact, "because there is no other alternative."

My point is that  creation is not acceptable because you believe without reason while evolution is based on science, hence a better explanation.

You are very strict on evidence but you have nothing to offer.

[leomarley]

thing is, Creationism is not even considered as a theory. it is just a myth.

[RU9]

 
"Pero sigurado ako--faith lang iyan." - Wag mo nang pakialaman ang religion.  Basta patunayan mo na lang ang evolution. 
 

Just to remind you, ang thread title ay Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion.  You cannot dictate on people here. I believe that our discussions are for educational purposes only.

[barrister]

You are very strict on evidence but you have nothing to offer.

That's because I do not claim that creation is a fact.  So don't compel me to prove it.

If you claim evolution to be a fact, then you're the one who has the obligation to prove it.

If you admit that evolution is a matter of faith, then I won't compel you to prove it either.

That's fair for both sides.
 
=======================================

 

My point is that  creation is not acceptable because you believe without reason while evolution is based on science, hence a better explanation.

You misunderstood.  We both agree that from the scientific point of view, creation is not acceptable:

To accept that a creator caused it to happen would require too many assumptions, in violation of the Occam's Razor principle.

However, just because it is not possible to prove evolution, it does not automatically mean that creation is true.  That would be a big speculative jump that is unscientific.

My point is that in order to prove evolution is true, you are merely pointing out that creation is false.

Your premise is that one of them is correct; hence if one is false, then the other is true.  You fail to take into consideration that both might be false.

Therefore, to prove that evolution is true, don't just point out that creation is false.  Prove the truth of evolution independently, without any reference to the falsity of creation.

[tony]

all are speculations, as no one among us was there when it happened...

we can reason, we can hypothesize, theorize, but at the end of the day, how do you know?

[barrister]

That's exactly my very simple point.
 
I admit that creation is not a provable fact.
 
Let them admit that evolution is not a provable fact either, and that's the end of it.
 

[docelmo]

all are speculations, as no one among us was there when it happened...

we can reason, we can hypothesize, theorize, but at the end of the day, how do you know?

Correct sir! Problem is the other side keeps insisting that thier view is Both theory and Fact.
Personally, my view is that ID is more plausible than evolution.

[docelmo]

all are speculations, as no one among us was there when it happened...

we can reason, we can hypothesize, theorize, but at the end of the day, how do you know?

So, in the end if there is indeed a Designer we can ask Him. If there is none then it won't matter we'd all be dust just the same.

[tony]

it all goes back to my question, how do you know?

[docelmo]

it all goes back to my question, how do you know?

As my earlier post implied....we can never really know the Final Truth, not faith, not science. Because the event we are discussing is in the distant past and therefore cannot be simulated to be tested. What we know of is true is based on our personal experience and the knowledge we get from others. However knowing something doesn't necessarily mean it's True! Based on our total experience and assumptions of what is true directs where we would lean in this topic. Our conviction, faith( or lack thereof), philosophy ultimately dictates what you believe of is the truth....

While science and scientists can provide us with vast information about events that happened a long time ago, they cannot provide final answers. Thus claims such as evolution of the lizard, E.coli etc. cannot be used to prove that evolution occurred in past. Because these observation lack the pre-historic environment that evolution was supposed to have taken place. So in the debate on "creation vs evolution"  it all boils to whom you will believe.

[leomarley]

[barrister]

it all goes back to my question, how do you know?

How do I know creation is true?
 
It's not that I know, because I don't.  I just choose to believe.
 

[docelmo]

How do I know creation is true?
 
It's not that I know, because I don't.  I just choose to believe.
 

If only the evolutionist would say the same thing.....my guess is they won't. Because they know the Truth!

[Ice Storm]

God dictated the story in Genesis because early man was too dumb to understand evolution. God, knowing man will eventually lift itself up and be able to understand a more detailed creation story left clues for man to find, hence evolution.

There is a God and his tool of choice is evolution.

[docelmo]

God dictated the story in Genesis because early man was too dumb to understand evolution. God, knowing man will eventually lift itself up and be able to understand a more detailed creation story left clues for man to find, hence evolution.

There is a God and his tool of choice is evolution.

Sir,
it's more like God created Man, Man created evolution.

[Ice Storm]

Sir,
it's more like God created Man, Man created evolution.

Religion was created by man to make a viable society.

Without religion stupid people would start committing crimes.

With religion almost all stupid people keep in line.

The smart ones "hack" society to get ahead because they know better.

Again, you have to look at holy scriptures within context. A lot of stupid people take it literally.

If I slap you on the right cheek should you present the left or just forgive outright?

[tony]

The smart ones "hack" society to get ahead because they know better.

they make a lot of money, get political power, and meddle with out lives....
all because there are lots of gullible people around....

[docelmo]

Religion was created by man to make a viable society.

Without religion stupid people would start committing crimes.

With religion almost all stupid people keep in line.

The smart ones "hack" society to get ahead because they know better.

Again, you have to look at holy scriptures within context. A lot of stupid people take it literally.

If I slap you on the right cheek should you present the left or just forgive outright?

Sir, OT na ito but just to respond...

Right, man created religion, but what made him decide one way or another that something
is right or something is wrong? They must have been geniuses( not dumb) to come up with these...
On the other  hand I do have my misgivings about organize religion but that's for another thread.

Faith is different from religion.

My initial reaction is to slap you even harder(just kidding) or file a case of Slight Physical Injury and get sir barrister as counsel(that's taking it literally, but i do know which is which).

This is an open discussion forum and we try to keep the insults/name calling to a minimum.

[Nelson de Leon]

Again, you have to look at holy scriptures within context. A lot of stupid people take it literally.

If I slap you on the right cheek should you present the left or just forgive outright?

This was discussed before:

³⁸ “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. ³⁹ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.  (Mt. 5:38-39)

Notice that it says "right cheek," not "left cheek." 

Right and left are very significant in the bible.  The right is good; the left is bad.  The right hand does the work; the left hand does not. 

In those days, a slap on the face was an extreme insult.  Those from the higher ranks of society insult the lower classes by slapping them on the face with the back of the hand.  Why backhanded?  Because the one delivering the slap doesn't want his palm to touch any part of the body of a lower-class person.  Therefore, a backhanded slap is even more insulting than an ordinary slap with the palm.

When two persons are facing each other, and the slapper uses the back of his right hand to strike the other on the cheek, the victim gets hit on his right cheek.  And that's the significance of getting a slap on the right cheek --- it means you were given a backhanded slap, which is extremely insulting.

Therefore, it's not really about the physical slap on the face.  It's just a poetic way of talking about somebody who receives great insult and humiliation. 

Why offer the other cheek?   Because by offering the other cheek, the offender will find it difficult to deliver a second slap.  How so?

The offender won't use his left hand because that goes against tradition.  But his right hand can't use a backhanded slap on the victim's left cheek, so the offender will be forced to use his right palm or a fist.  But a non-backhand is more proper for an equal, not for someone of lower status.  So, using the palm or fist will deprive the offender the opportunity of displaying his superior status and delivering a more serious insult.

Note that it's talking about how you deal with personal insults.  It's not in any way talking about prohibiting self-defense against an axe murderer.

Therefore, turning the other cheek simply means not to take revenge for petty things such as personal insults.  By not seeking revenge, you put a stop to a cycle of ever-escalating violence.  You turn the other cheek by helping the offender realize that his actions are unjustified, then standing back and allowing God to do the rest.

[Ice Storm]

they make a lot of money, get political power, and meddle with out lives....
all because there are lots of gullible people around....

And even when caught they get away with it and become 3rd most likely to be President again or become a figurehead Mayor playing city administrator at the cost of national economic interest.

docelmo, I'm not insulting anyone. There are really stupid people who need a "higher power" to conform to social & civil order. Tell them what they're doing is wrong because it isn't sociable and would wound societal balance isn't a good enough reason for them to stop. They need spiritual rewards to motivate them to keep peace and order. They need "God" for them to behave.

Hence, in my mind religion is still needed. The Book of Leviticus is a good example as to why you need religion or else people would be sleeping with animals or with their children, their sibling's children or their parent's or parent's siblings.

Example, former drug user insists I go to Holy Mass. I don't have a need to go in over a decade's time. I told him that there are people who _need_ to go to service and there are people who do not need to go. The look on his face was as if I told him I enjoyed eating locusts. Mind you the former drug user attends Catholic & Victory service even though he didn't convert to Victory. My guess as to why he goes to both is for peace of mind. He is a bit fragile.

I did not pursue further my stance out of fear that the former drug user would commit suicide. I dont want the guy to kill himself. He's honestly harmless.

I'm perfectly fine with the religion i am given and have no need to switch over. I just dont want to listen to politics during service which has became largely the norm. Last May I went to service for work they were talking about the evil's of selfies and yet the highest ranking amongst them is a large proponent of selfies. They even made standies so you can selfies with him. Ironies of ironies.

Nelson, thanks for the historical context on the left/right.

Again, what is written in Genesis is for a time where in the concepts of billions of years was unfathomable where and when lifespans based on our modern calendar extends only to a person's 20s/30s. It appears today that we as a people are in the transition towards to a time when we can can grasp billions of years then evolution makes sense. When you're considered a "lolo" or "lola" when you hit your early 20s then 4.54 billion years is something you can't mentally grasp. Hence my "stupid" description.

Remember, there was a time that you would be called a heretic and be imprisoned for saying the world was round like a ball. It was only in 1992 that the Pope said a heretic was right all along. There are still people who still believe the world is flat. Thankfully they do not travel much out of fear of falling off the edge of the world. ^_^

[docelmo]

No problem sir ice storm,
It's just that you did not put your statement in context. It appeared to be a personal statement and not made to illustrate your point or both. Thus my reply was show that i knew the difference...

[barrister]

Tiktaalik:
 


...Mr. Dawkins describes a series of fossils that make evolution-connecting arguments in a chapter called "Missing Link? What Do You Mean 'Missing'?" There we can find a Canadian fossil, called Tiktaalik, which University of Pennsylvania paleontologists discovered in 2004. On what is now Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, about 375 million years ago, a fish-like creature, now called Tiktaalik, developed a crocodile's head on a salamander's trunk, attached to a fish's behind and tail. Unlike any fish, it had a neck and could turn its head.

"In almost every particular," Mr. Dawkins says, "Tiktaalik is the perfect missing link." It almost exactly splits the difference between fish and amphibian. It is also perfect because it is no longer missing. "We have the fossil." It's pictured in The Greatest Show on Earth, accompanied by a line about the exodus of fish from the water and their movement onto land.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=6e342103-7e71-420d-b1d7-f4e781034fbd

[dodie]

Tiktaalik:
 


...Mr. Dawkins describes a series of fossils that make evolution-connecting arguments in a chapter called "Missing Link? What Do You Mean 'Missing'?" There we can find a Canadian fossil, called Tiktaalik, which University of Pennsylvania paleontologists discovered in 2004. On what is now Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, about 375 million years ago, a fish-like creature, now called Tiktaalik, developed a crocodile's head on a salamander's trunk, attached to a fish's behind and tail. Unlike any fish, it had a neck and could turn its head.

"In almost every particular," Mr. Dawkins says, "Tiktaalik is the perfect missing link." It almost exactly splits the difference between fish and amphibian. It is also perfect because it is no longer missing. "We have the fossil." It's pictured in The Greatest Show on Earth, accompanied by a line about the exodus of fish from the water and their movement onto land.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=6e342103-7e71-420d-b1d7-f4e781034fbd

hindi kaya atty yan na ang buwaya ngayon? a transitional fossil of an aligator o kung nag backtrack ang evolution eh di hito yan.....

[barrister]

No, it is not a transitional fossil.   I will explain later kung bakit.
 
Walang kuwenta kasi ang evidence na binibigay dito sa thread in favor of evolution.  Kaya para mas interesting, ako na ang nagbibigay ng malakas na ebidensiya para sa kanila.
 
The media sensation, probably the greatest evidence for evolution ---- the walking fish, the Tiktaalik roseae! 
 

[bumblebee]

^Do tell. I hope you've taken into consideration discoveries that was featured in articles early this year.

[Nelson de Leon]

hindi kaya atty yan na ang buwaya ngayon? a transitional fossil of an aligator o kung nag backtrack ang evolution eh di hito yan.....

Nope. I will rebuke you. Walang badge at traffic citation booklet eh. 

[dodie]

Nope. I will rebuke you. Walang badge at traffic citation booklet eh. 

 

nagbacktrack pa lalo konsi......bka tambasakan na yan! in english...salamander