Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by Alliance
Just take into account that Genesis 1 and 2 can't even give the same account of creation and any sort of strict argument goes downhill from there.

And most research is not publically available. Subscriptions and whatnot are needed to view almost everything that is considered credible and is pure science. The stuff the public sees is the subjective conclusions of researchers, not the science.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Apparently you have poor understanding of Genesis 1 and 2, one being chronolgical by its claims, the other explaining some of the details within the chronological order...

really? thats funny. Did your God create man before or after animals? When was woman created? My criticism is valid.

Originally posted by Nellinator
And most research is not publically available. Subscriptions and whatnot are needed to view almost everything that is considered credible and is pure science.

You should try your local public or univeristy library. You'd be shocked at what they might have subscriptions to.

Originally posted by Nellinator
The stuff the public sees is the subjective conclusions of researchers, not the science.

Is the public qualified to understand the science?

Originally posted by Alliance
really? thats funny. Did your God create man before or after animals? When was woman created? My criticism is valid.

You should try your local public or univeristy library. You'd be shocked at what they might have subscriptions to.

Is the public qualified to understand the science?

The public library has almost nothing as far as I am aware and while the university library has millions of dollars worth of subscriptions it is not open to public access. If that is different in America then I cannot comment.

Originally posted by Thundar
I know it wasn't the best parody. But to be honest, it is still a rather accurate one.

Actually it's an idiotic parody.

Here's a better one

Educated Individual: I don't believe in creation.

Devout Evangelical Theist: But evolution has holes in its theory.

Educated Individual: OK I can see that. Can you show me actual evidence for creation?

Devout Evangelical Theist: Evolution has holes in its theory.

Educated Individual: Yeah thats nice but do you have real evidence in support of creation being true?

Devout Evangelical Theist: . . .

Educated Individual: Thats what I thought.

A lot of creationist and young earth theory is actually based on science and the implications of what a world wide flood would have done. It's not a baseless as you're making it seem. Creationism is also equated to Intelligent Design too often and Intelligent Design hinges more in the fields of physics and chemistry where the order of things leads some to believe that only an intelligent creator could make things so perfect.

Please show me one tiny scrap of evidence that demonstrates how the earth was formed in 7 days.

Originally posted by Alliance
This is BULLSHIT. The public has no right to have any say in evolution. This is not an opinion poll, this is science. Making science a public issue is morally wrong imo, and its disastrous for only one side, science. Your criticisms are invalid, because you have the opportunity to be informed of all these things, you just choose to ignore them.

Despite my opinion, hundreds of people have done this, writing pop accounts of evolution. People attend school. There are many ways scientists are trying to educate people, but people choose not to listen. Research is published. Conferences are held. There are many ways that the public can learn what science is doing. All it takes is brain cells and effort.

Science is complex, it has a methodology. Scientists DO recognize the sparse holes in evolution. If you actually tried to find out, you'd know the real ones as opposed to the perceived ones used by cremations (read: literal) are using arguments form the 1700s.

Science is not a public issue, people don't read a book with the same vigor that they listen to their preacher or Kent Hovnid. They don't actually understand the theory and they don't care to. They just want to bash it as they feel appropriate (and they look like morons for doing it).

SCIENCE is NOT PUBLIC POLICY. It is NOT to be judged by the public. This leads to the disaster we are experiencing right now. Research is published, accessibly by anyone. It all comes back to whether you are willing to educate yourself or if you just want to have all knowledge told to you. Obviously for many people it’s the latter, because they are just told what evolution is not and then feel they are educated enough to comment upon it.

I never suggested that science was to be made into opinion. I never suggested that science be made into "public policy." All I suggested was that scientists acknowledge the flaws with evolution.

I maintain: when presenting the theory of evolution--especially as fact--professors should talk about the parts that are conjecture, weakly supported, or would otherwise be described as "flawed." Instead, evolution is presented as a 100% sound, wholly perfected theory and anyone who is in opposition is an idiot.

Also, there is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

And what about the plants? There were no plants of the field, which were the ones that Adam was forced to work in order to sustain himself and his family because of his and Eve's disobedience to God.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Please show me one tiny scrap of evidence that demonstrates how the earth was formed in 7 days.

http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

Originally posted by FeceMan

'Kay.

http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

?

Really now ?

Originally posted by FeceMan
'Kay.

http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

I don't follow enough of that to make an accurate assesment of its worth and it still doesn't prove that God made the earth in 7 days with all life precreated on it.

Let it simply be said that neither report is very well done.

If the earth was formed in 7 days, just think of the temperatures we'd have from billions of years of radioactive decays having to occur in 7 days 😐

Originally posted by AngryManatee
If the earth was formed in 7 days, just think of the temperatures we'd have from billions of years of radioactive decays having to be done in 7 days 😐

It's god, he can do what ever he wants to, except make the world perfect, control Satan, find a way for humans to live in peace...

Originally posted by AngryManatee
?

Really now ?

Also, you'll note that the site I linked isn't the actual report but a summation of it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's god, he can do what ever he wants to, except make the world perfect, control Satan, find a way for humans to live in peace...

😆

Originally posted by FeceMan
Sounds like a QQ, considering I just know you didn't bother reading the whole thing.

Also, you'll note that the site I linked isn't the actual report but a summation of it.

Seeing as how I actually did read it, lets not assume things (*cough*), because you might be wrong, maybe you should back it up your claim about me with data instead of speculation.

Henke's page with responses to Humphrey's claims

Not to mention Humphrey for some reason still has yet to publish his work in a legitimate science journal, despite his constant nagging about peer-reviews.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Not to mention Humphrey for some reason still has yet to publish his work in a legitimate science journal, despite his constant nagging about peer-reviews.

I find it kind of stupid when he associates celestial bodies such as comets with evolution. Not to mention he's been criticized multiple times as "abysmal and incorrect" concerning physics

Comets disintegrate too quickly (maximum age: 100,000 years). Humphreys notes that comets lose some mass with every trip around the sun, claims that there is no source of new comets in the solar system, and then concludes that comet lifetimes (10 to 100 thousand years) provide an upper limit to the age of the solar system. But Humphreys' comet theory fell apart recently because a source for new comets, the Kuiper Belt (predicted by astronomer Gerard Kuiper in 1951), has been actually photographed and confirmed by several teams of astronomers. Humphreys responds to these discoveries by saying that the supposed "Kuyper Belt" [sic] doesn't help scientists because it must be supplied by the unproven Oort Cloud; and that even if what he calls the "Kuyper Belt" existed, it would exhaust itself of comets in a short time (say, a million years). But he has his astronomy backwards - the Kuiper Belt contains the remains of the "volatile" (icy) planetesimals that were left over from the formation of the solar system - numbering in the hundreds of millions. If anything, it is the Kuiper Belt that supplies the more remote Oort Cloud, as some icy chunks are occasionally flung far away by interactions with large planets. There is a source for new comets, and the fact that we still see comets does not prove the solar system is young.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
I find it kind of stupid when he associates celestial bodies such as comets with evolution

Comets disintegrate too quickly (maximum age: 100,000 years). Humphreys notes that comets lose some mass with every trip around the sun, claims that there is no source of new comets in the solar system, and then concludes that comet lifetimes (10 to 100 thousand years) provide an upper limit to the age of the solar system. But Humphreys' comet theory fell apart recently because a source for new comets, the Kuiper Belt (predicted by astronomer Gerard Kuiper in 1951), has been actually photographed and confirmed by several teams of astronomers. Humphreys responds to these discoveries by saying that the supposed "Kuyper Belt" [sic] doesn't help scientists because it must be supplied by the unproven Oort Cloud; and that even if what he calls the "Kuyper Belt" existed, it would exhaust itself of comets in a short time (say, a million years). But he has his astronomy backwards - the Kuiper Belt contains the remains of the "volatile" (icy) planetesimals that were left over from the formation of the solar system - numbering in the hundreds of millions. If anything, it is the Kuiper Belt that supplies the more remote Oort Cloud, as some icy chunks are occasionally flung far away by interactions with large planets. There is a source for new comets, and the fact that we still see comets does not prove the solar system is young.

Intersting. Do you also believe in the big bang theory? If you do, who do you believe started it?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Now you are showing bias because I have a strong feeling that you have never searched or seen a real Humphrey report and are going on Henke's word.

I'm not showing bias, I've seen some of his writings and the guys a crackpot. He's delving into topics that he doesn't understand as well as the people he tries to refute. He claims that radioactive dating methods are inaccurate because the ratio of C-14 to C-12 was 16 times smaller before the great flood, and that's why carbon dating overestimates. That is not science. That is speculation that cannot be either hypothesized nor tested.