Evolution vs creationism ?

Dragonlady said:
Ridicule is another tactic that is used to prevent discussion ,
Click to expand...

You might want to check out the post I was responding to. Maybe you can loosen the binds on my pillory a little.

After quite a number of posts about what kind of pie people like and then a Tooth Fairy mention, don't single me out for the scourge.
 
Smiling Jane said:
You might want to check out the post I was responding to. Maybe you can loosen the binds on my pillory a little.

After quite a number of posts about what kind of pie people like and then a Tooth Fairy mention, don't single me out for the scourge.
Click to expand...


My comment was a general one not directed at a specific individual. There was no indication that you were responding to any other post. Your post was an example of the specific type of post. You were, after all, at least a part of the manipulative tactics.
 

Dragonlady said:
My comment was a general one not directed at a specific individual. Your post was an example in place of posting all. You were, after all, at least a part of it.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, one post after how many?

If you want to turn this thread around, you need to do it yourself. Scolding participants is not likely to accomplish your purpose.
 
Dragonlady said:
The thread has obviously been hijacked. Guess they disapprove of the discussion also. A sneaky way to censor.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps they disapprove of some of the attitudes expressed, and choose to lighten things up. It is apparent that people’s feelings have been hurt, unnecessarily, IMHO. Warri, i apologise for my part in derailing your thread, but not everyone is as sanguine about negativity as you are. Hence, oil on troubled water attempts.
 
Dragonlady said:
My comment was a general one not directed at a specific individual. There was no indication that you were responding to any other post. Your post was an example of the specific type of post. You were, after all, at least a part of the manipulative tactics.
Click to expand...

I was on your side until you started this whatever you call it. It sure looks like a scold to me, but I'm sure it's hard to type with your hands on your hips.

Have you noticed you've become part of the problem instead of the solution?

I'm sure I'll be pilloried for that one too.
 
Dragonlady said:
LOL I didn't "scold" anyone. I merely pointed out a tactic. One or two comments wouldn't have merited a comment from me- several did
Click to expand...

That's where you're wrong. I didn't make several comments of the sort that derailed the thread. I was enjoying the discussion until someone made an unfounded accusation against the evolutionists and then it all fell apart.
 
OMG I never said you did.. Apparently my identifying disruptive behavior has really fired up some people. It was basically rude, but now I'm being vilified for pointing it out. (scratches head)
 
How can we be certain how any individual will react to certain forms of speech? One person’s free speech is another’s scolding. Perhaps it would be best to address the subject rather than the person. As for tactics, that can be a slippery slope.
 
Dragonlady said:
Sounds good to me. I'm for evolution - how about the rest of you?
Click to expand...

I'm sticking with a little of both!

Is there any pie left?

798a261828d3ecf9daac776721f7af85.jpg
 
I ran across a review of a drbate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on this very subject. Interesting!

Days after a wide-ranging debate on creationism and evolution between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, the event is driving an online conversation. Themes of belief and literalism, logic and faith — and, for some, relevance — are being aired and disputed. And some wonder what the debate accomplished.
The video of the more than two-hour debate, in which Nye and Ham presented their views on how the Earth and its surroundings were created, has been viewed more than 830,000 times on YouTube. At one point, the live event drew more than 500,000 viewers.
And the interest has persisted. We've sifted through some of the reactions to the debate, along with what people make of the opposing viewpoint. Below is a sampling of what we're seeing:
On our live-blog page for the debate, Richard Arthur came away with the top-rated comment (out of more than 2,000 responses):
"As a Christian I will say this: My faith does not require me to believe in the age of the earth as outlined in the Bible. Christ commanded me to love and that is where all Christians need to focus. Discussing how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin is a distraction."

​
The top-rated response to Arthur showed signs of common ground and tolerance:
"And this atheist respects you for that," said a reader whose user name is rabidchipmnk.
In terms of who "won" the debate, the audience of Britain's Christian Today website says it was Nye, hands down. With 42,567 responses, the site's online poll finds Nye with 92 percent support, compared with 8 percent for Ham. An option for "neither" is not provided in the poll, which is still taking votes.
Christians also took Ham to task in the more than 1,100 comments on Mark's original post on the morning of the debate. Here's the top response, from a reader known as Slicktop Texan:
"[As] a Christian, it's always amazed me how much other people of faith struggle with this. The bible is written in parables. P A R A B L E S. How about this: evolution exists, it's undeniable, plain and simple. How can your faith lead you to believe that God created everything in the universe... but yet, you can't believe that perhaps evolution was how He did it?"

​
And another comment from a user named NorthernZack asked Ham to be open to several competing theories of creation:
"Why not set up churches to present evidence for both 7-day Creationism and concepts of Theistic Evolution (ala the Church of England, or the Catholic Church, or biologos.org). Millions of Christians believe that God used evolution for creation. Why not let American churchgoing kids hear about multiple Christian perspectives on origins and then decide, instead of insisting they fall lock-step into the interpretation of Genesis that is least consistent with natural evidence."

​
The performances of Nye and Ham have also been judged, and critiqued. Over at The Daily Beast, Michael Schulson says that Nye's willingness to engage with Ham threatened to reduce " substantive issues to mere spectacle" — even if, as Nye told CNN, his main goal in debating the point was to protect science education in America.
Ham gained publicity and legitimacy, Schulson says, while Nye "spent three-quarters of the debate sounding like a clueless geek, even if his points were scientifically valid."
Here's how Schulson saw the two:
"Ham was at a loss for words only once during the whole debate, when an audience member asked what it would take for him to change his mind. By contrast, Nye seemed most alive when talking about all the things that he couldn't explain."

​
But Ham has his own critics — among them Pat Robertson, who said Thursday on his show The 700 Club, "Let's be real; let's not make a joke of ourselves."
Robertson went on to say Ham was using a flawed analysis, which he linked to Ireland's Bishop Ussher, reports The Christian Post.
Then Robertson said something that resembled points made by Nye. "Anyone who is in the oil business knows he's drilling down, 2 miles, 3 miles underground, you're coming into all these layers that were laid down by the dinosaurs," Robertson said, according to The Christian Post. "And we have skeletons of dinosaurs that go back like 65 million years. And to say that it all came around 6 thousand years ago is nonsense."
Saying that a cosmic Big Bang doesn't undercut his beliefs, Robertson continued, "I say God did it. God caused all of this. He is the author of all life."
If you're hungry for more discussion about life in the universe, you might want to check out Adam Frank's recent post for NPR's 13.7 Cosmos & Culture blog, titled "Eureka! First Life In The Universe."
Here's a sample:
"The idea of truly ancient 'first' civilizations is a staple in science fiction (check out the video game Mass Effect for a nice example). But when was the earliest moment in the 13.7 billion-year history of the cosmos when life (as we know it) could have first formed?"

​
The answer has to do with thoughts sparked by the Cosmic Microwave Background. As Adam says, it's "a bath of radiation left over from just after the Big Bang (it emerges just 300,000 years after the moment of creation, which, in the scheme of things, is the blink of an eye)."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...5141/who-won-the-creation-vs-evolution-debate
 
Dragonlady said:
The thread has obviously been hijacked. Guess they disapprove of the discussion also. A sneaky way to censor.
Click to expand...
'


ZdrSljF.jpg


Have I been bad?
d6bVQpO.png


My intent was for a bit a humor to temporarily replace the heat…

Anyway, if the ingredients were to somehow come together…how long would it be for saaaay a pie to come to being?
(if it’s a billion years I’ll just create one…because I can)

OK OK, sorry

Please continue.

I’ll go make popcorn

iv6XQjr.jpg
 
Found another interesting article on this subject

Creation vs. Evolution Controversy Evolution is a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. Charles Darwin proposed a theory, now called the Theory of Evolution, stating that animals differentiated into species when the survivors of a changing environment were able to pass their genetic traits to their offspring.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that can be tested by observations and application of the scientific method. Support for the theory of evolution is based on fossil evidence that has accumulated throughout the geologic history of the Earth. The emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a contemporary example of the adaptation of life-forms in response to their environment.
darwin-cartoon.jpg

Darwin cartoon
Creationism, or Intelligent Design, is the religious belief that a higher power created the animals and everything that exists today through supernatural intervention. Religious beliefs, such as creationism, have to be accepted on faith and cannot be tested or investigated. Creationism beliefs are usually based on a strict interpretation of the Bible or other religious holy books. The book of Genesis starts with the statement "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", and goes on to describe how in six days God created the plants, the animals, the sun, the moon, and the stars. Biblical interpretation infers that the world was created about 6000 years ago. The modern creationism movement received support from the 1961 publication of The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris. Neither author had any training in geology, but they claimed that Noah's flood had laid down all the sedimentary rock before erosion carved the Earth's current topography. The authors dismissed fossil evidence for a long history of life, and claimed that the world had been created to seem old.
The Controversy
Conflicts between Evolution and Creationism occur when evolutionists argue that creationism is not a scientific theory because it cannot be tested by the scientific method, whereas creationists argue that evolutionists do not take God into account and that evolution is just a theory rather than a fact. Scientific methodology which is based on physical evidence can never be reconciled with the creationist faith-based belief that the Old Testament of the Bible, which was written by Israelites around 1400 BC, is the only true account of creation. Creationists continue to ridicule Charles Darwin even though his theories have been confirmed through many scientific studies.
Science requires that a hypothesis or theory should be testable and supported by physical evidence, whereas religion requires acceptance of a doctrine or belief without analysis or judgment. For this reason, conflicts between evolution and creationism can never be resolved. DNA testing has shown that humans and chimpanzees have a 98-percent genetic similarity, providing overwhelming evidence that apes and humans have a common ancestry. Scientists are willing to accept these results as evidence that man is a specific type of ape, but this is what creationists find most revolting, since they believe that "God created man in his own image", as stated in Genesis 1:27.
primates.jpg

god-creates-adam.jpg

The theory of evolution regards the similarity of primates as an indication of common ancestry.
Michelangelo's fresco in the Sistine Chapel shows God creating Adam in his own image.


​

The Theory of Evolution was conceived by Charles Darwin during a five-year survey expedition around the world. The ship, HMS Beagle, sailed from Plymouth, England on December 27, 1831. Darwin studied geological features, fossils, and living organisms at the various stops that the ship made as it circled the globe. He collected an enormous number of wildlife and fossil specimens and tried to solve the puzzle of how the variety of life forms arose. Charles Darwin published his Journal and Remarks, also known as The Voyage of the Beagle, in 1839 as a travel memoir that contained detailed scientific observations of biology, geology, and anthropology. Darwin conceived his theory of natural selection and sketched an evolutionary tree on his First Notebook on Transmutation of Species in 1837. Twenty two years passed before he published his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859. The essential features of the Theory of Evolution that distinguish it from Creationism are:

  • Life is very old. Life forms, fossilized as stromatolites, have been dated to 3,500 million years ago. By contrast, accounts of Creation estimate that the world is less than 10,000 years old.
  • Species originated from an ancient organism which over time diversified and gave rise to a wide variety of life forms. Creationism argues that all the diversity of organisms was created simultaneously.
  • Natural selection is a process in which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of reproducing organisms. Adaptations that specialize the organisms for particular ecological niches cause divergence that eventually results in new species. Creationism does not address natural selection.
The Theory of Evolution is one of the great unifying concepts of modern biology. Today, the study of DNA sequences of closely related species provides clues to the mutations that produced organisms with different physical features. DNA sequences also make it possible to identify contemporary organisms that share common evolutionary ancestry.

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/search/evolution.html
 
Shalimar said:
Or perhaps they disapprove of some of the attitudes expressed, and choose to lighten things up. It is apparent that people’s feelings have been hurt, unnecessarily, IMHO. Warri, i apologise for my part in derailing your thread, but not everyone is as sanguine about negativity as you are. Hence, oil on troubled water attempts.
Click to expand...

Not my thread at all. I actually find this particular topic old hat but I do think people for whom it is of great interest ought to be able to express their views without abuse, ridicule or facetious responses.
 
Found another interesting perspective on this subject.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/a-retired-pastor-explains-why-she-abandoned-the-christian-faith/

[/QUOTEI always knew Santa was make-believe. My parents taught me Jesus was the reason for the season, God’s free gift to all who believe in him. They never lied to me about anything, including Santa Claus.
A few years ago, I watched a little boy after a funeral. He seemed oblivious to the conversation occurring over his head until one grownup exclaimed: “I still believed in Santa Claus then!”
Beneath them, the child’s eyes and mouth popped open. Laughter riffled the air. He searched upward for his parents. But they were laughing and never met his startled gaze.
I recalled that boy’s alarm when my husband, Phil, and I tried to tell friends that our beliefs had changed.
“What beliefs?”
“God.” Startled silence. Jaws dropped, eyes wide.
“You can’t mean that,” one said.
Phil and I were ordained ministers. I had accepted Jesus as my Savior when I was four at the altar of a revival tent in New York’s Catskill Mountains. Growing up in those woods, I talked to Jesus—not an audible conversation so much as my heart’s constant refrain of love and gratitude. When we married in 1965, I called Phil my “second best friend.”
Even after I became a feminist, I seldom questioned familiar creeds. The idea of domination no longer fit my worldview. So, I asked Jesus, “Is there a name I can call you instead of Lord?”
“Sure,” came the lighthearted reply: “Call me Cramps.” I laughed at this divine nod to women’s bleeding and birth pangs. That was the sort of conversation God and I had: a relaxed, confident projection of my own evolving beliefs.
I could not account for other people’s beliefs about God. In 2003, when President George W. Bush grew impatient with the search for weapons of mass destruction and launched his tragic invasion of Iraq, I suspected he thought he was hearing from God, like Joshua at Jericho. He seemed to think Iraqis would eagerly lay down their arms before our triumphant Lord.
On public radio, I heard a teenage brother and sister describe their reasons for enlisting, beginning with their mistaken belief that Iraq had attacked us on 9/11. She was 17 and eager to leave school. He was 19, heading for boot camp. Was he afraid to die? No, he said: “I’m a Christian. So, I know where I’m going.”
Islamic fundamentalists likewise promised teen recruits eternal glory of martyrdom and paradise. Allahu Akbar! God bless America! Religious slogans in these contexts made me sick.
Bush declared that he had to invade Iraq because God wanted to set people free. I paced our empty church and told the President: “You just cut my umbilical cord to Christianity.”
I had no idea what that meant. If President Bush was like a midwife, cutting my connection to those lifelong beliefs, then what new life was being born? Years later, Phil reminded me that someone else had freed us from our theological assumptions in a far more generous and life-giving way.
In the year after Phil’s cancer diagnosis in 2005, we had begun to take comfort in the BBC documentaries of Sir David Attenborough, who thrilled us with the wonders of nature and never mentioned God. We snuggled in bed and watched the lumbering scholar describe the marvels of planet Earth. His diction remained precise whether he knelt in mud or dangled from a giant redwood. His self-deprecating humor and matter-of-fact summaries of evolution soothed us. Breathtaking photography of animals and plants on far-flung continents filled us with awe.
Phil and I felt no crisis of faith when we told each other we no longer believed in a supernatural being. The bad midwife had freed us from magical thinking of religious ideologues. The good midwife had welcomed us into a vibrant world of natural wonder that had been here all along.
I think God happens between people
Aerialist Nik Wallenda balanced himself differently above this world of natural wonder. When he crossed the Grand Canyon in 2013, he walked one-quarter-mile on a half-inch cable 1500 feet in the air with no safety net. “Thank you, Jesus,” he said, his words recorded. “Lord, help this cable to calm down. I command it in your name. Praise you, praise you, Jesus.”
I grew up talking to Jesus like that. Nik grew up walking on high wires since he was two like his mother, father, and extended family. Despite his strong belief, I knew Nik could not walk on water across the Colorado River. He would sink like a stone. Faith often works when you believe, but gravity always works, whether or not you believe.
When Phil and I told each other our thinking about God had changed, we felt a sense of relief. But when we tried to tell others, they gasped. No matter how gently we introduced the subject, it seemed like too much for some people we loved.
Later we understood how evolution had changed us in imperceptible increments over a long stretch of time. We were like fish that crawled onto land and, over eons, evolved into air-breathing, live-bearing, warm-blooded beings without knowing how that happened.
During millions more years, some returned to the sea, where legs morphed into flippers instead of fins. They became dolphins, whales, and manatees. But they remained warm-blooded and still breathed air. Their tails lay horizontally and moved up and down, the way legs had propelled their ancestors on land. They would never again be fish. Never again hold their tail fins vertically and swish them side-to-side. The change was irreversible.
We had become secular Christians. Though deeply rooted in Christianity, Phil and I discovered that our growing edge was secular, not bound by old familiar creeds. We still value our kinship with many Christians, but we no longer believe that a self-aware supernatural being sent his only begotten son to die for us. We no longer believe a blood sacrifice will bring us everlasting life.
That gospel message saved my paternal grandfather around 1898. His own father succumbed to alcoholism and abandoned the family, leaving his teenage son to suffer a nervous breakdown. I still have the tract that brought my grandfather hope and healing. The same hope became a refuge for my mother at the age of five, because her mother had taught her how to talk to Jesus before she died, in 1914, giving birth to her fourth baby.
Neuroscience shows how our brains feed on messages of hope. Today, opioid addicts achieve sobriety with help from a Higher Power. Those liberating beliefs can atrophy into walls that separate people. Or they can evolve into bridges that connect them. Months into our marriage, Phil stretched my fundamentalism when he said: “I think God happens between people.”
Atheists can sound as smug and superior as fundamentalists. Creeds—or their adamant absence—can turn to concrete, crush our humanity, and sink this lifeboat we all share.
As much as Phil and I wish we could be together forever, we accept the scientific evidence. We belong to a species that dies. When our brain cells disintegrate, our unique identities will disappear.
This truth makes our fleeting lives on planet Earth more precious than ever.][/QUOTE]
 
Atheists can sound as smug and superior as fundamentalists.
Click to expand...

Although that sounds superficially like the truth, it is not a valid comparison. Of course, anyone can "sound" smug and superior; that's a personality trait, not a reflection of truth or reality.

Non-theological example: One person claims the earth is flat, based on "belief." He sounds very smug and positive that he is right. But when asked for any rational proof, he can't give any.

A second person claims that the earth is spherical (more or less), based on scientific data. He also sounds smug, especially when he is referring to the flat earth guy. But that doesn't reduce his logical reasoning to the same
level as the true believer, whose absolute conviction is based on what he calls "faith."
 
just caught a snippet of a science program the other day - were fossils had been unearthed to was suggested to be miniature dinosaurs - the size of say a german shepherd - they had unearthed the bones - they were depicted on the program walking along with homo sapiens of the day the size of say a large great dane or german shepherd? fascinating - if true man/woman existed during some part of the dinosaur age?? shouldn't be difficult to track down so eyes peeled?
 
Happyflowerlady said:
Most of us, especially those of us who live in the United States, remember the volcanic eruption of Mt. St. Helens in May of 1980. The eruption initially caused huge flooding of the Toutle River, and destruction of most of the area around the volcano.
The ash cloud was carried eastward and covered all of Washington State on the eastern side, as well as parts of Idaho and Montana.
After the eruption, the whole geography of the area was dramatically changed, and scientists have now started looking at the similarity between the canyon and layers of rock left around Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon.
Even though we were all taught that it took millions of years for the river to cut through the rock to form the Grand Canyon, it is entirely possible that this is wrong, and it could have happened rapidly, just like happened with the Mt. St. Helens volcanic eruption.
Here is a short video that explains how this happened in 1980-1982, and presenting the similarities with the formation of the Grand Canyon.
However, there many other videos on this subject that go into everything in much greater detail, if someone wants to do more research about this. This short one does give you the basic gist of the idea.

Click to expand...
I was taught the Grand Canyon was formed from an enormous asteroid hitting that area. This caused the waters to run through in ocean like currents, etc, throughout the millennia. Hence, what we are seeing today, and only Lord know what those will see beyond.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top