Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
LucidElement

Creationism Vs Evolution

1,319 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

LucidElement

What points on each side are seen as a debate? For example, if you are a religious person, there is no stopping someone from believing that God created everything in the universe. Furthermore, if someone said to you, dinosaurs did exsist because God put them there, how would an evolutionist argue that? People will say Adam and Eve were the first people and I read somewhere that they would have existed around 3,000 BC.. but weren't the ancient Egyptians / Sumerians before them? How about temples like Ggantija or Puma Punku, even Gobekli Tepe (9000-1000B.C) ... Just things that baffle me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
5 minutes ago, LucidElement said:

What points on each side are seen as a debate? For example, if you are a religious person, there is no stopping someone from believing that God created everything in the universe. Furthermore, if someone said to you, dinosaurs did exsist because God put them there, how would an evolutionist argue that? People will say Adam and Eve were the first people and I read somewhere that they would have existed around 3,000 BC.. but weren't the ancient Egyptians / Sumerians before them? How about temples like Ggantija or Puma Punku, even Gobekli Tepe (9000-1000B.C) ... Just things that baffle me.

 

 

In the end i think we end up with two sides arguing absolutes when in my opinion neither side truly knows.

Im not really sure why christians wouldnt just concede that evolution is a tool god uses. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
7 minutes ago, LucidElement said:

What points on each side are seen as a debate? For example, if you are a religious person, there is no stopping someone from believing that God created everything in the universe. Furthermore, if someone said to you, dinosaurs did exsist because God put them there, how would an evolutionist argue that? People will say Adam and Eve were the first people and I read somewhere that they would have existed around 3,000 BC.. but weren't the ancient Egyptians / Sumerians before them? How about temples like Ggantija or Puma Punku, even Gobekli Tepe (9000-1000B.C) ... Just things that baffle me.

 

 

Lets start from the begging: There is no place in the bible that seez that the world was created on the 8th of August 3000 BC at 16:30 EST. That is a number that somebody came up with by going back from any arbitrary event in the bible (i.e. The return from Babylonian captivity that can be pinpointed quite well by historical record) through the generations of its actors.

The problem with that method is that there is no continuous record during several biblical events that would allow us to actually trace that. That means it could have been any date but not after 3000 BC (which science will happily subscribe to). The next problem is that the Bible as we know is not all it once comprised. Around 100 BC there was a good housekeeping and, if we go by archeological findings, there were some things that were discarded (for whatever reason). The Christian bible had further "editing sessions" during the centuries of the Christian era. So if it is Gods word there are parts that He said and we don't know about.  And that somebody really fudged it is shown by non-achievable ages some of the protagonists had (around 125 is the end of the line, people with 115 don't have enough stem cells left to regenerate the slightest damage).

That as far as the chronology.

As far as the "creation", it may be possible that a God (in as far as He/She exists) could create whatever he/she wanted. But that would not change the archeological/paleontological record.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

I could teach the religion class, but I don't think the creationists are going to like the way I do it.  And I'd even use the Bible.

Doug

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

It's a stupid argument to begin with. Trying to compare mythology to science is a recipe for disaster. It can't possibly be fruitful, because mythology does not deal with facts or evidence, while that is only what a scientific perspective can deal with.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
2 minutes ago, Podo said:

It's a stupid argument to begin with. Trying to compare mythology to science is a recipe for disaster. It can't possibly be fruitful, because mythology does not deal with facts or evidence, while that is only what a scientific perspective can deal with.

There is a way to do it:

First, take the class through the several methods used by various Christians to determine the age of the earth.

Second, note that they don't agree.

Third, do the same thing with evolution.

Fourth:  Only question on final:  Present a defense of either evolution or creationism.  Cite evidence to support your contention.

Doug

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
1 minute ago, Doug1o29 said:

There is a way to do it:

First, take the class through the several methods used by various Christians to determine the age of the earth.

Second, note that they don't agree.

Third, do the same thing with evolution.

Fourth:  Only question on final:  Present a defense of either evolution or creationism.  Cite evidence to support your contention.

Doug

It's still meaningless though, because creationism mythology deals with the creation of life, while evolution does not. Life needs to exist for evolution to happen. How life came to be is a whole different discussion. It's still arguing different points. Furthermore, trying to ascertain the age of the Earth based on mythological texts is absurd. Why not try to figure out the width of the Earth by reading Journey to the Centre of the Earth? That novel is as valid of a scientific text as any ancient book of mythology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

I have always STUMPED creationists with this... but lets see how believers can answer me....

why do humans share their DNA with Chimps? At 99%?

Why do we have canine teeth, and forward looking eyes...like other predators?

Why do we.... have a coccyx, known as the tail bone, in common with some other animals?

Why...do we have finger and toe nails?

Why do goosebumps....make our hair stand on end? In certain places of course...

Why...are some of us still HAIRY?

Hairy+MAN+%282%29.jpg

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

why do human embryo's look so similar to.....animals...and WHY does the embryo develop a tail? Before it shrinks again when legs are formed?

 

foetus.jpg

Edited by seeder
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
8 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

There is a way to do it:

First, take the class through the several methods used by various Christians to determine the age of the earth.

Second, note that they don't agree.

Third, do the same thing with evolution.

Fourth:  Only question on final:  Present a defense of either evolution or creationism.  Cite evidence to support your contention.

Doug

Our tax dollars shouldn't be spent trying to refute creationism, while kids should be learning science. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

47089800.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

and why....do we have a more or less complete record of human evolution back to the caveman and before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
4 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Our tax dollars shouldn't be spent trying to refute creationism, while kids should be learning science. 

Allow me to disagree. Knowing all positions is actually very useful, knowing just one generally leads to fanaticism (and yes, you can actually be a science fanatic... not that you would have understood what science is if you are).

The best way to understand that is the Jesuit debate class. One pupil is assigned to argue one position, another the opposite. At some point the padre interrupts and changes the roles of the pupils.  That forces both of them to know both arguments.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
11 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Our tax dollars shouldn't be spent trying to refute creationism, while kids should be learning science. 

Carry out that exercise.  If you don't know anything about evolution, you'll flunk.  Why?  Just try to cite evidence supporting creationism.

I know a prof who did it.  College level.  He had several students abandon creationism.

But perhaps the important point isn't whether they believe it.  It's whether they understand it.  And once they understand it, they'll convince themselves. 

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
2 minutes ago, questionmark said:

Allow me to disagree. Knowing all positions is actually very useful, knowing just one generally leads to fanaticism (and yes, you can actually be a science fanatic... not that you would have understood what science is if you are).

The best way to understand that is the Jesuit debate class. One pupil is assigned to argue one position, another the opposite. At some point the padre interrupts and changes the roles of the pupils.  That forces both of them to know both arguments.

Science classes are supposed to be teaching science. Every minute that is spent refuting crap is a minute that is not spent teaching science (which, incidentally, is a great way for creationism to weasel its way into the classroom). If people want to take a debate class and argue countering ideas...then that's fine. In science class, science should be taught. 

Edited by ChaosRose
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Just now, ChaosRose said:

Science classes are supposed to be teaching science. Every minute that is spent refuting crap is a minute that is not spent teaching science. If people want to take a debate class and argue countering ideas...then that's fine. In science class, science should be taught. 

Science classes are about learning to think "scientific". Not about memorizing stuff. If you don't understand how it works, and why it works and why it cannot work in another way as demonstrated by scientific method you know science. If you just can recite something you know nothing (because you will forget it as soon as you don't need it anymore).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
Just now, questionmark said:

Science classes are about learning to think "scientific". Not about memorizing stuff. If you don't understand how it works, and why it works and why it cannot work in another way as demonstrated by scientific method you know science. If you just can recite something you know nothing (because you will forget it as soon as you don't need it anymore).

They won't even have time to teach the scientific method, if they're trying to refute every bogus claim a creationist can come up with. There is an infinite amount of BS out there. Science class is about teaching science...not debunking pseudo-science. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
7 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Science classes are supposed to be teaching science. Every minute that is spent refuting crap is a minute that is not spent teaching science (which, incidentally, is a great way for creationism to weasel its way into the classroom). If people want to take a debate class and argue countering ideas...then that's fine. In science class, science should be taught. 

Science is not about findings, about whether the world is round or the sun is a nuclear explosion or whether organic evolution happened.  It's a way of thinking about nature, about the universe.  And that method of reasoning can be taught in a religion class as readily as a science class.

Doug

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Just now, ChaosRose said:

They won't even have time to teach the scientific method, if they're trying to refute every bogus claim a creationist can come up with. There is an infinite amount of BS out there. Science class is about teaching science...not debunking pseudo-science. 

Well, where you are wrong again, because without the scientific method as base you cannot teach science. The how it works comes first. What works comes after it. At least that is how I learned and that allows me, should I once not know how it works, to put it together.

You don't learn algebra before adding either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
Just now, Doug1o29 said:

Science is not about findings, about whether the world is round or the sun is a nuclear explosion or whether organic evolution happened.  It's a way of thinking about nature, about the universe.  And that method of reasoning can be taught in a religion class as readily as a science class.

Doug

But we're not talking about a religion class. We're talking about science class in public schools. And creationists have been attempting to infiltrate it for...well...forever. If we make science class about debunking religious claims, then it isn't science class anymore. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
2 minutes ago, questionmark said:

Well, where you are wrong again, because without the scientific method as base you cannot teach science. The how it works comes first. What works comes after it. At least that is how I learned and that allows me, should I once not know how it works, to put it together.

You don't learn algebra before adding either.

There is limited time in a school year, and only a portion of that time is devoted to teaching science. Save the debating for debate class. That's all I'm saying.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
2 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

There is limited time in a school year, and only a portion of that time is devoted to teaching science. Save the debating for debate class. That's all I'm saying.

So?, if you know how chemistry works, or how physics work you can put everything together that you might not have learned in chemistry or physics...should you ever have the need to.  And that applies to any arm of science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

But we're not talking about a religion class. We're talking about science class in public schools. And creationists have been attempting to infiltrate it for...well...forever. If we make science class about debunking religious claims, then it isn't science class anymore. 

Agreed that I'd rather be teaching dendrochronology.  If you first teach reasoning, then apply that reasoning to the world, your students will be equipped to handle any wild claims anyone makes, including creationism, or whether a given brand really is "98% fat free" or whether there's a heaven somewhere closer than 10 billion light years.

Don't worry about a science class getting "infiltrated."  Teach reasoning first.  Then teach about biology.  Your students will carry the fight for you.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.