For people debating Creation v. Evolution/Science

I notice that a lot of people on this site on both sides of the argument are clueless as to the actual issues surrounding this debate. There is a large tendancy to use fallacies and just bad information.

I highly recommend that people check out this forum: http://www.evcforum.net/Forums.php

The Creation Vs. Evolution forum is an awesome resource. Before you make a thread or post with some argument, I suggest doing a search on their site and looking at their threads. The users on that site are highly educated and include experts on both sides, from Biblical scholars to physics professors.

Warning though: evcforum is the Big Leagues. The site has extremely high standards and is highly moderated. In order to post a thread it has to be vetted by moderators and standards for evidence (scientific for scientific threads, scriptural for religious threads) is very very very high and I've seen more than one person banned for failing to back up their argument. Even more often than that, I've seen them simply laughed off the site.

So again, I suggest doing searches there in order to see if there are aspects to your argument that you aren't aware of and to see if it is easily debunked, but don't post on that site unless you are really ready to go up against experts.

 

are you trolling to get people to go to another site?


or do you want to comprehend why creation vs evolution still exist?


Creationism is for morons that hold a belief over learning to evolve with more knowledge.

Evolution is a part of nature and the reason it is not fully comprehended is that the mechanisms of how mass and energy associate are incorrectly defined within the existing paradigm of a reductionary scope to energy.

ie... the second law of thermodynamics renders that 'heat' is an energy that disipates over time, but with no causality associated to what 'heat' is and what the energy disipates. It created a direction called 'entropy' to the concept of energy, which can be identified all the way to plancks constant, which is the foundation to most all physics (QM).

So there are the 'reasons' the debate is an ongoing argument;
a).... one side is lying to themselves
b).... one side dont see the mistake that the description is incorrect and cannot define, what is observed in nature


the combining of the 2 disciplines come from comprehending what the 'life' of nature is (what is energy itself).

it's 'light" (em)

basic

 

I'm not trolling. Evcforum is an excellent resource even if you never post there (I haven't, its rather intimidating).

I agree with you about Evolution being correct and that Creationism is wrong (although I wouldn't call believers morons), but too many people, both Creationist and Evolutionist, on this site break out fallacies and what the pro's call "PRATT's" (Point Refuted A Thousand Times) that it makes me think that people really don't know what they are talking about.

If you are an Evolutionist, evc can help shore up your scientific knowledge and help you avoid arguments against Creationism and religion that will just come across as obnoxious or ill-informed.

If you are a Creationist, evc can help you learn the background behind scriptural arguments and some pro-Creationism philosophical arguments as well as helping you avoid PRATT's about evolution (like thermodynamics and entropy).

 

to invite some of them, over here

and let's see if they can keep up

people that lie to themselves, are morons!

many professors are professional ratts (PRATTS), simply because they, like a religious wingnut, will not face direct responsibility to an inquiry and because they have a tenure and or credentials and do not believe they need too.

how about you go into the science section and see if you can articulate within the science section on the matters of natures evolution.

evolution and the 2LoT dont mix

entropy is more of a guideline created in the age of steam engines, versus a representation true to natural processes. ie.... a tree aint a reduction as the life is 'growing'

 

Why are you so determined not to be civil? Being obnoxious is not going to convince anyone of your side, no mattter how right you are.

 

Use TalkOrigins.org.

 

In my experience, talkorigins is one sided.

 

That is because they reference the available evidence of evolution and avoid using the old and tired arguments of ignorance.

 

In truth i believe in Creationism, however, cant people believe a mix of both, i mean even if Evolution did become the reason for Human creation it could have been an adaptation influenced by God.

 

Evolution guided by a higher power is the only remotely reasonable brand of "creationism".

No scientific observations are contradicted.

 

Thank you.

 

Reality is one sided.

 

which hand?

that is funny.

How about 'life; abuses entropy' (a contradiction to the whole paradigm)?

 

Um..... nope.

Life does not contradict the laws on thermodynamics.

 

How many americans believe in the creation theory ?

 

A majority.

 

Well sure, if by one sided you mean "accurately represents the scientific consensus." Why would you want a site that contained a muddy mix of the two? How would be useful? You never be able to say with any certainty that the position you were using was something scientists agreed with.

And it's not one sided in the way you're thinking, either . It exhaustively explains all the major creationist claims fairly, generally including a link to a creationist site featuring the claim. And then it rebuts every one, because they're all incorrect in one or more ways .

Would you describe a dictionary that included only words that a bunch of experts decided were legitimate words in common usage today a good dictionary or a one sided dictionary? Shouldn't it include made up words, meaningless words, and 400 pages of the definition of "boob??

 

What I mean by one sided is that Talkorigins does not cover the philosophical or scriptural arguments related to the Creation/Evolution debate.

 

Doesn't it address any of the biblical historical claims that we know from the evidence are bunk? There's plenty of flood-related stuff, I think. But refuting apologetics is beyond its purview and unnecessary - there are comprehensive resources that outline all of that elsewhere.

Evolution doesn't actually have anything to say about the bible or god, not directly. It just describes a well tested model that explains how genetic information moves through populations and over time. Plenty of Christians who aren't dumb enough to think the bible is inerrant don't have any problem with evolution. The only folks who do are the ones whose view of the bible is so retrograde that the mere mention of anything contradictory threatens to completely wipe out their world view.

It has to be awful having such a fragile belief system that even the slightest interaction with reality can crush it.

 

Hence my reason for posting this thread.

 

Regarding apologetics, can anyone explain the appeal of William Lane Craig? All it takes is watching two of his debates to see a pattern emerge: he makes a gross misrepresentation about some aspect of science, he is repeatedly corrected by his opponent, and then he does it again in the following debate. This is intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple, but he is often cited as a man of great moral principles and a forceful speaker. Whereas he seems to me like a shady used car salesman. And though I disagree with the thrust of his work Alvin Plantinga is a far more sophisticated thinker, a respected academic, and the only apologist who poses new questions that are not at all easy to answer. I would respect the entire apologetics movement if they gave adopted someone legitimate like Plantinga as their voice. But Craig? He's essentially a taller, greasier Ken Ham.

 

now that just shared to the forum, how some people will hold a belief and lie to themselves simply because they do not comprehend the material


i knew that!

 

Thx for confirming my suspicions . according to some report there's also a large number of americans also believe that the sun revolves around the Earth .

Hmmm. I guess there's nothing americans cannot be made to believe. (wink)


Cheers.

 

Energy used by living things undergoes entropy. It's just that there happens to be a very large energy pump for the earth so that the local work can produce things that, in a much smaller system, would be destroyed due to entropy.

 

I think the response to this thread is very, very telling.