Evolution or Creationism? - Page 6

Odin · #51 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor

Thor could go outside and see it is raining. He could blindly assume it's Odin taking a piss on the world, or he could examine data, determine that the uplift of a mass of air had exceeded the lapse rate and had a high enough lcl combined with significant particulate matter that allowed for condensation. As the condensation increased, it weighed down, adding more mass concentrated on the particle, until it precipitated out of the event in the form of rain.

What Thor doesn't know is that my urine is so massive, it caused the uplift of mass and air.

Ace Of Spades 117 · #52 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:37 AM

^ hahaha

Im a creationist

Grungekid · #53 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 02:46 AM

Neither. I am mostly uncertain on any of the findings of science that predates the existence of the human race. I think the account of Creation given in Genesis is true, but I am not of the mind to say that it could be proven scientifically.

**Ripplemagne** · #54 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Saying evolution has no scientific backing is ignorant.

But I didn't say that, did I? I said your statement didn't.

Quote:

As for the argument at hand, trying to debase scientific theory by saying non-creationist beliefs are flawed because you can't explain the start of existence is wrong. I respect Ripplemagne's points and see why you disagree with pure non-creationism but you have to understand that the whole point of scientific theory is more to try to get at the unknown than answer the obvious. Just because it is not complete at the moment doesn't mean it can't ever be right or that it's false at the moment, necessarily.

I understand why you'd come to the conclusion you did, but did I ever say that Evolution is implausible? Did I ever say it had no scientific backing whatsoever? No, I don't recall doing so. I, simply, argued that statements such as "Creationism has no scientific backing" is ignorant and should readily be reconsidered.

But, quite frankly, it's hypocritical when pseudo-scientific scholars say such things as Evolution is fact and Creationism is fiction with no support. Attempting to qualm a debate goes against the basis of scientific advancement. Evolution is not proven. That does not mean that I'm saying it is not a well thought out idea and has great possibilities. It means it's not fact, but a theory.

In all honesty, Evolution is not too different from a Biblical take on Creationism. Both are unproven theories with a dedicated base of followers. Both lay out how the world could have been created, but aren't 100% validated by either side. Both get a huge rise out of people when discussed in a negative light. People need to realize that the area of debate has no place for egotists whose beliefs are "superior" to those around them.

Case and point: Reread my posts. Have I said that Evolution is without its own form of evidence? No, I did not. I, simply, stayed on an area of defense and countered ignorant statements.

Dante · #55 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 07:10 PM

I would have to say both are right. no one is 100% sure either way.

DatHappyPrsn · #56 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 07:17 PM

I'm gona say Evolution because, the story of creation is just one of the many ways ancient races had to try and explain how the world and humans came to be. Like the greeks said: first there was chaos, Then out of chaos came Ge(mother earth) and the Ge gave birth to the gods, etc...
that is just one of the many ways ancient peoples theor-ised on how life came to be!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode