Replies

And there are NO facts that can be proved in the Bible, not especially in Genesis.

This is a bold absolute statement that can be easily disqualified. For the sake of our discussion, I'll assume that you are limiting your statement to the creation story and concede that it cannot be scientifically "proved". However, I'll say the same for the evolution story. So far then, both are on equal grounds, neither can be "proved".

How about you show ME your evidence for facts first, since you started this discussion and are evidently unable to do any research on your own regarding science.

Actually, I stated that both were based on belief and that the facts could be interpreted to support either belief system. Therefore I don't have to show you my evidence, because I rely on the same evidence that evolutionists rely on. Scientifically, ALL of the evidence must support the truth.

Evolution is the change in traits (specifically genetic traits) that are inherited from one generation to the next, or even many generations later.

Actually, this is a gross oversimplification of evolution. By this definition, if two blonde-haired parents have a redheaded child, that's evolution due to a change in genetic trait. Any birth defect that can be passed on to a child would be evolution. For true evolution to occur, such that changes bacteria into humans, genetic information must be increased that reflects the increase in complexity associated with a new evolved species. There is no scientific evidence that this has ever occurred.

It is a fact, a known fact, that the average lifespan of human beings in prehistory was not much more than 30 years old.

Wrong. It is a theory that is based on the limited number of prehistoric bones and tissues that have been found, and assumptions that have been made based on what we know about bones and other tissues today. There is no way to scientifically "prove" that the average lifespan of human beings in prehistory was any closer to 30 years than it was to 300 years.

The average lifespan of a human being today is roughly 70. That lifespan has increased in the last 100 years alone from about 50 to 68. That's a fact. (Yes, I know you will say that life is easier on us, that's true too, but it is also a contributing factor to extended life).

I'll concede to that, but it doesn't prove anything regarding human evolution. The average lifespan of humans after being diagnosed with cancer has greatly increased in that same time span. Not due to any changes in genetic traits.

A second example of this is height in men. Men in medieval Europe were roughly 5'4" or 5'5" on average. A 6' tall man was a giant. Prior to that, Europeans had an average height of 5'9" and actually got smaller for some reason. (That reason is simple genetics, which is directly responsible for evolution).

That reason is "genetic variation", which has nothing to do with evolution. No new information or increase in complexity is associated with variation within a genetic kind.

While I certainly understand your reluctance to accept the fact that science indeed has measurements it can perform to prove things, and your similar reluctance to accept that "beliefs are just beliefs" (which are sometimes based on nothing BUT FAITH) - your insistence that science isn't any "better" than religion is simply an argument to attempt to make science look bad.

I understand and accept the fact that science has measurements it can perform to prove things, however I also recognize the limits of what those measurements can tell us. I don't believe that science is any better than religion, just different. I also consider it intellectual dishonesty to ignore the limits of science in order to assert a religious belief as fact. Science is merely a tool used to methodically observe and understand the world around us. I have no intention of trying to make it "look bad". Science is good, and is only useful when the limitations are understood and respected. Although you claim to be neither a evolutionist or a creationist, I can understand your reluctance to accept the fact that you have been consistently bombarded with atheistic and agnostic propaganda in the name of science. However, none of your "facts" are convincing proof that evolutionism is any less of a religion than any other faith-based belief system.

I conclude then that you have no "facts" that form a basis for evolutionism. I have no "facts" that form a basis for creationism besides the fact that it is told in the Bible. I concede that creation is my belief based on faith in the bible, but concur that evolution is nothing more than the same based on faith that the bible is wrong. I thank you for engaging in a little friendly dialog on this subject. Have a great day.

This is a bold absolute statement that can be easily disqualified. For the sake of our discussion, I'll assume that you are limiting your statement to the creation story and concede that it cannot be scientifically "proved". However, I'll say the same for the evolution story. So far then, both are on equal grounds, neither can be "proved".

I am speaking only of the Creation story. It's a STORY. Period. And again, you're completely wrong, they are not on equal grounds. I gave you some examples of 'evolution', I'm sorry you refuse to accept the facts at face value and continue to apply some notion that somehow a "STORY" is a story and scientific theory that has had some proofs and measures accomplished is somehow the same as a story.

Actually, I stated that both were based on belief and that the facts could be interpreted to support either belief system. Therefore I don't have to show you my evidence, because I rely on the same evidence that evolutionists rely on. Scientifically, ALL of the evidence must support the truth.

Umm.. NO, I'm not going to allow you to get away with this ridiculous statement. "Truth"? What do you mean by "truth"? I had this same damned argument with a Conspiracy theorist, who claimed "My truth is different than your truth"... we're not talking about "Truth" in a religious sense. We're talking about FACTS. Facts ARE truth, they don't SUPPORT the truth, they don't point to the truth. The TRUTH IS "Creationism" is a story, and it is told in 25 or 30 different languages, in similar terms, with similar stories, including the Bible. That's not "truth", that's a story.

Evolution has many FACTS which in and of themselves are truths. They do not necessarily prove evolutionism BEYOND a DOUBT. You have your doubts (and for that matter SO DO I). But, don't try to tell me that evolutionists (and I'm talking scientists) support their "belief" based on beliefs. That's False. They 'believe' that evolution is true based on factual evidence obtained in scientific studies. That's a lot different from "faith alone".

Actually, this is a gross oversimplification of evolution

Actually NO, it isn't a gross oversimplification. You're trying to make it more complex by adding in whatever you feel is appropriate for your argument. The discussion thread is about man creating a lifeform. You're the one throwing all the other stuff into the argument to complicate it. The defintion of evolution as defined by princeton's dictionary is:

# S: (n) development, evolution (a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)) "the development of his ideas took many years"; "the evolution of Greek civilization"; "the slow development of her skill as a writer"

# S: (n) evolution, organic evolution, phylogeny, phylogenesis ((biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms)

We're talking about the second one.

Wikipedia defines evolution as: In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next.

I will point you to this statement and link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28term%29

"One of the main sources of confusion and ambiguity in the creation-evolution debate is the definition of evolution itself. In the context of biology, evolution is simply the genetic change in populations of organisms over successive generations."

The word has many different definitions, but we are directly discussing one of those definitions. At least I am, you're the one wanting to confuse the subject with everything else. We're talking, in short, about "Man creating life" basically in a test tube. That implies one and only one thing here and that is does it meet certain parameters to qualify as a lifeform. Not whether or not evolution plays a part or anything else. So.. with that, I'm done with the discussion of Belief Versus Fact, because you're obviously not up to the argument at this point. I suggest further studies on your part.

Wrong. It is a theory that is based on the limited number of prehistoric bones and tissues that have been found, and assumptions that have been made based on what we know about bones and other tissues today.

No, I'm RIGHT. It is a KNOWN FACT based on written records of the heights and weights of various peoples, in various times. I'm not going to spend my time researching records to show you that you're wrong, however, I can tell you that you are because I've done such research in the past. If you want to BELIEVE that science is incapable of proving things, so be it, that's your bias and loss. Not mine.

I understand and accept the fact that science has measurements it can perform to prove things, however I also recognize the limits of what those measurements can tell us.

I also recognize the limits of measurements and do understand that mistakes can cause incorrect assumptions -- and your global warming example was perfect to show this, evolution is a whole different story. There is something called the scientific process, in which other factors come into play, that includes but is not limited to experimentation to prove various portions of a theory, one piece at a time, based on experimentation results, review and critique by others in the scientific community whom are familiar with the particular subject in great detail (and do find mistakes and can show reason that such believed facts are untrue). It is through this full process that evolution has come, and it is through this process that many variables have been thrown out and facts have been shown to be correct. It is upon the FACTS that the theory stands now, rather than a baseless storyline. Sorry, that is very much higher up on the scale of "believablity" that a story that has nothing upon which to base the story other than a writers word from more than 2000 years ago.

I don't believe that science is any better than religion, just different.

Nor do I, and like you, I think they are different. Rather like philosophy, wouldn't you say? Basing argument upon logical conclusions and factual information one can see and read for oneself makes an argument more convincing, than say a story told by someone we do not know, can't ask questions of, and must take it on faith alone.

I also consider it intellectual dishonesty to ignore the limits of science in order to assert a religious belief as fact.

By the same token, ignoring religious belief completely and discounting it is just as dishonest. I've done neither (and neither have you... for the most part). My argument is not that either religion or science should or necessarily WILL prevail in that Evolution-Creation debate. I'm not arguing for either side. I'm merely arguing that, as a quasi-scientist myself (I'm technically an "electronics technician" these days, and an electronics engineer - but have a very strong background in physics/astrophysics, and several other sciences) that there are strong reasons for "believing" one theory over another.

I do not take away from religious beliefs AT ALL by leaning toward Evolution... people can, in my opinion believe what they wish to believe (right or wrong). That's what this country is about. It's when one side attempts to force only one thing down the other side's throat that it becomes contentious. This is precisely what the Creationists have done. To me, this is something to be taught in Sunday School. And science should remain in the public and private schools. Period. Give both views, from different perspectives and you will see that two simply do NOT CLASH. (I was taught both in this manner, and I'm fine with both).

However, none of your "facts" are convincing proof that evolutionism is any less of a religion than any other faith-based belief system.

Well, I am not trying to convince you of this, but there is a difference in taking something on faith alone, and 'believing' something because it is taught based on facts. I personally am convinced however, that there are people who RELIGIOUSLY believe untrue things. The anti-Bush, Anti-US, Anti-NWO conspiracy theorists are RELIGIOUS in their incorrect beliefs that 9-11 was a government conspiracy, and Bush/Cheney were at the bottom of it, and that there is a hidden, secret government that is intent on taking their rights and making a one-world government, and there are concentration camps all over the US to hold those of us who do not go along with the NWO, or that there are forces in the Council of Foreign Relations, or some hidden Masonic groups, or the Illuminati who have no good in mind for any of us. Those are misdirected, but organized groups whom are directly responsible for passing and continuing to pass lies and misinformation in an effort to eventually undermine the US Government, Capitalism and the people of this country.

I've spent many, many years arguing similarly with them for different reasons. And your augments are based on similar 'facts', all of which go back to simply a belief system without any foundation other than "faith in a writer". Just as many Conspiracy Theories will fall quickly on their asses when you bring to bear a bit of research against the Conspiracy Theorist who will quote many things, in different locations, and with a wave of his had say simply, "It's all related" without showing the relationships. When you SHOW them their originator of a statement wasn't, and point to a document he read somewhere else, and to which all of them ultimately point to -- but the actual originator has NO BASIC FACTS to back his information up, or you find out it was based on erroneous material (like global warming) you can show malice on the part of the originator, and unfortunately, complicity on the the part of those perpetuating the story.

I conclude then that you have no "facts" that form a basis for evolutionism. I have no "facts" that form a basis for creationism besides the fact that it is told in the Bible. I concede that creation is my belief based on faith in the bible, but concur that evolution is nothing more than the same based on faith that the bible is wrong. I thank you for engaging in a little friendly dialog on this subject. Have a great day.

I conclude that I do have facts that DO form a basis for evolution (I haven't posted many, only a few -- and really, that's not what the original thread was about in the first place) but you simply refuse to ACCEPT something I say because you're biased with a different perspective on the subject.

I also concede that because of your "belief" based solely on your faith in the Bible (and I'm NOT saying that's a BAD thing so do NOT take me wrongly here) that you are biased to the point that you are UNWILLING to accept the scientific evidence so far, because you believe the two to be mutually exclusive. That, right there is the reason that science CAN prove things, and religion can not. Faith alone doesn't feed you, or your family. Science can't either - but, it can certainly genetically change a grain to make it produce more food (as has been done with corn, for instance, since the time of the American Indians. Corn produced LITTLE in the beginning, and over time has been genetically interbred with various other species of corn to produce strong corn stalks, bigger kernals, longer cobbs and so on - and this is an example of evolution, enabled by humans....)

I can't say that you're correct on your last statement... Evolution is not attempting to prove the Bible is wrong. That is a complete fabrication based on what folks want to think. The Bible has nothing whatsoever to do with science proving or disproving something. Science takes that which we can see, here and now, and tries to explain it from the simplest to the more complex, in a manner that takes what we KNOW into account. If I said that an island off the coast of California suddenly formed by MAGIC and wizards lived on that island because I saw nothing but smoke and steam bellowing from it, anyone with half a brain would tell me I was cracked. There's no such thing as "magic" science would say, and religious would say "Well, IF it was magic, it must be evil" - both sides would consider me crazy. Until someone went out there and found dragons and wizards doing battle. In the real world, that won't happen, the island will have been formed by volcanic action, and the only 'dragons' would be the molten lava flows. The wizards would likely have been in my mind.

Humans believe what they wish to believe, for their own, personal reasons. Sometimes for the good, and sometime for the ill. I would never say that for you or anyone else to believe in evolution is a bad thing. By the same token I would ask that those who do believe not try to force me to believe in something I see other evience for, and do not have to take a faith-based approach.

Thanks for the discussion.