|
|
|
Sixdays
New Member
20 Posts |
 Posted - 06/29/2002 : 19:24:29
|
Hi, I new here and before I start posting I have a question.
Am I allowed to be skeptical about the theory of evolution?
I'm skeptical about crop circles, Jonathan Edwards and UFO's. Big Foot and Locknest are probably a hoaxes and I've never seen a ghost.
BUT
Evolution seems a bit far fetched. Enough to make me a skeptic, that is, if it's all right with you.
I kinda like the six day theory.
Six days
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2002 : 19:50:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Am I allowed to be skeptical about the theory of evolution?
Of course you are allowed to be skeptical about the theory of evolution. Bear in mind though, that you will be expected to defend your position with some kind of verifiable evidence (and understand the difference between evidence and belief).
Also bear in mind that most us have already seen most of the standard arguments for the "Six Days" hypothesis. So do try to present something at least a little bit original. We get a little annoyed at having to rehash the same old creationist "proofs" again and again.
That being said, have at it. 
P.S. Before you begin, you might want to take a look at the archives at [url http://www.talkorigins.org/]. That way you will already be familiar with the refutations of some of the more common creationist arguments so we won't have to repeat any of those here.
Edited by - espritch on 06/29/2002 20:06:40 |
 |
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 03:19:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hi, I new here and before I start posting I have a question.
Am I allowed to be skeptical about the theory of evolution?
I'm skeptical about crop circles, Jonathan Edwards and UFO's. Big Foot and Locknest are probably a hoaxes and I've never seen a ghost.
BUT
Evolution seems a bit far fetched. Enough to make me a skeptic, that is, if it's all right with you.
I kinda like the six day theory.
Six days
Of course you are *allowed* to be skeptic of everything, there ideally supposed to be no taboos in skepticism. You can and should doubt everything and only keep those ideas or theories, that are most likely and need the fewest assumption and those models that closest predict reality. This is real skepticism not to be confused with the other dictionary definition of skeptic that is just synonymous with doubt.
The people, who are skeptic about evolution on a professional basis are scientist in the field of evolutionary biology.
My favorite theories on the topic are the ones, that involve dragon- or giant-slaying much more interesting then a week of magic incantations. Of course as a skeptic I have to admit that a literal reading of the stories involving Ymir or Tiamat don't really fit well with the observable facts, but they are still interesting myths.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 06:57:42 [Permalink]
|
Hi Six, and welcome!
Skepticism of any topic is good, but an open mind is necessary. Just because we are skeptics should not be taken to mean that we refuse to listen. Unfortunatly, all too many of the Creationists who visit us have minds closed tighter than a clam at low tide.
Skeptical of the Theory, huh (filthy smells fresh meat and begins to salivate)? Come, let us reason together.
So again, welcome aboard. Looking forward to your input.
f
Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it.... Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory.
-- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart (source unknown)
|
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 07:26:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Evolution seems a bit far fetched. Enough to make me a skeptic, that is, if it's all right with you.
I kinda like the six day theory.
Allrighty then, lets hear your opinion of the six-day theory. Looking forward to hearing it.
Probably help to go to talkorigins and even the earlier posts in the creation/evolution section of this forum so things don't have to be said again.
filthy is salivating so I'm looking forward to reading the debate 
I am just interested to know why evolution is so much more far-fetched than, well, the universe being created in six days and other assorted unproven oddities.
"Damn you people. Go back to your shanties." --- Shooter McGavin
Oh, by the way, it's the Loch Ness Monster and I'm sure Groundskeeper Willie isn't so skeptical of him, in fact didn't Mr Burns catch nessie and display him in Springfield?????
Edited by - gezzam on 06/30/2002 07:31:15 |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 09:44:14 [Permalink]
|
Six Days, did you go to the same school as this person who said this on another forum?
"LOL I was never taugt evolution till I went to college. My highschool science teacher didn't believe in evolution so didn't teach it, just gave us worksheets to fill out, using the book and that was our grade for the chapter on evolution."
Super stuff from that particular teacher, almost child abuse I reckon.
"Damn you people. Go back to your shanties." --- Shooter McGavin |
|
|
|
Sixdays
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 11:38:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Six Days, did you go to the same school as this person who said this on another forum?
"LOL I was never taugt evolution till I went to college. My highschool science teacher didn't believe in evolution so didn't teach it, just gave us worksheets to fill out, using the book and that was our grade for the chapter on evolution."
Super stuff from that particular teacher, almost child abuse I reckon.
"Damn you people. Go back to your shanties." --- Shooter McGavin
No. My science teacher taught evolution was indeed fact..
Later as I studied the issue of evolution where I learned it had a lot of problems.
I soon discovered that the info presented in Genesis could be studied scientifically. Of course the fiat of creation would be a bit difficult to study, but the flood and the scars it left behind could be studied.
Six days |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 11:45:47 [Permalink]
|
I suggest you get more specific than you "found a lot of problems" and present good, solid evidence when you suggest that "the flood and the scars it left behind could be studied"
Creation itself has nothing at all to do with evolution so you might as well leave all that out of any evolution discussion.
I would be interested in seeing some evidence of a global flood. You would be very famous too because scientists have been waiting for this evidence for centuries and for you to suddenly produce it will be huge news to scientists. But if this evidence is from the usual old and tired creationist pseudoscientific literature don't be surprised if we are less than impressed. We are used to claims of evidence that are big on words and small in actual data.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Sixdays
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 13:12:53 [Permalink]
|
@tomic, There is a lot of flood evidence that can be presented. I think the question is whether or not you're allowed to accept it.
One example is Specimen Ridge...working from memory....I believe it contains a few different strata of petrified trees. Each strata is suposed to represent a different forrest from a different time frame. One thing I learned through creation science studies is that Spirit lake near Mt. St Helens is forming something very similar to Specimen Ridge. At Spirit lake trees are sinking and slowley getting covered up with sediment.. Although not the flood, this lake is demonstrating that Specimen Ridge could have been caused by the great flood mentioned in Genesis.
Other examples are the quick formation of canyons when a dam broke at the top of Mt. St. Helens and carved out what has been dubbed as the "Little Grand Canyon" in a short period of time. Scientist have shown where 3 lakes once existed at the head of the Grand Canyon and spilled out and formed the Grand canyon also very rapidly.
These are ust a few examples where scientific studies have been conducted to see the scars of Noahs Flood.
These possibilities presentd above cast doubt on some of the long time frames presented in evolutionary science.
Six days |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 13:28:09 [Permalink]
|
There is a good article dealing with the spirit lake sediments at talkorigins.org. In short they are nowhere near what creationist would like them to be.
The rapid erosion at the Mount St. Helens is also an old argument that fails to recognize, that volcanic ash is not really comparable to limestone. There is probably an article on that too somewhere on the talkorignis website.
Edited to add the question, what conection either example had with the supposed world wide flood or evolution? Just pointing out errors in the current scientific theory of geology does not make creationism true by default. If you found real errors in todays geological model (instead of imaginery ones) it would just mean that we had to change the current geological model. In order to get it changed to your theory you also have to bring forth evidence for your theory.
Edited by - Lars_H on 06/30/2002 13:38:17 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 14:05:15 [Permalink]
|
Trees upright through multiple layers of strata?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ome creationist presentations include claims about "polystrate fossils". From the description, this term is used for fossils which intersect several beds (layers), usually in sedimentary rocks. Although often used in creationist literature, I have been unable to determine the origin of the term -- it is not a standard geological term. This makes it difficult for the uninitiated to find conventional literature about these fossils. This presentation attempts to explain what "polystrate fossils" are, and offers a critique of claims made about them. If you have any questions, feel free to contact the author via e-mail. I have seen plenty of examples of "polystrate" fossils in the field.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
Nothing amazing nor even out of the ordinary here.
There is exactly zero evidence in the Geologic Column for a world wide flood. If such an event had happened, the resulting sediments would have been glaringly obvious in the most recent strata. They would also have contained an incredable amount of the remains of all of the worlds plants and animals, including Homo sapiens. All of these remains would have been closely associated with each other due to the catastrophic cause of death. Conditions for preservation and fossilization couldn't have been better.
Further, if the Flood story were true, the world would be a vastly different place from what it is today. It is highly unlikely that any of the ark's species would be around due to a fataly diminished gene pool. f
Further yet, the described ark it'self, even if all those species could have been somehow been crammed aboard, would never have survived the flood seas; but I'll leave that for another post.
luck,
Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it.... Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory.
-- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart (source unknown)
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 14:14:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think the question is whether or not you're allowed to accept it.
Hello 6.
Question, who, or what, do you think it is that allows Skeptics to consider something as fact? What do you think it is that controls us?
Also, what do you think of the "One Day" theory? That comes from Hawaii. One day the god Maui was fishing and he pulled out all the islands that make up the entire world with his giant fish hook. They offer proof because Maui tossed this hook into the sky. We know it as Scorpio.
Or the Maori theory that the great god Tane' created men and women from coconuts. The proof is that you can still see a little face, two eyes and a mouth, on the top of every coconut.
But these theories come from about the same time as the "6 day theory" (this would be a good time for you to look up what the word theory actually means) and were arrived at by exactly the same process. Do they not then deserve equal consideration?
Personally I would say that they all deserve exactly the same degree of consideration.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Sixdays
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 14:58:23 [Permalink]
|
I'm not really intersted n getting into a "link war"
For example, I've noticed a few links to Talk.Origins. I in return could present a few links that present the theories I mentioned above quite scientifically. These scientific sites presented by guys with degrees before their names give me ample reason to be skeptic about evolution.
I feel the reason why most of you are skeptic about Genesis and the accounts presented there are due to your lack in a faith in God.
I feel the models and opinions presented by the creationist are quite stable.
Six Days
Six days |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 15:32:27 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, stable as long as they don't try to go toe to toe with science and that's the problem. What you are saying is not true. First, you come in here saying that there is ample evidence and you produce yet another of those tired old creationist misrepresentations. You were given good information in the form of not one but several links and those links have more references to other links and books and studies. It's not a link war. You feel it is because the only people that have published what you want to hear are creationists that set out to prove their position any way they can. That's not science. You have shown that you don't understand how science works so I suggest you check it out. See, science is not afraid if a theory is proven wrong and many scientists attempt to do just that but guess what? After well over a century all attempts at disproving evolution have fallen short. Perhaps someday we'll see the argument that blasts evolution apart but you are not going to do it with false data and lies. A faith that must support itself with lies is not science and do you know why? I've already said it. It has never stood up to scientific scrutiny. That's why creationist books only use themselves as references. The rest of science has checked out these claims and has thrown them out. Next.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Rift
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 15:34:48 [Permalink]
|
No need to get in a Link War, Talk.orgins has a HUGE library of Links to creationist sites, probably the largest on the web. I've been to most of them, if not all...
I've always found it telling that Talk.Origins links creationists, but they hardly ever return the favor...
In fact, most of us here are quite familar with the creationist arguments, and the leading proponents credintials.
As for why I'm skeptical about Genesis, it has nothing to do with my lack of faith in God. I believe in God... In fact I would claim that my faith in God is rather strong since it doesn't need the bible...
As for other "One Day Theories" I'm quite fond of the Northwest Native American myth, Raven cracked open a nut and out popped a man and a woman. Has as much 'science' behind it, and can be just as well verified as anything in Genesis.
"Ignorance has caused more calamity then malignity" H.G. Wells |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
