does science prove creation or evolution?
Oh boy, here we go! Ding ding. Round 1.
Side Score: 116
Side Score: 169
THIS EXTENDED ARGUMENT SHOULD BE DEDUCTIVE AND SOUND
premise 1( Since The second law of logic states that two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time.) premise2(and the statement "absolute nothingness is the absence of all things" ,and the statement "absolute nothingness exists"are contradictory CONCLUSION A: Then These two statements cannot exist at the same time,CONCLUSION B:(( [[[and knowing that absolute nothingness always was and always will be the absence of all things and is a fact]]] we can also conclude that absolute nothing cannot come to exist because it would instantly be invalid due to the second law of contradiction.CONCLUSION 3: something cannot come from nothing becasue nothing never existed CONCLUSION4: something must have always existed. CONCLUSION 5:since observable evidence of the universe states the universe is finite had a beginning we can conlude that the something that always existed is not the universe CONLUSION 6:The thing that always existed caused the universe to come to existence(created it)CONCLUSION 7:language is evidence of intelligence and DNA contains language therefore this CREATOR IS HIGHLY POWERFUL AND HIGHLY INTELLIGENT!!!!!
Those are some cool laws and all, but you misinterpret what is meant by the term "nothing". So to say X being wrongly understood as Y does not make it equivalent to Y. When physicist use the term "nothing" (regarding origin) the nothing they assert is an extremely complicated understanding. For the general population (i.e. non-physicist), simplistic explanations are necessitated. So when they use this "nothingness" as a simplistic explanation, it is suggested as child, that when you do not understand something you look it up. Nothing is ambiguous in the way general public use it.
You had a extraordinary climactic build-up with your conclusions...... then come up with: "CREATOR IS HIGHLY POWERFUL AND HIGHLY INTELLIGENT"? I was sadly disappointed. So because of your ideology, you leave out other points that make this conclusion problematic.
Points such as: "The universe began to exist". No amount of logic can refute the fact that 'we don't know' if something can just 'always exist'. By your disappointing conclusion, you seem to believe that something (or someone) can always exist. But, again, because of your ideologies (probably religion) you deny that it is possible for the universe to have always existed. Sad really.
And I suppose that "language DNA" fact was to enhance the quality of your conclusion right?
CONCLUSION 5:since observable evidence of the universe states the universe is finite had a beginning we can conlude that the something that always existed is not the universe
Hysterical. If this was 100% true and not a strong "appearance", there would be no room for debate amongst, physicist, philosophers, scientist, etc., now would it? The evidence is the universe expanding, the disputations come in with what said expansion of the universe means.
And for you to draw conclusion 6 to be "God" from conclusion 4, is an absolute asininely asserted absurdity. (I will let my opinion of your intelligibility level slide because I am going to assume your reasoning skills have been constrained due to indoctrination.) You mean to tell me, you could not have possibly drawn any other conclusion of your presumed "nothing"? Not 1? Wow. Maybe it was Santa’s intentions so that you don’t become persuaded. Who knows, right? Ha.
Lastly, who the hell is this referring to? Did you just learn this topic in logic or philosophy class, and then become an opportunist when you saw this debate title? You did not even wait for someone to post a cosmological-like argument before posting this fallible refutation. Oh, that’s right, you had too much exuberance from newly learned knowledge that you just went right to it.
Can you explain what evidence you would need to convince you that evolution exists?
This isn't a hard question to answer at all. All I want is one of many transformation creatures that evolutionist claim to have existed to exist.
Science today is proving it has become tied to politics. The Global warming alarmists trying to push their environmental mandates have usurped many scientists to help push their agendas no matter the facts going contrary to their theories.
Global average temperatures have not risen in 18 years. All those forecast ed hurricanes have not materialized. Coastal homes are not falling into the Ocean.
Science has become a tool for politicians, all for the sake of getting funding for projects. Sickening.
Science today is proving it has become tied to politics.
Yes, many politicians have involved themselves in things best left to scientists (who all agree that the globe is warming and only disagree on the degree to which it's related to human activity).
Global average temperatures have not risen in 18 years.
Of course, not only is your post WAY off topic, but I have specifically responded to your assertion and I'll just point out that you have yet to rebut.
Science has become a tool for politicians
and cigarette companies, and oil companies, and...
Ok. since no one seems to want to put any evidence of creation on here, I'm going to liven up the debate a bit. For those opposed, I would love to hear your responses. According to the Institute for Creation Research, one evidence for Creation is the positioning of the earth within the universe. according to the Institute, our solar system appears to be in the center of the galaxy and all of the galaxies around us seem to be moving away from us in all directions. Also, the cosmic microwave background radiation seems to come at us uniformly from all directions. This, giving the earth a special location by design. Models of physical cosmology assume the earth is not special and that the same phenomenon would be experienced at any point in the universe. Instead of a universe with an age measured in thousands of years, this leads us to the universe with its age measured in billions of years. Creation cosmologies explain this better by having a center of the universe of which the earth is near. Thoughts? Rebuttals?
Our "special place" in the universe is merely an optical illusion that you can test out yourself.
Other creationist claims like the time frame of thousands of years just do not fit the evidence.
Radiometric dating things on earth also don't jive with a timeline of thousands of years.
The creationist response to dating things utilizing carbon dating: atoms are made up of protons neutrons and electrons. the number of protons in the nucleus of an atom determines the element, while the number of neutrons can vary in any given atom. I.e. all carbon atoms have 6 protons, but may have 6, 7 or 8 neutrons. An "isotope" is any of several different forms of an element, each having different numbers of neutrons. Carbon has three isotopes. Some isotopes of certain elements are unstable; they can spontaneously change into another kind of atom in a process called "radioactive decay." Since this process presently happens at a known measured rate, scientists attempt to use it like a clock to tell how long ago a rock or fossil formed. The method used to date fossils is called carbon 14 dating. Creationists would not argue the procedure, but the interpretation of the procedure. If the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 has always been, then current scientific data is accurate up to 80 thousand years. Beyond this number the instruments that scientists use would not be able to detect enough carbon 14 to be useful in age estimates. If not true, this method would give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? if the production of carbon-14 is not equal to the removal rate, this ratio could change. the amount of carbon 14 being produced in the atmosphere must be equal to the removal rate to be in a steady state. If assumptions on the starting rate of carbon-14 in living organisms are false, then the conclusions would also be false. Creationists will point to these as factors in why the rate of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has changed: 1 the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 in our atmosphere today is not stable. 2 a stronger magnetic field would have changed the ratio, and the magnetic field is continuously getting weaker. 3 the flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms. 4 the amount of fossil fuels shows that there were larger amounts of vegetation on the earth before the flood, which would have caused the biosphere to have more carbon in it. All of this, making the assumptions of carbon 14 dating unreliable. Thoughts? Rebuttals? these arguments are all taken from creationist websites. they seem to be convincing arguments, but can they be countered by evolutionary theories?
Second argument, with the Institute for Creation Research as the source ( the previous argument was the Physical sciences, this argument is the earth sciences) the ICR says: the Flood gives us keys to scientific mysteries such as why marine life fossils can be found on some of the highest mountain peaks in the world and widespread strata blankets. They also argue that a global flood provides a better explanation for the Ice Age. Scientists do not have an adequate natural cause for an ice age and that the Flood could explain it. They say the Flood would have provided the two conditions necessary for an ice age to exist. Warm oceans and aerosols. This, leading many geologists to construct a global flood model for earth's history.
the Flood gives us keys to scientific mysteries such as why marine life fossils can be found on some of the highest mountain peaks in the world and widespread strata blankets.
They need to update their website then, because this thing hasn't been close to being a mystery since continental drift was verified a few decades ago. We know the continental plates move and collide. We know that anywhere that is a mountain range now has spent more of its existence NOT being a mountain range. I live next to the Rockies, and it is quite easy to go up into the mountains and find evidence of any given spot being a desert, a swamp, under inland seas and even oceans at different point in the past few billion years.
A marine fossil gets trapped when the region was under ocean. It then stays there when the plate collides with another and then forms a mountain range in the spot.
Meanwhile, plates can also break away from each other. This is why some fossils in South America are identical to fossils in Africa. There may be a huge old ocean between them now, but this was not always the case. At several points, all the plates were connected in giant landmasses.
As far as all of this Ice Age business....which one are they talking about?
Scientists do not have an adequate natural cause for an ice age
This is BS. We know multiple methods for causing ice ages: change in ocean currents during continental drift, fluctuations in sun cycles, changing concentrations of green house gasses, volcanic activity limiting sunlight...and on and on.
These people sound like they are quoting a text book from 1903. They need to catch up with the times.
However, that is the explanation coming from the point of view of evolutionists whereas the flood perfectly explains the same phenomenon. one thing I have noticed, as I have studied both sides of this debate, is that the "evidence" that each side has is defined by each side according to what fits best for them. this is a perfect example.I am readily coming to the conclusion that neither creation nor evolution is provable by science, because #1 there are far too many assumptions that have to be determined, #2 there are too many invariables they can only be explained by assumption leaving us with too much human opinion and bias to take it as concrete fact. most of us believe that evolution is true, because that is what we were told in school and on television programs. However, the case can be made for creation as well with just as much relevance as evolution. that is my humble opinion, based on what I have seen so far. you said at the top of this that science proves nothing, and I believe I am beginning to agree with you.
Last argument from the Life sciences ( this being from the ICR, as well). life was created fully functional, and that variation is limited within kinds. changes in basic kinds are limited to variations within the kinds. Harmful mutations lead to extinction, not new complex systems. The gene pools within plants and animals allow that kind to produce a variety of types within the kind, so as to ensure survival of that kind of organism. the example given is different breeds of dogs. in spite of the fact that there are many breeds of dogs, they are still all dogs. Answers? Rebuttals?
life was created fully functional
That is a religious argument that has no evidence. If it did, creationism could actually stand as a proper science. But due to the lack of such evidence, creationism has no long to stand on.
and that variation is limited within kinds.
What is a "kind"? Species, genus, family? Where and how is the line drawn? Who drew that line? We can't even come up with a universal way to delineate between species. As far as we can tell, there is no hard and fast line at any level. The only reason there appears to be is because of how slowly evolution operates.
Harmful mutations lead to extinction, not new complex systems
Harmful mutations often don't get spread far enough to cause a species to go extinct. "Neutral" mutations are much more prevalent and can collect over many generations to cause impressive but gradual change.
Also, nobody ever said mutation was the ONLY way for a species to evolve. At least nobody who knows the nuts and bolts of evolution.
in spite of the fact that there are many breeds of dogs, they are still all dogs.
Not all breeds can reproduce with each other. Also, come back in a few million years and tell me they are all still dogs. You can't use a process that is a few thousand years old to invalidate a process that takes millions.
The funny thing to me is that scientist say it takes millions of years for this process to happen, but humanity (obviously) has not been around long enough to know this as fact. This is just an objective thought regarding the matter, not necessarily a dispute. The evidence, according to both sides, is not the problem. it is the interpretation of that evidence. Christians obviously want creation to be true, whereas many atheists want evolution to be true. So, where do we think each side is going to lean the evidence towards? When each side comes out with something that the other does not understand, it will take time for the other to refute, reexamine and adapt. My guess is they will be arguing this issue for some time to come.
I believe there should have been a third option for this debate. Creation, evolution and neither. Creation and evolution are more ideals than fact. One side believes in God, the other does not. Both creationism and evolution help reinforce each sides opinions. Creationism vs evolution is not so much a war of facts as it is a war of belief systems. I'll remember that next time I watch a show on history channel. This has been a very interesting debate.
Think about the first life form. It had to reproduce heterosexually, because it was all alone. Then think of its "children". Eventually, one mutated to reproduce sexually. However, that one mutant had to find another just like it in order to produce offspring. There had to be two mutations at the same time! And they had to come across each other! Also, the first life form ever had to be able to reproduce immediately. It couldn't "evolve" that function, because it had no "children"! Think of it! Lightning struck some goo, and instantly there was a creature capable of survival and reproduction! It just doesn't make sense!
What does evolution attempt to explain the existence of? The things that we can see and experience around us, Physical things. So evolution does not explain non tangible things such as logic, why can't two contradictory statements both be true at the same time? Why do things such as gravity work the same in the past as they do now and will always?
I'm still waiting for someone to dispute me.
On the contrair I am addressing things that have everything to do with evolution. It is every bodies presuppositions that we have the ability to acquire knowledge (you wouldn't be reding this if you didn't) So if there is no way that evolution could have provided laws of logic or knowledge in general, the theory fails.
Science does prove evolution, it however can not prove creation. So if Srom specifically were to pick that side, he'd be proving what a moron he is.
Sorry to single him out specifically, but honestly no one would be foolish enough to say science proves Creationism. Even if you don't believe in evolution, and do believe in Creationism, to say science supports creation is too wrong to argue with.
One would be just as big a fool to say that science has proved evolution, there is a reason why it is theory and that scientist themselves are not all in support of evolution.
Creationists holding science doctorates currently living
■Agard, E. Theo
■Humphreys, D. Russell
■Koop, C. Everett
■Peet, J. H. John
■Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest
In your list of less than 100 people:
- several are removed from the current version
- many have no background in fields related to evolution (e.g. Psychology, Mechanical Engineering, Aeronautics, Dentistry, etc.)
- many more have degrees from bible universities like Bob Jones, Liberty, Cedarville, and California Baptist University or unaccredited schools like Columbia Pacific University
Moreover, listing a name is different than posting an argument. If I just copy and pasted the names of hundreds of thousands of scientists in actual fields related to evolution, would that convince you that it was true?
It is also worth examining the claims some of them make:
"As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."
- Kurt Wise
and the rebuttals to their claims (e.g http://www.oldearth.org/profiles/
"there is a reason why it is theory and that scientists themselves are not all in support of evolution."
There is a misunderstanding of the scientific definition of the word "theory" and that not all scientists not all in support of evolution are false because there is scientific consensus that evolution is the most accurate at explaining the diversity of life.
The whole list is based on the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
Technicially, neither. Science doesn't prove anything, it supports good ideas and invalidates bad ones.
But in terms of evidential support, at least in the context of the most common Christian notions of the subject, Evolutionn by natural selection winds hands down.
We've SEEN speciation events in the wild. Genetic sequencing has demonstrable predictive capabilities in the fields of medicine, ecology and paleontology. The fossil record is simple and clear. Computer programs using evolutionary principals put through a rapid sequence that simulates millions of years in a few days have yielded wings that are BETTER than what we've designed.
We still haven't worked out abiogenesis. So being perfectly fair, we could say that God, IF s/he exists, could have created the first organisms. But it is perfectly clear that IF God started it with magic, s/he used evolution to sculpt every living thing.
If creation is real then how come carbon dating and other scientific methods prove that there are things way older than the 6000-10000 years that creationists think it has only been around for?
There is a lot of scientific evidence for evolution and absolutely none for creationism.
Let me get this straight, you rule out creation because the earth is older than the authors of the Bible said it was. What do you do when something in science isn't what they thought it was? My guess is that your faith in science is far greater than you think it is.
Creationism is humanity's way of spitting out answers to the big questions, because for some reason humans feel the need to know why they exist. If you told the stories of Santa, the Tooth Fairy and Jesus, which one are they most likely to not believe? It doesn't really matter why we exist. We just do, and we should just be cool about it. The Universe is pretty big. The observable Universe is about 92 million light years in diameter, which is about 5.3964403e+20 (539,644,030,000,000,000,000) miles. We really are so insignificant, and I understand the desire to know the answers, and to feel some sort of spiritual belonging. But 1) religion and spirituality are not the same, and 2) it's not like we need those answers to live and be healthy and successful. Religion does good things, don't get me wrong. But a) more bad than good is done with religion, and b) those good things could've most likely been done without religion. It's just so unnecessary.
The theory of evolution is currently the best explanation for the diversity and complexity of life, given the available evidence.
I think an import point for creationists to consider is that even if the theory of evolution were conclusively proven wrong, that wouldn't mean that creationism wins by default. It would simply mean that we don't know the answer and more investigation is necessary. In order for a theory to be validated, evidence must be presented, and as far as I can tell, no convincing evidence has been presented in favor of creationism. For those who think creationism does have supporting evidence, I highly recommend visiting talkorigins.org.
No supporting evidence for creationism has ever been produced? Really? Do your research. Evolution only explains the existence of physical things. It does not give any answers for non physical things such as laws of logic, of knowledge. How would we know that things will work the same in the future as they have in the past. How do we know that two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time? How is knowledge that enabled darwin to come up with this theory even possible without a god? In this way Evolution discounts itself by contradicting the way it was invented in the first place.
No supporting evidence for creationism has ever been produced? Really? Do your research.
Just googled it. Nothing. Research complete.
Evolution only explains the existence of physical things.
Oh no, how terrible. The theory of gravity only describes gravity. Let's throw it out.
How would we know that things will work the same in the future as they have in the past.
No reason to believe otherwise. You imagining things to be different doesn't mean anything.
How do we know that two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time?
This is a construct created by humans.
How is knowledge that enabled darwin to come up with this theory even possible without a god?
Humans have senses. Most of us use our senses to observe things. No need for god.
In this way Evolution discounts itself by contradicting the way it was invented in the first place.
Sorry, begging the question is not a valid argument.
It should be pointed out that evolution in no way, shape or form explains the origin and creation of the universe. It has nothing to do with physics, astronomy or cosmology.
Evolution is a biological process where life gradually changes over generations.
Science proves evolution in every way scientific.
Creation is only proved by people pointing their finger in their "Holy Books". In the field of science, the creationist "point of view" or "understanding" is not acceptable, since it has absolutely no evidence. Those who support and propagate it lack the most basic understanding of physics and biology. Most of them have no clue what evolution even is, meanwhile sticking to their own fantasy definitions of scientific terms that their pastors taught them and brainwashing children.
NO, science hasn't, and probably never will prove creation since it is illogical and empty of evidence.