Creation and Evolution, what are the best arguments for and against each?

Created: 2011-08-16 19:30:58
Add Reply | Receive notifications for this topic
jleveille1408 US (SC) bronze New Poster Total posts: 6 Status: Offline Date of Birth: 94-07-11 Total Earnings: $2.39	reply date: 2011-08-16 19:30:58 I was wondering if people could post what they think the best arguments for and against Young Earth Creationism, and Evolution are. Thanks for participating!!

jleveille1408 US (SC) bronze New Poster Total posts: 6 Status: Offline Date of Birth: 94-07-11 Total Earnings: $2.39	reply date: 2011-08-16 19:33:33 So far I think that they are : The Distant Starlight Dilemma and How did the Transitional forms mate? There are stars millions of light years away from earth, that we can see from earth. if the earth is only a few thousand years old, then why has the light from those stars reached us? Natural selection would have to evolve transitional forms, two at a time, for the transitional forms to survive. The odds of that happening are insanely great.

jimfish UK elite Points2shop is my specialty Total posts: 1332 Status: Offline Total Earnings: $1272.9	reply date: 2011-08-17 05:02:44 last edited on: 2011-08-17 05:03:34 I don't think one can have an scientific argument against creationism, simply because creationism doesn't have a legitimate leg to stand on in the first place, because it's not science. Case in point, science observes, then explains, before coming to a conclusion. Creationism, however, starts with a conclusion (i.e. a wizard did it, because he said so in this book) and then looks around for any phenomena that might, even ever so slightly, support this conclusion, and ignoring anything (i.e. everything ever) that contradicts it. A.K.A. the "shoot an arrow into a wall and draw a bull's eye around it and claiming you win" approach. Also in point, science changes. As more observations are made, more evidence is collected, theories grow, mistakes corrected, knowledge advanced. If a theory is proven wrong, it'll go back to observation, to try again to understand the explanation. Creationism cannot be proven wrong, nor can it change, because it has a fixed agenda; to prove Genesis. It's nothing more than slapping a shoddily printed "SCIENCE" cover on a Bible and hoping that's enough to sneak it into (decidedly American) schools. You only need one argument against Creationism, and that's it. To actually critique, counter, or plain prove wrong any theory that Creationism puts out, no matter how trivial or ridiculously stupid it is, is to indulge and validate them, like welcoming a vampire into your house. Just don't answer the door when they knock. Here endth the lesson.

jleveille1408 US (SC) bronze New Poster Total posts: 6 Status: Offline Date of Birth: 94-07-11 Total Earnings: $2.39	reply date: 2011-08-28 15:03:12 last edited on: 2011-08-28 15:05:00 ” I don't think one canhave an scientific argument against creationism, simply because creationism doesn't have a legitimate leg to stand on in the first place, because it's not science. Case in point, science observes, then explains, before coming to a conclusion. Creationism, however, starts with a conclusion (i.e. a wizard did it, because he said so in this book) and then looks around for any phenomena that might, even ever so slightly, support this conclusion, and ignoring anything (i.e. everything ever) that contradicts it. A.K.A. the "shoot an arrow into a wall and draw a bull's eye around it and claiming you win" approach. Also in point, science changes. As more observations are made, more evidence is collected, theories grow, mistakes corrected, knowledge advanced. If a theory is proven wrong, it'll go back to observation, to try again to understand the explanation. Creationism cannot be proven wrong, nor can it change, because it has a fixed agenda; to prove Genesis. It's nothing more than slapping a shoddily printed "SCIENCE" cover on a Bible and hoping that's enough to sneak it into (decidedly American) schools. You only need one argument against Creationism, and that's it. To actually critique, counter, or plain prove wrong any theory that Creationism puts out, no matter how trivial or ridiculously stupid it is, is to indulge and validate them, like welcoming a vampire into your house. Just don't answer the door when they knock. Here endth the lesson. jimfish Have you even researched??? Creation Science, uses scientific findings, to prove Creation, if scientific findings aren't valid, then what is??? Charles Darwin said that it takes more faith to believe in evolution, than it does to believe in Creation!!! www.answersingenesis.org has all the information, you can look on their site, to find any answers you need!!

You are not logged in.