Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[OSD 10]

In the Bible it says that Noah and his descendants then repopulated the earth. As his sons could have eventually gotten to China then renamed Noah as the Chinese dude who stopped the flood. You say the Bible is a COMPLTELY false document? Why then has NOTHING been proven wrong that was in the Bible?

You honestly don't see the contradiction of what you just said? Yu controlled the floods, he didn't survive it, he didn't build an ark, a boat, a floating fortress, etc.. to ride it out, none of the recorded folklore even MENTION anything similar to it. What was passed down was he saved his people during his reign when the floods came, and that he was a good king worthy of Shung. Additionally, the chinese would not have fit the tale concerning "the city and its tower" as they did not migrate west during this time period as they settled the regions further to the south and east after the flood.

Do you not know what a historic fiction is? It's a made-up story set in a real historic event. Where did I say the bible is COMPLETELY false? The term implies that the setting is factual while the a fictitious tale is told. Please stop using biased eyes to view clear statements, this is not fox news. I specifically said the chinese record, the bible and sedimentary record ALL agree on the massive flood, what I did say was false was yahweh destroying all of his creation with flood to start anew. If that were to be true, there would have been no new records about anything for a period of time immediately after the flood. Additionally, the proto-mongols had their own folklore about their tribes' struggle from before, during and after the flood. This is an unbroken continuation of their existence from before the big reset button was pressed, which can't be right because the christian god wiped out everything. Unsurprisingly enough, some of these same folklore can still be heard as legends and myths in Mongolia today.

As for the bible haven't been "proven" wrong historically, way to pull an ad ignorantiam. Very typical, really, it has been the clutch of creationists since the 16th century, way to continue the tradition! Well, I will indulge you for a bit. Just look at your own reply. No matter how clear one's statement is, it will always be twisted into something else. And then, with the plentiful help of logical fallacies, the argument would turn into a game of "but the bible says so and you can't prove otherwise" or "everything the bible is true, so you must be lying". Most scholars from different cultures have already given up on trying to discuss theology with christians early on in their history (koreans being the sole exception) as the christians were more interested in taking over their land and resources anyways.

Now allow me to return the same trick on you, when have the chinese mythos been proven wrong? It specifically said that a great demon tried to destroy all of creation! Wait, creation wasn't destroyed, way to go jade emperor! Even better, the mythos continued uninterrupted, they even have guan yu as the current successor of the heavenly kingdom! Since the mythos can't be proven wrong, the demon must have been yahweh, there were no one else that tried to destroy all of creation! Why that evil bastard!

Creationism is merely a religious tool that certain groups of christians are using to gain further influence than what they currently have. It is not science, it does not follow logic nor reason, it doesn't make a difference in any sort of scientific endeavour, other scientists from other cultures couldn't care less. The only reason creationism is even discussed in academia right now is because scientists want to keep the power-hungry theologians at bay. Evolution is a scientific theory, it is still going thru the rigors of the scientific method, but it doesn't mean that can't be wrong and it's absolutely fine if it is. But at its core, it's still more logical, reasonable and probable than "proofs" that have relied on logical fallacies to stay afloat for the last 4-5 centuries about a source from about two millennium ago.

As for aliens (inorganic), yes! Although this has to do more with abiogenesis than the topic at hand, it's a most likely source of life. Astrobiology have theorized that the plentiful cyanogen (inorganic) on an asteroid, upon interaction with hydrogen and h2o (both are also inorganic), can produce organic cyano groups. This would mean that life didn't have to rely on a random cocktail for life to emerge. As such, the arguments against it via parallel lineage and a different form of DNA due to randomization would become totally ineffective!

TL;DR, only logical fallacies can protect the bible as the truth. Creationism should not even be compared to evolution since one belongs to theology while the other belongs to science.

[no longer active 734]

The Bible's truthfulness is a bit off topic, let's get back to the main debate.

[Space 2335]

The Bible's truthfulness is a bit off topic, let's get back to the main debate.

But.... That's the whole topic :(.

But, here's one thing; could Creationism ever be proven without a second coming of Christ or a massive public divine intervention? No! Could evolution? Hells to the yeah.

[Samson (Derick) 123]

I believe in creation, because if in the last fifty or so years, we have tons of fossils of birds, fish, and wildlife in general, don't you think that over millions of years of evolution, that their would be tons of fossils around? It just doesn't make sense to me. I've grown up a christian, and have been to a variety of different countries, and learned about allot of religions. You can call be one sided, and or close minded, but it's what I believe.

I do believe in evolution. I think that organisms evolve a little over a long period of time.

Like most logical people, I'm on the side of evolution. But I won't get into the science just yet, hell, I'll even save that for last!

I kinda find that offensive. I'd like to have a debate without insulting peoples logic skills because they do not believe what you do.

P.S. It would be an honor for you to label me a Jesus freak. =3

[AlphaCentaurus 173]

Firstly, a huge tip of the hat to OSD for handling some of the arguments with incredibly awesome rebuttals.

I believe in creation, because if in the last fifty or so years, we have tons of fossils of birds, fish, and wildlife in general, don't you think that over millions of years of evolution, that their would be tons of fossils around? It just doesn't make sense to me. I've grown up a christian, and have been to a variety of different countries, and learned about allot of religions. You can call be one sided, and or close minded, but it's what I believe.

I don't understand this. It seems that you are directly contradicting yourself in a single sentence. "We have tons of fossils... why don't we have tons of fossils?" Could you please rephrase this?

P.S. It would be an honor for you to label me a Jesus freak. =3

Because fanaticism is a label we strive for in a "rational" debate.

Now, it seems that this debate his wound down - pretty much all of the Creationists' points have ben firmly rebutted. Should we call it a close?

[OSD 10]

The Bible's truthfulness is a bit off topic, let's get back to the main debate.

It's completely on topic, it's the one main staple in the vast majority of creationist theories. There are about only a handful (I can only count two to my memory) creationists theory that did actual research (or actual work for that matter) with clear presentation, unfortunately for them, the pro-creationist community did more damage to them because they DID NOT cite the bible as source than the scientific community ever could. So indulge me in telling me how disputing the source of a given theory is off topic when the source is the most cited, referenced and relied upon point of data (no matter how little) does not in fact relate to the main topic. If the source is questionable, how can the result be trusted?

@Derick, go through the history of the various groups of christians trying to drag creationism into science, no, really, not just google this, but pastor say these and wikipedia that, really follow the trail, from the reformation all the way to the courts. Although their positions changed somewhat depending on the prevailing wind of their time, many of the creationist theories and the people behind them have relied on logical fallacies as their basis (btw, is there another phrase for logical fallacies? I like the term, but I hate using it repeatedly on the same group of people). I still giggle a bit when I recall a group of them tried to use the 2nd law of thermodynamics to discredit evolution, I believe facepalms were made for such moments.

If you think what I said about logic is that's an insult, then you must have a different definition of the word than many of the trusted dictionaries. A person can still be logical and believe in creationism, but that person would be the the very few that can (properly) claim to be a creationist scientists unlike the many theologians trying to destroy proper science with some old books.

You can be the ChocoBananaVoodoo Highpriest as well if you want, as long as you don't try to claim something as science when it clearly does not meet the minimum as such. And that's the primary problem scientists have with all this creationism non-sense. If you believe it in your religion, that's your thing and you've a right to that as well as preaching to the choir (I guess a little literally xD). Just don't expect the same "yes man" attitude in the scientific community where proper work with evidence and repeatable results are more highly valued than something of unknown origin with questionable agendas.

As for fossils, even when your statement boggles my mind. I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) you are asking why aren't there MORE fossils. And my reply would be "because the world keep using them as resources unless it's kept from doing so".

@alpha I've gone through this a few times, can say I'm an old hand at it ;) Although it's usually a lot more rambunctious until someone storms off calling me or one of the non-creationists as the spawn of the devil or some such nonsense. Even then, most people in the discussion would agree, some of which are devoted christians, that modern day creationist theories are not worth supporting since it's more of in the realm of theology (and attention-seeking) than that of science (unless it's social science of course :P). And (I didn't know this until I was told the first time!) many different religions fully accepts evolution as part of their theology. The trinity of Judaism-Christian-Islam have many different groups and sects that see evolution as proof of their god's work (aka theistic evolution) while other cultures like Hinduism sees evolution as a mere continuation of their existence (their version is a lot more interesting tbh)

[Samson (Derick) 123]

Now, it seems that this debate his wound down - pretty much all of the Creationists' points have ben firmly rebutted. Should we call it a close?

Really no need to add this false statement.

What I was saying, is that over fifty years, we've found tons of fossils that have formed over the last 50 years. Don't you think, that over billions of years of "evolution" we'd have human/monkey and bird/reptile fossils everywhere?

It is very rude how you just say "We rebutted" the Christian's points. Witch you have not, and obviously so.

The point of debate, is to share your side, and convince the other side. Not to run around saying how you're awesome, and everyone els is wrong for thinking something els.

[Space 2335]

But... You all your lacking points have been rebuttled. Dinosaur fossils were preserved in the best situation becauseof how many there was. Not every dinosaur was preserved.

[OSD 10]

What I was saying, is that over fifty years, we've found tons of fossils that have formed over the last 50 years. Don't you think, that over billions of years of "evolution" we'd have human/monkey and bird/reptile fossils everywhere?

Are you aware of the how fossils are formed in the first place? In what world did we discover these abundance of fossils that have formed over the last 50 years? Please do some basic homework before before you make similar statements again. I gave a TL;DR answer in my last reply to directly address your qualms about it, if you don't understand it or simply missed it, go back, read it again, and if you still don't understand it or learn about it in school yet (or learn it in the first place, I know some form of education don't teach anything about it and only vague reference it), I don't mind giving further explanation.

A proper debate (this term have often been used since the islamic scientific golden age, the greeks and roman prefer a discussion since popularity mattered to them in an argument) can only take place if

A) Illogical fallacies are removed (unless it's a philosophy debate, that's why they never seem to end)

B) A proper understanding of the topic and presentation of evidence to support a stance

C) A well thought out, clear reply, with no ambiguity, is used to counter any given point and present statement(s) to emphasize and further one's own stance.

Unfortunately for this debate, creationism relied on illogical fallacies to have a foothold in the first place. The supporters of it thus far continued to use it as a mean of evidence. ViperX was the only one that did some homework into understanding the topic, but the evidences he provided have mostly came from the category of A), although it seems he's a bit confused about creationism and theistic evolution (a nugget of his references are in fact made to support theistic evolution, not creationism). In fact, he was the only one that truly to attempted C)

With few exceptions, the topic at hand have been some on the evolution side presenting a debate while the majority on the creationist side continues to express their opinions with little to no regard about the history, the starting of creationism as well as past and present stand of the various factions of creationism, let alone the topic at hand where theology encroach on the domain of science. The theistic evolution/duo-support crowd have presented some good points, but since they support both, it's splitting hairs in comparison to the two very different views in regard to the topic.

[Samson (Derick) 123]

OSD, you still refuse to think about what I'm saying here, and shut your mind to everything accept things you want to hear. There is no point arguing with you. If you walk into a house, and you see a really well made lego set, that is made really really well, and its made just so those little plastic guys can survive. Evolutionists first reaction is "Wow! This must have just randomly appeared by two atoms colliding billions of years ago and simply falling into the correct place!"

The creationist's response is "Wow! That looks amazing! I wonder who built this!"

That is my last point. It really just doesn't make sense that is "Fell into place" or "exploded into that perfect way." Ect.

[Rhisereld 317]

If you walk into a house, and you see a really well made lego set, that is made really really well, and its made just so those little plastic guys can survive. Evolutionists first reaction is "Wow! This must have just randomly appeared by two atoms colliding billions of years ago and simply falling into the correct place!"

The creationist's response is "Wow! That looks amazing! I wonder who built this!"

That is my last point. It really just doesn't make sense that is "Fell into place" or "exploded into that perfect way." Ect.

You assume that a lego set was made by somebody because it's a lego set. There are no lego set fossils. There is no lego set DNA. There are no lego set species. There is no supporting evidence that lego sets evolve, therefore we use another (sane) explanation. We know that the lego set is made by somebody because most of us spent our entire childhoods making stuff with lego.

The thing about science is that scientists believe the explanation with the most supporting evidence. We have witnessed children playing with lego. When this supporting evidence is proven wrong or more supporting evidence is found, scientists change their theories. If lego started reproducing, we might reconsider (or seek mental health aid, either one). A creationist continues to believe what their parents taught them by plugging their ears and repeating a mantra very loudly. In fact, this probably won't change your mind.

(P.S. Two atoms colliding? Do you even know anything about science?)

[Archmage_Cataris 622]

Some may be offended by this one, but this is from the mouth of a priest I spoke to, Father Stevens.

Copy+Paste Facebook status :3

So, I had to go watch my little sisters be baptized... My Mum told the priest how I am atheist, telling him to talk to me about it... He asked what I believed in, I just told him, Multi-verse theory, Big Bang, Evolution and that once your brain is gone, your gone forever, no god, no after-life. He agreed that the Big Bang theory and Evolution theory are the most plausible theories out there that we have currently and said you would be retarded to think otherwise... Yes, he said you would be retarded to think otherwise. Me: 1, Mum: 0

[Samson (Derick) 123]

I leave you with a song, farewell my debating buddies.

[Lago 2572]

Ultimately, as neither side can be proved to be true, by our flawed system of logical reasoning both arguments, while contradictory, must both be considered to be correct (and incorrect) from an objective viewpoint.

He believes something different to you, and despite the truth of both of your beliefs being mutually exclusive, they are both true (and false) as neither can be objectively proved. Once one has been subjectively proven to you, the other one becomes false and always has been false, as mutual exclusivity means that both cannot simultaneously be true. As a result, depending on which is subjectively proven to you and which is subjectively proven to him, you can both be both correct, both incorrect, and one correct and one incorrect, simultaneously.

So what you believe is wrong and what he believes is right, but what he believes is wrong and what you believe is right.

Alternatively, we can take this explanation to why all the big lizards are missing.

[Samson (Derick) 123]