Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[Lago 2572]

Yeah, but my explanation has more dinosaurs!

[Samson (Derick) 123]

lol, I know, I just thought the song fit. XD

[Lago 2572]

It would if it had dinosaurs.

[Space 2335]

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.

You base your argument on guesses. We base our argument on educated logical methodical guesses.

[Volutional 935]

I believe in eVolutional.

[Rhisereld 317]

Farewell my debating buddies.

-dusts hands- Alright, who's our next magic-believer?

[Samson (Derick) 123]

*Takes offense at that last comment*

[OSD 10]

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.

It's not about refusing to think about (I can't believe you actually said this with the nonsense you've been spewing), it's you either can't deliver a proper argument/statement or you have absolutely no understanding what this creationism vs evolution shenanigans is about in the first place. Thus far, nothing you've provided can even be admitted as evidence in science (except social science, you can argue til you are blue in that category since creationism would serve as a pretty good subject of inquiry). From your statement, it's very obvious that you know next to nothing about the entirety of the debate or how a simple debate goes. Stop trying to pull a non sequitur, ad hominem and your train of logical pitfalls and give me some evidence instead. Nothing you've said so far has any backing, each time that your point is questioned, you go on the "attack" (it's more like self-mutilation at this point).

This latest reply of yours just further emphasize what I've said previously, for christian creationism and many of its proponents, logical fallacy rule supreme. You've done nothing to disprove this statement thus far, please address the questions in regards to your rant (it's not an argument or debate when you don't counter or even acknowledge a clear question against one of your point), but from the look of it, it won't matter.

Before someone else put a Derick here, I'll outline some basic information about this topic and why scientists have issues with it.

Vast majority of christian creationisms (from young-earth to old-earth and those in between):

1) maintains that their god made each and every living thing in existence, with limited or no change (depends on the christian group)

2) their primary source of "proof" (their words, not mine) is a book some group wrote nearly two millennium ago

3) claims to be part of science

4) is primarily propped up by logical fallacies

to which vast majority of scientists and different religious group have issue with

1) religion have no practical use or application in science

2) science requires proper evidences, something with a questionable motive and source does not count as such

3) studying an unchanging book with no secondary support is NOT science, the latest attempt of religion hindering science

4) logic and reason is a tenet of science, which creationism fails to follow

Some logical statements against christian creationism

1) creationism is not a science, stop claiming it as such, "intelligent design" is pretty much the same monkey in a different suit (with few, few, few exceptions, which I've yet to see anyone pointed out)

2) Theistic evolution is acceptable/imbedded in most religions (including christianity), evolution does not interferes with their belief of a greater power

3) christian creationism have proven to serve no practical purpose aside from ego-stroking for their respective groups. On the other hand, evolution as part of science have proved to be practical and highly beneficial to humanity as a whole in the form of medical advancements and agricultural practices. Modern science as a direct result of the theory saved more lives and increased the quality of living more than creationists and their belief ever could.

4) christian creationism is a frog-in-the-well theological view that disregard science, other cultures and religions with no basis aside from their hubris

Some logical statements against evolution

1) The fossil record should not be used as a primary reference since it is incomplete

2) certain exceptions in nature runs counter to certain aspect of the theory

3) evolution still does not have the "first" ancestor, until it's theoretical acceptable or properly addressed, evolution would remain a flawed theory

[Campor 28]

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?

Also a logical fallacy- It is not a burden of dis-proof. Theories do not exist to prove something WRONG, that is merely a byproduct. In fact, theories themselves are not proofs, they are ideas with evidence and fact backing them up. They are a step away from being labeled as fact, the only thing really stopping them from doing so is opposition of other theories.

The theory of evolution isn't intended to prove the Bible wrong because nothing can do that. Bringing that up as an argument is an intentional straw-man. Single arguments can be rebutted with evidence against it, but PROVING something false is essentially impossible. The only way it can occur is if you prove something true that can not be possible without something else being false. For instance, one can not prove that a man named Noah didn't build a giant boat and load two of every animal onto it to survive a great flood. However, it is not true that said flood killed every other animal and person on earth because there is evidence supporting the fact that another civilization elsewhere in the world not only survived the flood, but actually managed to keep records from several thousand years prior to it.

When you have an idea or theory, it is your job to PROVE it, not to disprove somebody else's. That's how science works. You can defend your theory or hypothesis with evidence that supports your position against the attacks of others, but you can not actively prove another theory wrong without giving another explanation and evidence to back it up.

[CloakandDagger 134]

The problem I have with a "Christian form of Evolution" is this.

If God in his all-powerfullness created US in his image, WHY would he evolve us into his image as opposed to creating us "spontaneously".*

You would think that if he is God and all-powerfull he would be able to create a human just like that.

Forgive my lack of prettiness in my writings i am tired and would much rather get my thoughts across than make it neat.

*I use the word spontaneously because I cant think of a better word, its not exactly how I would like to phrase it but as of yet i cant think of a better word.

[no longer active 734]

OSD, I guess it all comes down to your faith which is the crux of religion.

[OSD 10]

OSD, I guess it all comes down to your faith which is the crux of religion.

Which have absolutely no place in science, whatever religion it might be, "prove" all you want in theology and argue until zombie jesus comes or FSM flings those creationists into the sun. As long as religion stays where it belongs and stop trying to interfere and undermine western science like it did for the last two millennium. Unfortunately, that's exactly what creationists are trying to do just so they have more influence in education and science (both place where they should never, ever have power in again). So no, it's not about your faith or religion, it's about science and power hungry zealots trying to matter in the practical world where they are not needed nor wanted.

@cloakanddagger

look up attenborough, I think I know what you are trying to say, he might have said it more elegantly

@campor

that's why I pulled the whole chinese mythos thing on him, a taste of his own medicine so to speak. I'd pray and praise the lord savior that's jade emperor, but I'd probably offend actual believer with my half ass praying :V

[no longer active 734]

I have a question for you: Do you believe Caesars' accounts of the Gallic War? And yes, this is related.

[Judoc 3]

I am now going to try to enter the debate on the side of evolution, though my fellows have already stated things rather eloquently.

I have a question for you: Do you believe Caesars' accounts of the Gallic War? And yes, this is related.

I think I know where this is going, but I will wait for your "point".

[no longer active 734]

Someone has to answer it first though :/