Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[Beneh 227]

The source really makes no difference for it does bring up the same points found everywhere.

And the Aliens guy is obviously right :P

[Gobb'Mar 67]

I believe that the world was created by God and he oversaw evolution... mix of Creationism and Evolutionism I guess.

[CraftPrime 35]

I believe that God, (Not the almighty, powerful one that some religions exaggerate) created the universe through the use of the Big Bang. It's quite the combination of both beliefs but reading through both sides, they don't really add up.

There is no evidence that a deity exists, that is for sure, therefore religion cannot back up their beliefs.

Although, there is ALSO no evidence that God doesn't exist, so in ways neither have an answer yet.

Until then, I'm going to have to combine the knowledge and wisdom of science and religion until one side finally trumps the other fully.

By this, which most of my Christian friends will even state is naught but a morality story, Eve bore Adam only sons. Due to this, either the rest of the people popped out of the ground or something, or the sons reproduced with Eve. So, we're all the incestuous bastards of sinners who defied the Abrahamic God?

You saying this kind of reminded me of...

[Samson Option 9652]

Just curious, anyone want to take a stab at the oddball argument?

"Why did God not interfere? Because of deism mayhaps? He gave a message, if man sadly misinterpreted it, then it is for them to resolve rather than divine interference which would perhaps in the action prove his existance without a challenge to those who witness a divine interference? Just an oddball idea"

Is there an argument against Deism rather than Christian Monotheism?

[Judoc 3]

You cannot prove or disprove creationism, because there is no evidence to disprove.

You cannot prove evolution. Nothing can be definitively proven in science. Science is a bout logic and reason, and both of those rely heavily on doubt.

However, you can disprove evolution. Darwin himself said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." But he he then added,"But I can find no such case." Evolution could also be disproven:

If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.

If it could be shown that, although mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.

If it could be shown that, although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.

If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.

If you can do this, please, collect your noble prize. You will go down in history as one of the world's greatest biologists. Your name will be in big letters in an elementary school textbook. You might get an exhibit in a trustworthy science museum.

If you can't, please, and I mean no offense by this, shut up and let the scientists do their research.

Essentially, evolution is more scientific and valid than creation simply because it can be disproven.

[Ned Lud 1260]

I believe that Creation and Evolution go hand in hand. Evolution is the fingerprint or byproduct of creation, in which life as we know it is manipulated over time by free will.

God transcends the passing of time and all earthly measurement systems created by man. One cannot expect to accurately carbon copy the leavings of a divine creator. Thousands of years ago, some old men got together and wrote a book and said it took six days to create the world and everything in it. Whether this was to be taken literally or figuratively, we may never know. Perhaps God performed millions of years worth of labor within six human days, or perhaps the labor took six million years and the old men writing the book were merely instructed to tell the story as having taken six days for the sake of simplicity. The point is, time is irrelevant to God and he has existed long before the carbon copy and the numeric system. There are no weights and measure when dealing with divine and supernatural entities. He has the power to do whatever he wills and have it take as long as he pleases.

Deities and aliens are simply names that man has given to things he does not understand in order to give himself the illusion of control. Same goes for angels, demons and gods. For all we know they are all a part of the same machine. The machine may exist or it may not. If it exists, we have no idea who built it or what it does. If it doesn't exist, we can't prove it.

Just remember that free-will and the knowledge of good and evil are pretty much humanity's punishment for disobedience. Fire and brimstone is quick and painless, but living a mortal life with unanswered questions and the threat of eternal damnation is what really drives men to madness.

[CraftPrime 35]

I believe that Creation and Evolution go hand in hand. Evolution is the fingerprint or byproduct of creation, in which life as we know it is manipulated over time by free will.

God transcends the passing of time and all earthly measurement systems created by man. One cannot expect to accurately carbon copy the leavings of a divine creator. Thousands of years ago, some old men got together and wrote a book and said it took six days to create the world and everything in it. Whether this was to be taken literally or figuratively, we may never know. Perhaps God performed millions of years worth of labor within six human days, or perhaps the labor took six million years and the old men writing the book were merely instructed to tell the story as having taken six days for the sake of simplicity. The point is, time is irrelevant to God and he has existed long before the carbon copy and the numeric system. There are no weights and measure when dealing with divine and supernatural entities. He has the power to do whatever he wills and have it take as long as he pleases.

Deities and aliens are simply names that man has given to things he does not understand in order to give himself the illusion of control. Same goes for angels, demons and gods. For all we know they are all a part of the same machine. The machine may exist or it may not. If it exists, we have no idea who built it or what it does. If it doesn't exist, we can't prove it.

Just remember that free-will and the knowledge of good and evil are pretty much humanity's punishment for disobedience. Fire and brimstone is quick and painless, but living a mortal life with unanswered questions and the threat of eternal damnation is what really drives men to madness.

Agreed.

[Space 2335]

[Jistuma 1996]

Alright so I fail to see where your evidence is considering you haven't provided anything solid yet. If you really look logically at evolution, it never fully adds up. With creation we see continued backing of each piece of evidence pointing to the next. By the way, who's going to bring up carbon dating? I thought that was what the evolutionists always turned to?

With this I am concluding my arguments and going to let the debate continue on.

I'm actually going to respond to every single fact! Wish me luck!

1. Information

The instructions for how to build, operate, and repair living cells represent a vast amount of information (estimated at 12 billion bits). Information is a mental, non-material concept. It can never arise from a natural process and is always the result of an intelligence. Just as a newspaper story transcends the ink on the paper, life's DNA itself (like the ink) is not the information, it is simply a physical representation or housing of the information (the story). Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information to drive upward evolution, just as spilling coffee on the newspaper, thereby modifying the distribution of the ink, will never improve the story.

Key references: Genetic Entropy (Sanford), In the Beginning was Information (Gitt).

Cells and DNA do not have information, the way they aline can be stored as information. Comparing it to a newspaper can't work because you can't remove a letter and place another letter in it, and the 'story' is not important to the dna of the cell.

2. Formation of Life

Dead chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of "protoplasm" as believed in Darwin's day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some "warm little pond" will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The "Law of Biogenesis" states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere.

Key reference: Why Abiogenesis is Impossible, Jerry Bergman, CRS Quarterly, Volume 36, March 2000

Chemicals are not alive, lightning striking a mud puddle will not produce life, yet I have no idea who actualy said that, as it is very, very, very, very idiotic thing to say. Also, a cell was not the first 'living organism', a cell is extremelly complicated, evolving for a long, long time. I can't find much information about the law of Biogenesis, only in creation websites and I think it has already been disproven, but I have no idea if it's true or not, and won't go around finding out. No one says life formed spontaneously, they say it started from self replicating systems.

Also creation of life has nothing to do with evolution.

3. Design of Living Things

Design is apparent in the living world. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation book The Blind Watchmaker admits "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." The amazing defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle is a classic example of design in nature, seemingly impossible to explain as the result of accumulating small beneficial changes over time, because if the mechanism doesn't work perfectly, "boom" - no more beetle! This is also another view of the core issue of information, as the design of living things is the result of processing the information in the DNA (following the blueprint) to produce a working organism.

Key reference: The three-part video series Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution describes many more examples like that of the Bombardier Beetle

'The difference is one of complexity of design. Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Physics is the study of simple things that do not tempt us to invoke design. At first sight, man-made artefacts like computers and cars will seem to provide exceptions. They are complicated and obviously designed for a purpose, yet they are not alive, and they are made of metal and plastic rather than of flesh and blood. In this book they will be firmly treated as biological objects.' - Other words, appering to be designed and actually being designed are diferent things. And I don't know how saying that something has faults goes to say that it is designed. Every single organism has faults, and they ain't designed, they just become that way. One species slowly gains a shell and becomes slower, another gains claws to cut to kill other species for food. The shell specie survives because it cna't be cut. Then a human comes and decides to completly destroy the wildlife and places a new specie there. This new specie is huge and it crushes the shell instead of trying to cut it. Oh, it's a flaw now, where before it was an advantage. All things can be advantages and flaws.

4. Irreducible Complexity

The idea that "nothing works until everything works." The classic example is a mousetrap, which is irreducibly complex in that if one of its several pieces is missing or not in the right place, it will not function as a mousetrap and no mice will be caught. The systems, features, and processes of life are irreducibly complex. What good is a circulatory system without a heart? An eye without a brain to interpret the signals? What good is a half-formed wing? Doesn't matching male and female reproductive machinery need to exist at the same time, fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place? Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit.

Key reference: Darwin's Black Box (Behe)

Well... first a mouse trap was a rock, people killed mouses with it. Then it evolved into the complicated thing described. Eyes only exist because there is a brain, circulatory system exists at the same time as the heart, Male and Females I have no idea what they are trying to say there, are they saying if they are broken they don't work? and this: 'Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit.' is only partly true, actually natural selection holds the good things, and the bad ones start disapearing, but not immediatly...

5. Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to "mix" with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state. A glass of hot water becomes room temperature, buildings decay into rubble, and the stars will eventually burn out leading to the "heat death" of the universe. However, the evolutionary scenario proposes that over time things, on their own, became more ordered and structured. Somehow the energy of a "Big Bang" structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law. It is sometimes said that the energy of the Sun was enough to overcome this tendency and allow for the formation of life on earth. However, application of energy alone is not enough to overcome this tendency; the energy must be channeled by a machine. A human must repair a building to keep it from decaying. Likewise, it is the machinery of photosynthesis which harnesses the energy of the Sun, allowing life to exist, and photosynthesis is itself a complex chemical process. The maturing of an acorn into a tree, or a zygote (the first cell resulting from fertilization) into a mature human being does not violate the Second Law as these processes are guided by the information already present in the acorn or zygote.

Key reference: The Second Law of Thermodynamics (answersingenesis.org)

Second Law of Thermodynamics is only applicable in closed systems, the earth ain't a closed system as it receives energy froim the sun. Evolution works with the second law of thermodynamics. Also for some reason he is saying energy must be channeled through a machine... Because chemical reactions don't work without a machines...

Also, has nothing to do on how evolution works, just on the origins of life again, that has nothing to do with evolution.

6. Existence of the Universe

By definition, something must be eternal (as we have "something" today and something cannot come from "nothing", so there was never a time when there was "nothing"). Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal. We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion). Therefore, God (the something/someone outside of the universe) must exist and must have created the universe. Einstein showed that space and time are related. If there is no space there is no time. Before the universe was created there was no space and therefore no concept of time. This is hard for us to understand as we are space-time creatures, but it allows for God to be an eternal being, completely consistent with scientific laws. The question "who created God" is therefore an improper/invalid question, as it is a time-based question (concerning the point in time at which God came into existence) but God exists outside of time as the un-caused first cause.

This has absolutly nothing to do with Evolution. Creation of everything? That can't be known... And the logic is flawed, because if 'something cannot come from "nothing", so there was never a time when there was "nothing"', then I ask how was god created, and you say he was always there. So I say, that perhaps the universe was always there, and god never needed to exist.

7. Fine-tuning of Earth for Life

Dozens of parameters are "just right" for life to exist on this planet. For example, if the Earth were just a little closer to the Sun it would be too hot and the ocean's water would boil away, much further and it would be covered continually in ice. Earth's circular orbit (to maintain a roughly constant temperature year-round), its rotation speed (to provide days and nights not too long or short), its tilt (to provide seasons), and the presence of the moon (to provide tides to cleanse the oceans) are just some of many other examples.

The presence of large amounts of water, with its amazing special properties, is also required. Water is a rare compound in that it is lighter in a solid state than in a liquid state. This allows ponds to freeze with the ice on the surface allowing the life beneath to survive. Otherwise bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up and become solid ice. Water is also the most universal "solvent" known, allowing for dissolving/mixing with the many different chemicals of life. In fact, our bodies are 75-85% comprised of water.

Key reference: The Privileged Planet (Gonzalez/Richards)

Concidering the amount of planets in the universe, we have found a lot of planets with the capabilities of life. And all the talking of water is just explaining what water is, I see no actual arguments.

Also has nothing to do with evolution, only creation of life again.

8. Fine-tuning of Physics

The fine-tuning of the physical constants that control the physics of the universe - the settings of the basic forces (strong nuclear force constant, weak nuclear force constant, gravitational force constant, and electromagnetic force constant) are on a knife's edge. A minor change in these or any of dozens of other universal parameters would make life impossible.

The "multiverse" idea that there may be many universes and ours "just happened" to have these proper values is outside of science and could never be proven. Even then we would have to ask "what was the cause of all these universes?"

Key reference: Hugh Ross lists about 100 parameters on the Reasons To Believe web site. See also Design and the Anthropic Principle

There is absolutly no proof that a minor change to the constants would make life impossible, it would just make it diferent. And they are constants, they don't change, that's why they are constants. Asking philosophical questions like "what was the cause of all these universes?" does not give answers.

Also, this has nothing to do with evolution.

9. Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record

The oldest fossils for any creature are already fully-formed and don't change much over time ("stasis"). The "Cambrian Explosion" in the "primordial strata" documents the geologically rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals. There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a "half-scale/half-wing". A reptile breathes using an "in and out" lung (like humans have), but a bird has a "flow-through" lung suitable for moving through the air. Can you even imagine how such a transition of the lung could have taken place? Abrupt appearance and stasis are consistent with the biblical concept of creation "according to its kind", and a world-wide flood that scoured the earth down to its basement rocks, depositing the "geologic column" and giving the appearance of a "Cambrian Explosion". Smarter, more mobile creatures would escape the flood waters longer, becoming buried in higher-level strata, leading to a burial order progressing from "simpler" forms to more complex/higher-level forms, which people now wrongly interpret as an evolutionary progression.

Key reference: Fossils Q&A (answersingenesis.org)

This is the most stupid one until now. No birds did not come from reptils, they came from dinasaurs. Some dinasaurs are more close in apperance to chickens than to reptils, don't believe me? Check the wiki for what a velociraptor looks like. And evolving means they change over time, so yes, something with a "in and out" lung can turn into a "flow-through" lung, it just means the right conditions had to happen. The explaination of the biclical view, doesn't explain mass extintions for example.

10. Human Consciousness

A person is a unity of body + mind/soul, the mind/soul being the immaterial part of you that is the real inner you. Chemicals alone cannot explain self-awareness, creativity, reasoning, emotions of love and hate, sensations of pleasure and pain, possessing and remembering experiences, and free will. Reason itself cannot be relied upon if it is based only on blind neurological events.

Key reference: The Origin of the Brain and Mind, Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson, CRS Quarterly, Volume 41, June 2004

Lot's of asuming, no proofs, and while that, scientists are finding out how emotions, self-awareness, love, etc works in the brain, with no soul.

Also has nothing to do with Evolution

11. Human Language

Language is one of the main things that separates man from the animals. No animal is capable of achieving anything like human speech, and all attempts to teach chimpanzees to talk have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language. However, the Bible does. It says that the first man, Adam, was created able to speak. The Bible also explains why we have different human languages, as God had to "confuse" the common language being used in Babel after the flood, in order to force people to spread out around the world as He wanted. This was only a "surface" confusion though, as all languages express the same underlying basic ideas and concepts, enabling other languages to be learned and understood.

Key reference: The Mystery of Human Language (Morris, icr.org)

Actually evolution explains why humans are able to speak and other being aren't. This would be because of the development of the vocal cords. Comunication between ancient types of humans was extremelly important for their survival, and so, the ones that could comunicate best had better chances for survival, and such, continued the generations, making a human be able to talk the way he does now. And if you guys do not know, a cimpanzee can't speak, because he doesn't have the correct vocal cords, but he can comunicate via sign language. Also for some reason a very high tower could reach the heavens, while we now know that above the sky is space, so it makes little sence for that fairy tale explaining to people who can't read or write why people talk diferently all over the planet, why it has to do with adaptation. Even know languages change constantly, it has nothing to do with god.

12. Sexual Reproduction

Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why would animals abandon simpler asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is a very complex process that is only useful if fully in place. For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination.

One of the answers to this is viruses, yet I do not know much about it. Also for genetic material to not come only from one source, this way preventing more genetic problems.

13. The Bible's Witness

The Bible is true. The history of the Bible is true. The words of the Bible concerning our origins were given to men to write down, by God, who was the only living being present. We were not there! God said He created the universe. God said He created all living things. We know that life is much more than chemicals. God put His life into Adam and that life has been transferred from generation to generation all the way down to us!

Start by asuming, then say what you are asuming is true... Even scientists do this, they have to, to do their work. Asuming is telling something that can never be proven, example is the existance of Reality, there is no way to prove it. Here you are asuming god is real, based on no proof. There is actually nothing wrong with believing in god, there are many who do and still believe in science. Many have spoken that creation and evolution work together, for those I respect their beliefs, and the answers they found for the questions we have no answer to. I once thought the universe had to had a creator, something else that brought it into existance. To tell the truth, I called it a god, that was the best posible word I had to describe it. Something capable of creating the universe could only be called a god. Yet, I only believed for the creation, and not anything that came after it. All life was then created by the 'laws' this universe started with. I feel there is nothing wrong for people to believe something like that, giving the answers you find best for questions that can not be answered. Yet saying all discoveries, everything that makes science what it is, and saying it is all wrong because a book, written more than 2000 years ago said it... It's not even Jesus teaching you are talking about, Noah, Babel, Adam and Eve, these are from the old testement, they are more than 2000 years old, stories to control people of yearly civilization, to tell the people that wars were alright, that all the killings and death have reason, and to try and stop people from killing each other so as to not create something that could kill the leaders. They existed to teach the children about morals and right doings, with fear of punishment. It's just like the stories I heard at childhood, of red hiding hood, the 3 pigs and the wolf, that one where they find a gingerbread house, the ugly duckling. Each of those stories were there to teach the children. So don't let a very old book of stories tell you what to believe. Believe in the models scientists create, and respect them, as they tell you they might be wrong, and accept it when another scientist proves that something is wrong.

[Space 2335]

Consider a person who is born in a city where there is NO religion. The schools only put down solid theories that have evidence supporting them in the science class, only books that say nothing about any dieties, it's just all about proof. When you ask that person what they believe in, what would they say? Either 'I don't know.' or 'I don't know for certain, but big bang is the latest theory and I'll go with that.' That's the basis of all religions. New ideas. The romans converted from their mystical greek and combined culture religion to christianity. Why? Cause that's what their leaders chose to believe in. Same happened with Bloody Mary, and then with her half-sister or step-sister Elizabitch. Newest and latest theory. Difference between us and the romans? We are going by science now. We're going through a revolution. 85% of the scientists in the National Academy of Science believe in SCIENCE. Their 'atheists.' So that means that education leads to the lack of faith.

faith

Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Scientists don't have faith, they just have evidence.

[Rusty7x 114]

Personally I believe in the evolutionary story as I firmly believe in science and technology but I think that all people are allowed their opinions. They may believe what they wish, if they wish.

[MediocreGamer 838]

It appears that many in this thread to not understand what a "Theory" is which saddens me. A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. Gravity is a theory; Gentlemen, it's 2012 and we're logical thinking human beings... it is about time we start acting like it. I have dabbled into many religious studies and debates and my only conclusion is that Militant Atheism is the proper way of thinking for the advancement of the human race, it doesn't mean we still won't teach morality sense in the future but rather without the fear of a god.

[Wavejammers 328]

I like how 95% of creationist's dosen't follow a singel of gods rules, 3 of the major overseen ones;

Don't have sex with someone who isn't your wife.

Don't have sex before you've been married.

Don't cheat on your wife.

And don't murder and steal.

Also here's a great video I think everyone should watch

Also why didn't my grandma got cured for cancer when my mother prayed for god to heal her?

[XkynarethX 109]

Oh God... I just remembered why I don't like to visit this thread. So many anti-theists or extreme theists...

[Judoc 3]

@ Oskar

Oh my science. I watched the whole debate, and that moderator was so clearly pro-god it was almost sad.