Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[JtPv 140]

@JtPv

 

Before I answer this question, I would like to ask you a few questions.

1. Does cold exists?

2. Does darkness exists?

3. Does evil exists?

 

All these questions are really about opinion. For example, Owls are nocturnal, therefore they can't see "Darkness" as us humans. I can also resist cold even better then my american relatives, and most fish don't feel "Pain" so they can't fell cold either. 

 

'Evilness' is also about opinion, for example, you might think the people in the middleast are evil, but they might think themselves as good.

Well, technically correct....BUT YOUR'E MISSING THE POINT! The point is, Cold does not exist, but we can feel it. Cold is but the absence of heat. "Cold" is a term humanity created to describe how they feel. Darkness does not exist, but we can, er, see it, if you like. Darkness is the absence of light. How do you measure the darkness of a room? You measure how much light is there. Darkness is simply, again, a term to describe what we see. Now, the last one. This was the original question. Evil does not exists. Evil is simply the absence of Goodness. Evil or Sin is a word humanity created to describe a separation from God. God did not create sin, it was created when God created goodness. Everything has an opposite.

[Space 2335]

Well, technically correct....BUT YOUR'E MISSING THE POINT! The point is, Cold does not exist, but we can feel it. Cold is but the absence of heat. "Cold" is a term humanity created to describe how they feel. Darkness does not exist, but we can, er, see it, if you like. Darkness is the absence of light. How do you measure the darkness of a room? You measure how much light is there. Darkness is simply, again, a term to describe what we see. Now, the last one. This was the original question. Evil does not exists. Evil is simply the absence of Goodness. Evil or Sin is a word humanity created to describe a separation from God. God did not create sin, it was created when God created goodness. Everything has an opposite.

 

What's the opposite of a curtain rod?

 

/thread

[Dun_Irongut 104]

God created the concept of opposites.

[JtPv 140]

What's the opposite of a curtain rod?

 

/thread

If you want to get technical about it, nothing. Since a curtain rod is something, nothing would be the opposite. :P

[Wavejammers 328]

God created the concept of opposites.

What's the opposite of thirsthy?

 

Now when I think about:

[Jistuma 1996]

But God created the concept of sin in the first place? Unless it existed before Him? Please, someone clarify this for me.

 Before I answer this question, I would like to ask you a few questions.

1. Does cold exists?

2. Does darkness exists?

3. Does evil exists?

1 - Cold is not the adsence of heat, cold is a term humans use for when the human body feels a strong varience in heat transfer out of the body. While hot is the reverse, strong varience of heat inside of the body.

2 - Darkness is a location in which our eyes can not detect any light, doesn't mean there isn't any there, because it probably is.

3 - Evil is subjective to the person/society, it is not the oppose of good, as someone can be good and evil at the same time, and can be only good to some people, and only evil to other.

4 - Sin is also a subjective term, like evil, humans are the ones to access if they are sinners, using different views on everything.

[Dun_Irongut 104]

Before the Sun, there was darkness. Are you saying God didn't create that darkness?

Edit: Jistuma summed up my opinion perfectly and much more eloquently.

[Space 2335]

There is no point in arguing over what your god made and what he did not.

 

All I ask is for ANY evidence, yet I have got none.

[Dun_Irongut 104]

There is no point in arguing over what your god made and what he did not.

 

All I ask is for ANY evidence, yet I have got none.

 

 

At this point, it seems best to not dwell on asking for evidence. We may actually get somewhere if we can show a flow in the overall logic flow; albeit I don't really expect this debate to go anywhere. 

[Space 2335]

Alright, creationists. JtPv. Do you believe in Santa Claus?

[Bashar al-Assad 120]

There is absolutely no observation or experiment that proves evolution exists. Evolution is a myth, just as the past notion of a static universe was a myth. There are no missing links (transitional or intermediate life forms) in the fossil record. There are only unique, true species that are imagined to be missing links. There are no missing links alive anywhere in the modern world. Evolution is a false theory perpetuated by atheists.

A delusion is a belief, thought to be true, but without enough evidence to prove it’s true. Belief in a sun god, moon god and other gods were delusions that comforted ancient peoples by giving them the feeling that they understood something. Other delusions include: the flat earth theory, the notion that the sun revolves around the earth and the idea that mold or bacteria are generated spontaneously on rotting garbage.

The delusion that the universe is static (not expanding nor contracting) lasted for centuries among scientists as well as laypersons. The most brilliant of humans accepted that delusion as true. Einstein, one of the most eminent scientists that ever lived, believed the universe was static. Einstein developed special and general relativity, probably the greatest triumph of scientific understanding ever made. But he so deeply believed in a static universe that when his derived relativity equations indicated the universe was not static, he refused to believe his own work! He distorted his equations by adding a “cosmological constant” to them such that the distorted equations then showed a static universe. When later scientific observations and discoveries proved that the universe is expanding, Einstein called the cosmological constant his “greatest blunder.”

Do we still have some beliefs that might be delusions? Yes. Many of us believe in flying saucers and extra-terrestrials. And I offer another likely delusion – Darwin’s theory of evolution. Despite the fact that all species of life that exist look to be designed, atheists cannot accept that God exists, so they promote a myth, Darwinian evolution, to cover up plainly visible reality.

Darwin proposed that once life, a first cell or organism, somehow happened from mineral matter, individual organisms of any one kind of life (species) naturally varied in their characteristics (size, hairiness, intelligence, color, hardiness, attractiveness to mates, etc.). And those organisms with characteristics that favored their survival and reproduction did survive and reproduce more often than organisms that did not have the favorable characteristics. Thus eventually, the favored characteristics dominated the species. As additional, favorable characteristics naturally developed in the population, they too gradually expanded throughout the population. And as that situation repeated itself over and over again, eventually the species changed so much that it became a completely different species. That process -- of natural variation in individual characteristics and natural selection of the fittest -- then continued to produce more and more complex species until it culminated in humans.

The process described in the above paragraph is often called “Darwin’s evolution” or “survival of the fittest” or simply “evolution.” It exists within a species and supposedly can cause sufficient changes that one species can develop into another species.

But people, who don’t believe in Darwin’s evolution, argue that the natural variation and natural selection process can only operate within a species. That process can cause great changes within a species, but it can never cause so much change that it causes a new species to be created. These non-believers in evolution call this limited, within-a-species evolution “micro-evolution” and use the term “macro-evolution for Darwinian evolution. When the word “evolution” is used throughout this note, it means macro-evolution, Darwin’s evolution. The word micro-evolution is used herein for the only-within-a-species process of modification.

Breeders have intelligently selected and manipulated micro-evolution to produce a multitude of animal breeds and plant varieties. But never has a breeder produced a new species. A Chihuahua and a Great Dane look very different and cannot mate naturally, but both are still dogs.

Visit a museum and the evolution section will display example after example of micro-evolution (changes within one species) while wrongly suggesting such changes are macro-evolution (changing one species into another species). Falsely insisting that if a large amount of micro-evolution occurs it will eventually result in macro-evolution.

Darwin openly admitted that his theory was unproven when he made it. But he expected that the future discovery of additional fossils would provide evidence of missing links between modern species -- for instance the intermediate or transitional life forms that gradually, possibly, led from chimpanzees to humans. But modern fossil evidence shows no real missing links. Most of the touted, fossilized, missing links have subsequently been proven to be fakes! Modern science has discovered more fake missing links than true ones!

For there to be missing links in the fossil record the missing links must have been alive at some time in the past. If evolution existed in the past and is a natural phenomenon, there is no reason why it should not exist in the present. The presumed "missing links" were more suited to survival than their predecessors; so why aren't they still living while their “inferior” predecessors (chimpanzees for example) are still alive? If the purposeless, mindless, blind, natural process called evolution exists, why are there no examples of its work-in-progress anywhere in today's world?

Don’t tell me how one species might have changed into another species a million years ago. Show me -- in today’s world -- one member of one species that shows signs of evolving into another species. Show me one wingless insect that has half a wing or one snake or worm that is growing little legs. Can you find one squirrel or lizard, among the billions that exist, that shows sign of nascent wings? Has anyone reported one lizard that looks like it’s losing its legs, or one hippopotamus that shows signs of becoming a whale? Has anyone seen one chimpanzee whose hand-like feet show signs of development toward becoming human feet? Are there any reports of rats becoming wolf like? Of any mammals learning how to use sonar systems like bats and whales? Any humans that are losing their little toes, gaining telepathic powers, the ability to see ultraviolet or infrared light, or the talent to sense the earth’s electric and magnetic fields?

Why is there not one example of evolution acting among the existing billions of members of the millions of species currently alive on earth? The earth should be swarming with fresh missing links. Truly, evolution is the most elusive and mysterious of all conceived natural processes? It appears to have become completely extinct in the modern world. How could that happen to a presumably natural process?

Modern molecular botanists are able to take a gene from one plant species and insert it into the DNA of a different species. Occasionally that modification results in a new plant that has better characteristics than its parent plant. Then scientists exclaim: “We have created a new species.” And they are right! They (intelligent beings) have manipulated DNA to create a new species, but blind, purposeless, mindless evolution was not involved.

Still atheists cannot ever concede that evolution is false. They must always argue that eventually they will find proof that evolution exists, because evolution is the keystone of modern atheism and without evolution atheism is exposed as the lie it really is.

____________________

Note that the above was not written by me, but it sums up what I have to say quite well on the subject. (For those interested, it is from The Way [link]).

One thing... does all the fossils showing signs of bone development, such as various chimp-like beings developing the ability to walk on only two legs not account for anything? I'm personally Jewish, I simply look at Creationism as a metaphor, and Evolutionism as an explanation. But that is my opinion. 

[Jistuma 1996]

1. Evolution is not solidly demonstrated. “Evolution is just a theory,” Darwin's critics point out, as if theory meant lack of knowledge, some kind of guess. Scientists, however, use the word theory in a very different sense than the general public does. Theories are the solid ground of science, that of which we are most certain. Few of us doubt the theory of gravity because it is "just a theory."

2. There are no fossil intermediates. “No one ever saw a fin on the way to becoming a leg,” critics claim, pointing to the many gaps in the fossil record in Darwin's day. Since then, however, most fossil intermediates in vertebrate evolution have indeed been found. A clear line of fossils now traces the transition between whales and hoofed mammals, between reptiles and mammals, between dinosaurs and birds, between apes and humans. The fossil evidence of evolution between major forms is compelling.

3. The intelligent design argument. “The organs of living creatures are too complex for a random process to have produced—the existence of a clock is evidence of the existence of a clockmaker.” Biologists do not agree. The intermediates in the evolution of the mammalian ear can be seen in fossils, and many intermediate “eyes” are known in various invertebrates. These intermediate forms arose because they have value—being able to detect light a little is better than not being able to detect it at all. Complex structures like eyes evolved as a progression of slight improvements.

 

4. Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. “A jumble of soda cans doesn't by itself jump neatly into a stack—things become more disorganized due to random events, not more organized.” Biologists point out that this argument ignores what the second law really says: disorder increases in a closed system, which the earth most certainly is not. Energy continually enters the biosphere from the sun, fueling life and all the processes that organize it.

5. Proteins are too improbable. “Hemoglobin has 141 amino acids. The probability that the first one would be leucine is 1/20, and that all 141 would be the ones they are by chance is (1/20)141, an impossibly rare event.” This is statistical foolishness—you cannot use probability to argue backwards. The probability that a student in a classroom has a particular birthday is 1/365; arguing this way, the probability that everyone in a class of 50
would have the birthdays they do is (1/365)50, and yet there the class sits.

6. Natural selection does not imply evolution. “No scientist has come up with an experiment where fish evolve into frogs and leap away from predators.” Is microevolution (evolution within a species) the mechanism that has produced macroevolution (evolution among species)? Most biologists that have studied the problem think so. Some kinds of animals produced by artificial selection are remarkably distinctive, such as Chihuahuas, dachshunds, and greyhounds. While all dogs are in fact the same species and can interbreed, laboratory selection experiments easily create forms that cannot interbreed and thus would in nature be considered different species. Thus, production of radically different forms has indeed been observed, repeatedly. To object that evolution still does not explain really major differences, like between fish and amphibians, simply takes us back to point 2—these changes take millions of years, and are seen clearly in the fossil record.

7. The irreducible complexity argument. The intricate molecular machinery of the cell cannot be explained by evolution from simpler stages. Because each part of a complex cellular process like blood clotting is essential to the overall process, how can natural selection fashion any one part? What's wrong with this argument is that each part of a complex molecular machine evolves as part of the system. Natural selection can act on a complex system because at every stage of its evolution, the system functions. Parts that improve function are added, and, because of later changes, become essential. The mammalian blood clotting system, for example, has evolved from much simpler systems. The core clotting system evolved at the dawn of the vertebrates 600 million years ago, and is found today in lampreys, the most primitive fish. One hundred million years later, as vertebrates
evolved, proteins were added to the clotting system making it sensitive to substances released from damaged tissues. Fifty million years later, a third component was added, triggering clotting by contact with the jagged surfaces produced by injury. At each stage as the clotting system evolved to  become more complex, its overall performance came to depend on the added elements. Thus, blood clotting has become "irreducibly complex"—as the result of Darwinian evolution.

 

Taken from: http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/raven6b/graphics/raven06b/other/raven06b_21.pdf

 

I can probably respond any follow up questions.

[Redbaron™ 690]

Ahem, may I point out that most things in the old testament of the Bible are nulled by modern Christians......however, I am not sure if Timothy is new or old......

Changing what is said in the bible and nulling out certain parts doesn't change what it was originally based off, and the fact they are allegedly changing god's word. Not helping their chase in either circumstance.

[Lago 2572]

This thread is getting cyclic. Nobody is going to persuade each other to change their core beliefs. All it is is an argumentative hate cycle. Why can't we just let this thread die?

[The Cleaning Crew 571]

Fun fact:

God has murderd 2,552,452 people

Satan only 10.

 

This dosen't even count all the egyptian trouble, and the sin flood, all these deaths are confirmed in the bible, It's estimated that he killed 24,712,019 in total. Now who is the good and who's the bad? 14,700 people were killed by him, for complaining about his killing... That's 1,470 more then satan did, in total.

 

Edit:

The devil gave humans critical thinking, which God didn't want. He wanted us to not eat from the tree of knowledge of whateverthehell so we could basically be thought-slaves for eternity, but the devil did us a favor and turned the tables there with one conversation. 

The devil killed a grand total of 10 people in the bible, while God killed somewhere around 2.3 million. 

He understands human nature, but doesn't judge you for being human.

He accepts God's unwanted children unconditionally. 

And still, he's the bad guy. Why? Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's our silent guardian. A watchful protector. 

 

A dark knight.

Yes, I stole this.

 

 

But yeah. Nobody's going to convince anybody else that what they believe is wrong. Some of us will be religious, some of us won't be, and some of us will just go with the flow. That's just how it is. Only time and personal thought can change anybody's opinion on these kinds of things.