Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[Redbaron™ 690]

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?

No one is hating anyone I don't think >.>

[Space 2335]

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?

 

Because this is an important debate. We'll never get anywhere if we deny all the evidence that says the world is BILLIONS, not a few THOUSANDS of years.

[JtPv 140]

Because this is an important debate. We'll never get anywhere if we deny all the evidence that says the world is BILLIONS, not a few THOUSANDS of years.

Space, you seem to be very ignorant about Christian science.  Plus, this statement shows much Hypocrisy. If you are THAT stubborn to accept anything besides what you believe to be true, this debate will never end. It doesn't matter what you believe for one reason: Faith. The one thing that has failed to been mentioned on this thread. Christians have faith that God is real. Also, Redbaron, not all churches follow the teaching of Sola'Scriptura. Especially the Roman Catholic church. Anyways, back to my point. Christians have faith that their is a God, that Jesus was real, that his teachings are true, and we are sinners. Without faith, we could never even had believed in a God. No science can destroy faith, because science requires faith. Can you prove, 100%, that everything in Evolution is true? Just like we can't prove God is 100% real. See the comparison?

[Dun_Irongut 104]

Space, you seem to be very ignorant about Christian science.  Plus, this statement shows much Hypocrisy. If you are THAT stubborn to accept anything besides what you believe to be true, this debate will never end. It doesn't matter what you believe for one reason: Faith. The one thing that has failed to been mentioned on this thread. Christians have faith that God is real. Also, Redbaron, not all churches follow the teaching of Sola'Scriptura. Especially the Roman Catholic church. Anyways, back to my point. Christians have faith that their is a God, that Jesus was real, that his teachings are true, and we are sinners. Without faith, we could never even had believed in a God. No science can destroy faith, because science requires faith. Can you prove, 100%, that everything in Evolution is true? Just like we can't prove God is 100% real. See the comparison?

 

There is clearly a distinction between faith and science. You can, 100%, prove God is real. If he appears to the entire world, gives us all eternal knowledge, and then speaks to us in all of our native languages, there is no doubt he is not real. He will be recorded by every living human being as real and as such, he is real. If he would continually do this every 10 years, there would be no doubt (we would still retain our freewill and the amount of sins would decrease, no?). In the same way that if God were to appear to us, we would not require faith,  you can also, 100%, prove that Evolution is true. However, Science defines evolution as a theory. I highly doubt you define God as a theory, as that would discredit your entire argument. God is not based on scientific research, study, fossil record, or first hand accounts that we can record in the current era. Instead, the basis we have for God is a series of books, which are all written by men. If the entire basis for this debate is faith, then those basing their argument on scientific basis have already won. Faith does not win arguments simply because it cannot be proved. An argument is meant to prove something to another person though facts and research, is it not? 

[Wavejammers 328]

Allah is the only true god and he exist.

 

Because he was written down in a book.

That's all the evidence I need.

[Space 2335]

Space, you seem to be very ignorant about Christian science.  Plus, this statement shows much Hypocrisy. If you are THAT stubborn to accept anything besides what you believe to be true, this debate will never end. It doesn't matter what you believe for one reason: Faith. The one thing that has failed to been mentioned on this thread. Christians have faith that God is real. Also, Redbaron, not all churches follow the teaching of Sola'Scriptura. Especially the Roman Catholic church. Anyways, back to my point. Christians have faith that their is a God, that Jesus was real, that his teachings are true, and we are sinners. Without faith, we could never even had believed in a God. No science can destroy faith, because science requires faith. Can you prove, 100%, that everything in Evolution is true? Just like we can't prove God is 100% real. See the comparison?

 

(jkjk I'm too bored)

 

The leading scientists at LHC are going to create an experiment that may create a black hole that will swallow the Earth (Just an example, not true).  But they have faith it won't. That means didily SQUAT. That /faith/ is no a basis for an arguement. It's the same FAITH that children have in Santa Claus.

 

Also, I've said. If a god came down and said 'Yes, the bible is my teachings.' I'd accept that that is true but I don't thnik I'd follow the teachings of the bible. I'd rather to go Hell then prosecute gays, or if the Mormons are right (Which makes me smirk just thinking about it) blacks. And women. And my daughter. Like if she's raped I will have to stone her to death. Yeah, nah d00d.

 

I don't deny evidence and logic. That's the fact that makes me an atheist.

 

Also also, WHAT SCIENCE NEEDS FAITH? We have these 5 'faith' driven rules. Stuff like 'This is a material world and not just some matrix ****.'

[JtPv 140]

(jkjk I'm too bored)

 

The leading scientists at LHC are going to create an experiment that may create a black hole that will swallow the Earth (Just an example, not true).  But they have faith it won't. That means didily SQUAT. That /faith/ is no a basis for an arguement. It's the same FAITH that children have in Santa Claus.

 

Also, I've said. If a god came down and said 'Yes, the bible is my teachings.' I'd accept that that is true but I don't thnik I'd follow the teachings of the bible. I'd rather to go Hell then prosecute gays, or if the Mormons are right (Which makes me smirk just thinking about it) blacks. And women. And my daughter. Like if she's raped I will have to stone her to death. Yeah, nah d00d.

 

I don't deny evidence and logic. That's the fact that makes me an atheist.

 

Also also, WHAT SCIENCE NEEDS FAITH? We have these 5 'faith' driven rules. Stuff like 'This is a material world and not just some matrix ****.'

Like I said, not all churches follow Sola'Scriptura. And.....

1. We don't prosecute gays. We are fine with gays. They are Gods children too. It's just we believe they are called to a life of celibacy.

2. It's not a matter of "Which religion is right". It's a matter of "Which way do we worship him".

3. (I would like to point out I am catholic for this next part) We don't go around prosecuting or killing ANYONE. We don't believe in Sola'Scriptura. <That's very important to understand.

4. Space, we have multiple reportings of God. Have you heard of The Secrets of Fatima? One RECENT example. (The first two came true, BTW. Although most people think the third was a lie to protect us) 

[Space 2335]

Like I said, not all churches follow Sola'Scriptura. And.....

1. We don't prosecute gays. We are fine with gays. They are Gods children too. It's just we believe they are called to a life of celibacy.

2. It's not a matter of "Which religion is right". It's a matter of "Which way do we worship him".

3. (I would like to point out I am catholic for this next part) We don't go around prosecuting or killing ANYONE. We don't believe in Sola'Scriptura. <That's very important to understand.

4. Space, we have multiple reportings of God. Have you heard of The Secrets of Fatima? One RECENT example. (The first two came true, BTW. Although most people think the third was a lie to protect us) 

 

That gay thing is contrary to what your pope says. I mean, gay marriage adoption is child abuse? I know the cat lick priests have lots of experience with child abuse, but I don't know if they can define it...

 

Point number 2...

I am genuinely confusedw hat you mean. Are you saying that you aren't sure your god is /the/ god if, by unlikely chance, there is a god?

 

3. Have you read the bible? It's pretty clear on that. Morphing religious tomes for your churches own desires is a hell of a drug. (And by this I mean the bible says the bible is the rules, not the murder part. Don't want to seem like I'm being dickish to you personally).

 

4. We have more reportings of alien sightings then God. And there is no evidence that those sightigns are true.

 

On that certain case...

 

So, one interpretation of something that some people most probably made up that is bended so that it fits is evidence that the god in your tome is true? Riiiite.

 

edit- ability to read properly. Also said marriage not adoption. Derpy.

[Bashar al-Assad 120]

You said there are no fossil intermediates yet you just posted that there are fossil intermediates in vertebrae development. Basically you contradicted yourself and used exactly the same terminology to contradict yourself with. 

[Drazker 307]

I'm an atheist but I still believe Darwin's theory of evolution has too many holes to be considered fact. I think it's rather ignorant and arrogant that the so-called believers in science disregard the fundamental principles of science and immediately accept this theory instead of doing what they should do; nitpicking at it's faults, carefully examining it, and engaging in thoughtful debates over it. Instead, many evolution believers nitpick at Christians' faith, calling them the close-minded ones.

 

I do not know how life came to be on the planet earth. Alien intervention /would/ seem the most likely, however if you have ever heard of the Fermi paradox, you would know this likely rules out that possibility. And so we search on.

[Space 2335]

I'm an atheist but I still believe Darwin's theory of evolution has too many holes to be considered fact. I think it's rather ignorant and arrogant that the so-called believers in science disregard the fundamental principles of science and immediately accept this theory instead of doing what they should do; nitpicking at it's faults, carefully examining it, and engaging in thoughtful debates over it. Instead, many evolution believers nitpick at Christians' faith, calling them the close-minded ones.

 

I do not know how life came to be on the planet earth. Alien intervention /would/ seem the most likely, however if you have ever heard of the Fermi paradox, you would know this likely rules out that possibility. And so we search on.

 

What are some holes in the theory? I'm sure there is probably some, but it fills much more then it doesn't.

[JtPv 140]

What are some holes in the theory? I'm sure there is probably some, but it fills much more then it doesn't.

Okay, now that you've had you fun with religion...

I wrote the following article many years ago, and it has now been through two revisions. Thanks to Phil Gaskill for working on the latest revision and providing additional updated information.

1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. 

A system that is irreducibly complex is one in which all the components work together and are essential to perform the system’s basic function. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) It is not possible to build such a system gradually, one component at a time, since it cannot function unless all components are present.  Many living systems exhibit such irreducible complexity (e.g vision, blood clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to “happen” by chance. Yet living systems are vastly more complex than a watch. Darwin considered this fact one of the most serious challenges to his theory of evolution.  The magnitude of this challenge has increased exponentially since Darwin’s time as the details of living systems have been uncovered down to and below the level of the cell.  The incredible machinery of life exists in networks so complex and interdependent that they could not have arisen gradually or through random chance – they simply had to be designed and created.

2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. 

According to information science, information can only be produced by intelligence. Highly complex information must originate from a highly intelligent source.  DNA is by far the most compact and complex information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead-sized amount of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive, can contain multiple copies of all the information necessary to build and maintain things as complex as the human brain and body, and is self-replicating.  However, the proponents of evolution believe that random chance, not intelligence, gave rise to all of the information found in DNA.  Ironically, evolutionary scientists involved in the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project search the sky with massive radio telescopes, hoping to detect even simple patterns in radio signals which might be a sign of otherworldly intelligence, all the while ignoring the clear evidence of intelligence built into the incredibly complex DNA patterns of every living creature right here on Earth. 

3. Mutations do not increase information, as required by evolution. 

Mutations are thought to drive evolution, but they cannot increase information.  Mutations can only change DNA by deleting, damaging, duplicating, or substituting already existing information.  The vast majority of mutations are harmful or have no apparent effect.  Over 100 years of fruit fly experiments have clearly demonstrated that mutations only result in normal, dead, or grotesquely deformed fruit flies – they are still fruit flies!  Even mutations which are in some way beneficial (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or wingless beetles on windy islands) result from the loss of information.  This is the opposite of the vast increase in information required to get from amoeba to man, as proposed in the theory of evolution.

4. Natural Selection is conservative, not creative. 

The concept of natural selection was originally developed by natural theologians, who thought that it worked to preserve distinct created types.  Darwin argued that natural selection, if given enough time, could actually create new types.  However, field and laboratory observations of natural selection in action confirm that it only changes the relative abundance of certain already-existing characteristics, and doesn’t create new ones.  For example, Darwin observed that the average beak size of finches increased in dry years, but later observers noted that this trend reversed in wet years.  This is very different than the kind of changes that would be required to transform a finch beak into some other structure or a finch into a completely different kind of animal.  In other words, scientific studies of natural selection demonstrate, without exception, that Darwin was wrong. 

5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true. 

If evolution were true, we should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don’t see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between every major “kind” of life.  Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven’t been.

6. Pictures of ape-to-human “missing links” are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists’ already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. 

The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be “reconstructed” a hundred different ways. Many supposed “ape-men” are very clearly apes, and most fossils hailed with much fanfare as “missing links” are later quietly reclassified as simply extinct varieties of non-human primates.  Evolutionists now admit that other so-called “ape-men” were fully human.  The body hair and the blank expressions of the supposedly primitive humans in these models don’t come from the bones, but from the evolutionary assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone’s eyes based on a few old bones.  The “missing links” are still missing.

7. The radioactive dating methods that evolutionists use to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are based on questionable assumptions and give unreliable results. 

Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine a rock’s age assume that the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can be accurately estimated, that no isotopes moved into or out of the rock after its formation (closed system), and that radioactive decay rates have always been constant.  However, the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can rarely be estimated with reasonable accuracy.  In addition, it is commonly acknowledged that hydrothermal fluids (hot, mineral-rich water) often transport both parent and daughter isotopes from one rock to another, invalidating the closed system assumption.  In fact, this process is often cited as a reason for rejecting dates that don’t fit the evolutionary timeline.  What is not commonly known is that radioactive dating methods usually give a number of different results for the same formation and often even for the same rock!  In practice, geologists choose the “correct” age from among these different results based on the age expected from the evolutionary timeline.  This is a classic case of circular thinking!  Also, different methods give different results, with heavier isotopes consistently giving older ages than lighter isotopes for the same rock.  This pattern should not exist if radioactive decay rates have always been the same.  Furthermore, lava flows with known historical ages often date as millions or even billions of years old.  If radioactive dating methods can be off by so much for rocks of known age, how can they be considered reliable for rocks of unknown age?

8. “Leftover” body structures are not evidence for evolution. 

Evolutionists point to vestigial organs (supposedly “leftover” body structures with no know function) as evidence of evolution. However, it’s impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there’s always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. In fact, over 100 organs formerly thought of as vestigial are now known to perform essential functions. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs and only a small number are still considered vestigial. It is increasingly clear that vestigial organs are not the result of evolution but simply examples of scientific ignorance.  It’s also worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. Proponents of evolution need to provide examples of developing organs that are not yet fully functional but can be shown to be increasing in complexity with each succeeding generation.  No such examples exist.

9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology. 

When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called “spontaneous generation.” Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). “Chemical Evolution” is just another way of saying “spontaneous generation”—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.

Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five “heads” in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it’s given, non-life will not become alive.

10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. 

There are two types of science.  Operational science deals with the present, and arrives at conclusions based on repeated observations of existing phenomena.  Historical science deals with the past, which is not repeatable.  Investigations of origins clearly fall within the scope of historical science, and therefore cannot draw definitive conclusions.  Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. This interpretation is greatly influenced by one’s prior beliefs.  If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible’s teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God’s revealed Word.

 

[Space 2335]

Okay, now that you've had you fun with religion...

In a quote of someone I find very funny (He's also an atheist)

 

'You're talking ****.'

-Ricky Gervais

 

1. Show me the evidence to this.

 

2. Show me the evidence to this.

 

3. Lemme get back to you. I will edit after.

 

4. We've been watching this for 100 years. Evolution and natural selection happen in MILLIONS of years.

 

5. You're talking ****. Yes they have. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQMeKNyMJ6X0HybvK_WEq_IQlNdVosox1e3zWU531GkXSqyIvB

 

6. Homo erectus, home neanderthalas, habilis, so many links. But EVERYTIME we find a link, it opens 2 more links. That's the same as 'god of the gaps' arguement. It's dumb.

 

7. You're talking ****.

 

8. Even if so, CSB BROTHER. You're talking ****.

 

9. I--- I... Just.... No, no. NO. SO MANY THINGS ARE WRONG.

 

10. I think I'm done with this thread. No, that's just.. WRONG.

[Campor 28]

I'm an atheist but I still believe Darwin's theory of evolution has too many holes to be considered fact. I think it's rather ignorant and arrogant that the so-called believers in science disregard the fundamental principles of science and immediately accept this theory instead of doing what they should do; nitpicking at it's faults, carefully examining it, and engaging in thoughtful debates over it. Instead, many evolution believers nitpick at Christians' faith, calling them the close-minded ones.

 

I do not know how life came to be on the planet earth. Alien intervention /would/ seem the most likely, however if you have ever heard of the Fermi paradox, you would know this likely rules out that possibility. And so we search on.

Here's the thing people seem to miss- I'm not sure any modern scientists believe DARWIN'S theory. We credit him with the basis of evolutionary theory, but he was a scientist over a hundred years ago. We've used modern science and found ways he was incorrect, correcting them to create the modern idea of evolutionary theory.

 

The problem with the argument is it assumes that science does not evolve and adapt to new developments. If religion did that, it would counteract and contradict itself. In fact, it has done so- The Christian Bible has changed on numerous occasions, both with wording of specific passages and entire sections either being removed or added. The word of God would not change as the world changes if it were made to be a certain way.

[JtPv 140]

I give up. I honestly do. Goodbye, thread!