Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[Lago 2572]

For a start, I think we need a hard and fast rule that people cannot copy stuff off of Google that they don't understand. If they do understand it, they can put it in their own words.
 

Communists are atheists. It's true. They think that religion is but a
tool of the proletariat to keep the working classes in line. Look to the
above post for more clarification, if you don't mind. Don't want to
retype it all XP

Communists are no more atheists than capitalists are theists. Such a generalisation is, (and you'll hate me for saying this), racist by definition.

 

 

The reason we're discussing slavery and the Holocaust is that no
evolutionist can logically say that they were wrong. Evolution has no
morality. I'm not saying all evolutionists don't follow the rules. I'm
not saying all they want to do is kill. All I'm saying is that based on
the evolutionist's philosophy, slavery, murder, or any other type of
crime cannot logically be called "wrong." I hope nobody takes this as
slander against atheists, but what I'm saying is true.

It's complete and total crap. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist philosophy."

Besides, I find it far more depressing the concept that humans only take morally correct actions because they believe they're going to be locked out of paradise and eternally tortured by a horned goatman if they don't. Why are humans (or at least, cutural ideals) on the whole altruistic? Because they need to be. Imagine what ants would achieve if they all turned on each other.

 

That aside, your statement is akin to saying no Christian can object to the stoning to death of homosexuals or forcing women to marry men who rape them.

 

How is creationism scientific? A Creative Force for the universe must
exist due to the following points: The universe cannot be infinite, that
much creationists and evolutionists alike agree on. The evolutionist,
however, cannot explain where his "infinitely dense point" came from.
This point WAS the universe. It follows the same laws. I can't have been
eternal. Even if that was true, something had to put it here. This
necessitates a God.

 

If you want how a universe can create itself from nothing, I'd direct you to concept of Inflation. It involves weird quantum ****, like diffraction and plane polarisation.

All Evolution through Natural Selection achieves as a theory is to suggest a method as to how to get from one primordial life form to a very large number of different creatures and plants. It is not, as I see many posters here trying to paint it, a religion. Cosmology is irrelevant. The debate here is not one of cosmology, or the existence of gods. Arguing about the existence of God based on empirical evidence rather than opinion is as pointless as a sphere, it's as impossible to prove as what Shakespeare's last thought was. Besides, the existence of a god and evolution by natural selection are not mutually exclusive. The conflict arises between a literalist, fundamentalist interpretion of the Old Testament and evolution by natural selection.

 

The 'debate', if you could call it that, is on what is more probable (not which is true, as this is once again impossible to prove beyond all doubt), that Evolution by Natural Selection is approximately correct, or that every living thing was hand crafted by the Judeo-Christian God over six days. And here we get to something which can actually be discussed in terms of evidence. Of course, if you consider "he changed it all with his noodley appendage as a test of faith" a valid argument, then this argument too takes on the point of a sphere.

 

 

The only proofs have been put forth by myself

Show me one. Just one.

 

Lago, stop calling me racist.

In which case, please stop calling me an amoral supporter of slavery, murder and The Holocaust.

[hammer01 29]

For a start, I think we need a hard and fast rule that people cannot copy stuff off of Google that they don't understand. If they do understand it, they can put it in their own words.

 

But you have no answer for my post do you? It all makes complete sense to me. Why, if you can see error in the reasoning here, cant you clearly state why what I quoted was wrong?

[Lago 2572]

Your post is a very large number of opinions. Assuming they hold more weight because of who says them is an inherent logical fallacy. Put it into your own words. Then we'll see how well it stands up to scrutiny.

 

Or perhaps would you prefer it if I gathered one hundred articles off of Google and set you onto debunking each one?

[hammer01 29]

Your post is a very large number of opinions. Assuming they hold more weight because of who says them is an inherent logical fallacy. Put it into your own words. Then we'll see how well it stands up to scrutiny.

 

Or perhaps would you prefer it if I gathered one hundred articles off of Google and set you onto debunking each one?

I only posted one article. If you want me to put it my own words, it would be saying the exact same thing, so why not quote this? Plus, I wouldn't get it across nearly as effectively as this does. I merely want to know what you think about it. Right now it only seems as if your stalling...

[Lago 2572]

If you cannot express it yourself, then you cannot claim to understand the points it makes. You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

[hammer01 29]

If you cannot express it yourself, then you cannot claim to understand the points it makes. You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

So... let me get this straight.... You wont even reply to a post I make because you think I dont understand it? Well tell me tell you this: I do understand it, probably better than you do. It is stating hard logical evidence against evolution that, because of your stalling, it seems you cannot counter. That much I know.

 

 

The universe cannot have made itself because nothingness cannot make something. The universe cannot be infinite because due to the first law of thermodynamics, which states that there is a finite amount of energy, along with the second law of thermodynamics which says that the amount of available energy is  always decreasing. Thus, if it were infinite we would have no energy at all left in the universe. Logical conclusion: Something had to have made the universe.

 

Needless to say, I understand it. Why cant you give me the benefit of the doubt? Just because im not a good writer does not mean that I do not understand it. The only reason I copy-pasted it was because I am not a writer. As such, I would probably just confuse you guys about what im trying to say.

[Lago 2572]

You just got the first two laws of Thermodynamics wrong.

The first law is that the amount of energy (and it assumes mass to be a form of energy) in an isolated system is constant. It cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed in form. It does not state that there is a finite amount of energy. We've no way of measuring that, let alone proving it to the point where we call it a physical law.

 

The second law is that an isolated system advances towards entropy, it becomes "less ordered". It does not state "the amount of available energy is always decreasing."

Your third statement, that if the universe contained infinite energy it would contain no energy, is mathematically incorrect.

 

Assuming your versions of the first two laws of thermodynamics are correct, then surely whatever creates the universe also cannot exist as it is also confined to those laws? If not, then you have an example of those laws being broken, destroying the entire premise that they cannot be broken.

 

Finally, I will ask, what does this have to do with the subject of the topic?

[hammer01 29]

You just got the first two laws of Thermodynamics wrong.

The first law is that the amount of energy (and it assumes mass to be a form of energy) in an isolated system is constant. It cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed in form. It does not state that there is a finite amount of energy. We've no way of measuring that, let alone proving it to the point where we call it a physical law.

If energy is a constant it cannot be infinite. Infinite is not a constant. Thus energy cannot be infinite!

 

The second law is that an isolated system advances towards entropy, it becomes "less ordered". It does not state "the amount of available energy is always decreasing."

This website says that: "the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." Thus it is decreasing!

 

Assuming your versions of the first two laws of thermodynamics are correct, then surely whatever creates the universe also cannot exist as it is also confined to those laws? If not, then you have an example of those laws being broken, destroying the entire premise that they cannot be broken.

He would be outside of the laws of this universe, because he is not in this universe! Thus these laws would not apply!

 

Finally, I will ask, what does this have to do with the subject of the topic?

If you actually read the whole quote, you would understand that it is also attempting to show that God has to be out there! Read the whole quote and find out!

[Lego XBOX 915]

I have seen many silly things that I got bored reading the last 5 pages. They were filled with recurring arguments written in different ways. They are not going to work just because wording is different... reasoning is false, thus argument is false.

 

(I was talking about the Creationists)

 

Problem I

The Creationist side is not understanding or making an effort to understand the Evolutionist side.

To debate properly, you have to put yourself in our shoes, don't just post things over and over again, without even trying to refute our arguments. All you do is give us things to counter, but you don't counter anything we say in return.

 

Problem II

The Creationist side is making many logical fallacies.

I don't see how by just saying that there is one inconsistency in the evolution theory, that being the Big Bang, which by extension has nothing to do with evolution in itself, means that Evolutionists are all wrong.

 

Problem III

The Creationists are docking logical arguments they cannot refute.

I still have that post, "Evolution for Dummies", I made in this thread... And nothing has been said against it, for everything which was said was logically refuted and thus the post I wrote still stands as fact and as long as it does, you cannot prove evolution wrong...

 

Evolution for Dummies

Lets name this certain bacteria as α. Lets say α resides in your stomach. α is part of a colony of other α's which are completely identical. However there are some other bacteria which are identical in almost each respect named β. This β has a further developed cytoplasmic shell thus protecting it from a certain anti-biotic. β is in an insignificant minority.

To clarify on β. β is a bacterial cell which was subject of a genetical error during the division of α. Bacteria being large colonies of thousands and thousands, furthermore them reproducing every 20 minutes makes the probability of having a mutation increased.

Back to the story. You get stomach aches, you take a generalized anti-biotic. This attacks and destroys all the α type of the colony, leaving the minority of β types living. You have just helped the evolution of the β type species.

This is how bacteria come to be immune to anti-biotic. Its not because of them becoming used to it, its because they randomly generate a defense against it. This also explains however, the way evolution works, accelerated of course as the scale bacteria evolve in is tiny. This can be applied to some human beings now having AIDS immune T4 lymphocytes. These humans are thus superior in a world where AIDS claims many because of a small change in the genetic code induced randomly by either radiation or simple genetical mistakes when duplicating.

I wasn't sure if anyone had explained this, so I was just giving my little guide to evolution. If you contest this, I'm sorry to say, but you are wrong to. This is plainly based off pure logic.

 

Problem IV

Creationists are mistaking the sense of belief, faith and theory.

Theory is not what the creationists think, what they are supposing it is, is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is something made before the theory is created, the theory can only be created once a single piece of proof is placed upon the table. This theory strengthens which each element of proof added. Taking the expression of "Theoretically...", here we see the express meaning of a theory. It is not 100% fact, however it is something which can be used to generalise.
Belief in a theory does not exist. Belief and faith are both attributed to something which is not proven, such as legends or myths, or religion. I'm just going to trump Creationists with my next argument, using their term of belief.

 

Problem V

Creationists are for the most part, religious. And we all know what Religion was invented for...

Let me put it quite clearly. The Bible is a book, as 'holy' as it could possibly be... Did you know that before Christians and modern day religions, there were the Roman and Ancient Greek religions. Does the bible explain why these existed? On that point, did you know that it has been proven that the greek gods and titans were all thought up to explain certain Terran phenomenons? Indeed, each god was attributed to something which people couldn't explain. Vulcan for volcanoes, Eos for Dawn, Zeus for thunder. Let me also point out that religion has forever tried to restrict the development of science, burning people speaking true, now proven, facts. If we take the modern religion, it's the same, only with a single deity which explains everything...

 

[Lago 2572]

If energy is a constant it cannot be infinite. Infinite is not a constant. Thus energy cannot be infinite!

Constant. Not "a constant", as in a mathematical constant like pi or tau. Constant as in unchanging. Constant as in not a variable. 2 is constantly 2. Zero is constantly zero. Infinity is constantly infinity.

This website says that: "the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." Thus it is decreasing!

You aren't understanding it. Potential energy is energy stored in gradients. Your computer has gravitational potential energy. Drop it off of your desk and that GPE will turn to kinetic. When it hits the ground that kinetic becomes sound, heat, and kinetic energy of the floor. A pendulum works on the constant transfer of kinetic to GPE and back again. Throw something into the air, and kinetic becomes gravitational potential energy.

The website you link actually has a very good analogy. Pour water down a hill. That water will flow down that hill in all sorts of intricate patterns, but when it reaches the bottom (maximum entropy) there is no slope left to move it. In a classical universe, mass-energy works in exactly the same way, entropy is the slope.

However, if you have an infinite amount of energy, then the water at the top never runs out, and it can keep flowing eternally.
I'm not saying there's infinite energy in the universe, only that you haven't proved there isn't.

 

He would be outside of the laws of this universe, because he is not in this universe! Thus these laws would not apply!

If it is possible for something to exist outside of physical laws, then we can make no predictions about it based on those physical laws. If the physical laws do not apply until the universe exists, then it is completely impossible for us to say anything about what was before that.

If you actually read the whole quote, you would understand that it is
also attempting to show that God has to be out there! Read the whole
quote and find out!

Which is relevant to Evolution by Natural Selection how?

[hammer01 29]

I have seen many silly things that I got bored reading the last 5 pages. They were filled with recurring arguments written in different ways. They are not going to work just because wording is different... reasoning is false, thus argument is false.

 

(I was talking about the Creationists)

 

Problem I

The Creationist side is not understanding or making an effort to understand the Evolutionist side.

To debate properly, you have to put yourself in our shoes, don't just post things over and over again, without even trying to refute our arguments. All you do is give us things to counter, but you don't counter anything we say in return.

 

Problem II

The Creationist side is making many logical fallacies.

I don't see how by just saying that there is one inconsistency in the evolution theory, that being the Big Bang, which by extension has nothing to do with evolution in itself, means that Evolutionists are all wrong.

 

Problem III

The Creationists are docking logical arguments they cannot refute.

I still have that post, "Evolution for Dummies", I made in this thread... And nothing has been said against it, for everything which was said was logically refuted and thus the post I wrote still stands as fact and as long as it does, you cannot prove evolution wrong...

 

 

Problem IV

Creationists are mistaking the sense of belief, faith and theory.

Theory is not what the creationists think, what they are supposing it is, is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is something made before the theory is created, the theory can only be created once a single piece of proof is placed upon the table. This theory strengthens which each element of proof added. Taking the expression of "Theoretically...", here we see the express meaning of a theory. It is not 100% fact, however it is something which can be used to generalise.

Belief in a theory does not exist. Belief and faith are both attributed to something which is not proven, such as legends or myths, or religion. I'm just going to trump Creationists with my next argument, using their term of belief.

 

Problem V

Creationists are for the most part, religious. And we all know what Religion was invented for...

Let me put it quite clearly. The Bible is a book, as 'holy' as it could possibly be... Did you know that before Christians and modern day religions, there were the Roman and Ancient Greek religions. Does the bible explain why these existed? On that point, did you know that it has been proven that the greek gods and titans were all thought up to explain certain Terran phenomenons? Indeed, each god was attributed to something which people couldn't explain. Vulcan for volcanoes, Eos for Dawn, Zeus for thunder. Let me also point out that religion has forever tried to restrict the development of science, burning people speaking true, now proven, facts. If we take the modern religion, it's the same, only with a single deity which explains everything...

 

Not making an effort to look at it from your perspective? I am, believe it or not! I do not need to work to counter your arguments, because the only way to disprove a theory is to give one shred of evidence against it! If we can do that, evolution has to be tossed out the window!

 

We may be making logical fallacies, but we are also making some very logical points as well. Big Bang is a way to explain the beginning of the universe without God. If we can kick that off, we are one step closer to proving there is a God! If we can show that there is a God, that brings us one step closer to proving creation! So, we arent really being illogical here...

 

You yourself are docking some of our arguments! If we cannot refute some, then that does not neccesarily prove Evolution, just that you do have some evidence going your way. Your Evolution for dummies does not prove anything either, and if you looked at the quote i quoted, you will see that i have in a sense responded to it.

 

Belief in theory does exist! People believed in the theory that the sun revolved around the earth, right? Whats the difference here?

 

The Bible is composed of 66 books writen over 2000 years all pointing twoard the same thing. Coincedence? I think not! The Bible also has many many prophacies that have come true! We believe not to explain certain phenomenon, but rather to find the truth! Right now, we are trying to disprove Evolution. Once we have done that, we will talk about the bible...

[Lego XBOX 915]

Not making an effort to look at it from your perspective? I am, believe it or not! I do not need to work to counter your arguments, because the only way to disprove a theory is to give one shred of evidence against it! If we can do that, evolution has to be tossed out the window!

By your reasoning, you've already lost... there is more than one shred of evidence against creationism... But I'll disregard your logical fallacy and continue.

 

We may be making logical fallacies, but we are also making some very logical points as well. Big Bang is a way to explain the beginning of the universe without God. If we can kick that off, we are one step closer to proving there is a God! If we can show that there is a God, that brings us one step closer to proving creation! So, we arent really being illogical here...

 

You cannot make logical points when you have beforehand made logical fallacies, it's like basing facts upon assumptions. Big Bang carries more proof than God even exists. God does not exist just because the Big Bang, according to you, did not happen.

You yourself are docking some of our arguments! If we cannot refute some, then that does not neccesarily prove Evolution, just that you do have some evidence going your way. Your Evolution for dummies does not prove anything either, and if you looked at the quote i quoted, you will see that i have in a sense responded to it.

You have not disproven a single bit of my Evolution for Dummies, nor made it explicit enough to do so. I would really like to see you find something which would disprove it though.

We dock none of your arguments, each argument you place down, we refute as much as there is to refute...

 

Belief in theory does exist! People believed in the theory that the sun revolved around the earth, right? Whats the difference here?

Funny thing is, people that believed in that were actually believing in what religion said... not any theory formulated by any scientist. You are saying, 'Belief in HYPOTHESIS does exist' which is not what we are talking about.

The Bible is composed of 66 books writen over 2000 years all pointing twoard the same thing. Coincedence? I think not! The Bible also has many many prophacies that have come true! We believe not to explain certain phenomenon, but rather to find the truth! Right now, we are trying to disprove Evolution. Once we have done that, we will talk about the bible...

Funny thing is, you are trying to disprove evolution using the bible, yet, you say we will talk about it later? No. The Bible may have been written over 2000 years... what does that matter? I could start a legacy of a science fiction series, make a giant book over a couple millennia... that doesn't make what's written in it true. The bible also contains many scientific discrepancies so, don't use it as proof.

[Amorphbutt 199]

There's always this, a quote by Terry Pratchett, again: "Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw.It was its tendency to bend at the knees." I hope that answers your questions. If not, then you are boring   

[argonian 14254]

Microevolution(which would, logically, lead to macroevolution over time) is indisputable. Stuff like certain becoming white after leaving Africa, certain groups of humans becoming immune to certain diseases, certain bacteria becoming immune to certain antibiotics, etc. Let's think of the proof for God zapping each creature here just a few thousand years ago...hmm...none. I'm a Christian myself but I believe that the seven days weren't literal days(translation and stuff I read about), the genealogy of those humans skipped people(which was a common thing at the time) and other stuff like that which allows evolution to also exist.

[Lago 2572]

Big Bang is a way to explain the beginning of the universe without God

The original Big Bang theory was created by a priest.

 

If we can show that there is a God, that brings us one step closer to proving creation!

You can't prove the existence of a transcendent God because a transcendant God is transcendant.

If we can show that there is a God, that brings us one step closer to proving creation!

There's a difference between "God created the universe", which is as good a reason as any, and "Genesis is a literal account." If I were a benevolent God, I wouldn't make a wasp that paralyses tarantulas and lays its larve inside the tarantula, which is put through unimaginable torture as it is eaten alive by larvae that specifically avoid its vital organs so it lives in torture for as long as possible.
 

Belief in theory does exist! People believed in the theory that the sun
revolved around the earth, right? Whats the difference here?

Earth being the centre of the universe is not a theory in the conventional sense any more than The Earth is Flat is a theory. What the person you are attempting to rebut means is that once a theory is disproved beyond all reasonable doubt it is discarded, like the Plum Pudding model of the atom which was disproved by Rutherford, and the theory is then adapted or replaced. It is objective. Faith, however, seems to have a tendency to adapt the evidence to the theory rather than the theory to the evidence. You need only look at the twisting of the Qu'ran by Islamist terrorists to see how, with enough overinference and 'intepretation', you can make anything 'mean' almost anything. It is subjective.

 

The Bible is composed of 66 books writen over 2000 years all pointing twoard the same thing.

Christianity is no more supported by fact than Judaism and Islam. Besides, out of those three, I'd say Islam's probably the most credible, as it claims the Qu'ran to be the literal unedited word of God. Any account written by man will be corrupted by human bias and corruption. Give a man enough power and he will abuse it. Communism is theoretically a completely fair society, but it requires the man at the top not to go beserk with power.