Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[Viper3X 1056]

Actually, a huge number of both Christians and other religious people believe in Evolution. For example, on the PBS program "Firing Line" two of the four debaters on the side of Evolution were religious. Heck, one was a reverend.

Personally, I do not believe you can call yourself a Christian and still believe in Evolution. In the Bible it refers to God as the Creator of all that is, not the developer of some system that eventually produces all that is.

If we have a climate with large amounts of pollution, small insects will begin dying because of the poisoned air. The majority will eventually die. But perhaps some can breath this polluted air. They have a stronger immune system, anything. They won't get killed off. Meaning that while the normal insects are dying in droves, these live on happily. The only ones who have survived are those with similar mutations, meaning that they are the only options for mating. Thus, they reproduce. Their children, having the same genetic material, will then most likely also be pollution resistant, and continue to survive in the environment. And so the only surviving members of the species are this new, slightly different, evolved insect.

This is micro evolution, not macro. These insects are still the same species, but they have adapted to their new environment. This is not proof of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Micro evolution is observed everyday. Macro evolution, on the other hand, has not been witnessed.

Sorry if I don't really get what he's saying here, but I think this is just him not really understanding Evolution. What he describes as micro-evolution pretty much is macro-evolution, or the larger theory of evolution. I'm not sure how he's trying to argue that you can have species evolution without having... evolution.

What I understand from his statement is that multiple similar species have been placed side by side to make it appear as if they have evolved from one another.

I would love to see examples of these pieces of the fossil record being "fakes." Darwin wrote his theory with plenty of evidence in mind. For something so radical, he would have been an idiot to just make a baseless claim. He cited the Fossil Record, mentioned here. The Fossil Record is one of the largest supports for the theory of evolution. I'm not really going to even start to begin trying to counter this guy's argument because he supplies absolutely no evidence, and just makes baseless claims.

Many of man's "ancestors" have been proven to be fake; simply being either a regular monkey or human. The Fossil Record does not prove evolution, either.

Birds and insects not native to Hawaii were introduced just a couple of centuries ago and have evolved to take better advantage of the different flora, actually. That's one example. Second, mosquitos introduced into the London underground system have adapted to the environment. From the same mosquito, they have adapted to fit their environment - evolution in action. There are countless examples happening in the modern world, even with humans.

Another massive example is in bacteria. Every day, in hospitals, we're seeing new viruses and bacteria that counter our antibiotics and other medicines. They grow stronger, and start being resistant to the drug, meaning that we have to switch drugs. This is a part of the medical process found everywhere, noted on radio stations - this is inarguable evidence.

Again, you are proving micro evolution, not macro. They are still the same species.

Think of how lucky we are to actually live our selves. We are the perfect distance away from the sun. If we where any closer, there'd be no water, if we where any further out, our sea's, ocean's would be ice and We rotate perfectly. why would God create it this complicated?

To us, the universe and all of the laws may be complex, but not for God. In the beginning he said "Let there be light" not "Let there be ultraviolet rays, xrays, wavelength, etc." He is so powerful that he can simply speak a few words and it exists. Scientists would get bored if everything was simple!

I will now take my leave from this thread. It all comes down to us debating a topic that will never cease to exist. Evolution will eventually be replaced with another theory. I hope that what was discussed here does not go beyond this debate friendship-wise. I wish for no relationships to be damaged between anyone involved. We all have our own opinions.

[JordMafia 61]

WE ARE ALL ROCKS. DEBATE HAS ENDED

[Whitebeard 126]

I think the great thing about the theory of evolution and a large majority of scientists, is that the scientific community still labels it as a theory. Although well supported with evidence they are still accepting the possibility of it being false (ie not the law of evolution).

There are people such as agnostics whom decide that they do not know which is certainly a valid. However it seems to me that all religiously passionate people refuse to see the evidence and instead refute anything that would perhaps prove it or change the story that the bible presents. The fact is the bible was written by man and not a god. Therefore it is prone to the same faults and inaccuracies that all humans are subject to.

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.

I find this both an interesting and humorous piece of material you have extracted from this website. For one atheism is in no way dependent on evolution, sure to provides an answer to how humans might have come to be but atheism itself is the lack of a belief in a god, it doesn't say anywhere in the 'athiests bible' that we require to explain or even believe scientific theories.

Also through this extract it constantly explains how there is no evidence to support evolution, but I would retort with the same statement about christianity and the bible as well as almost all other religions. I fail to see how Scientology is any less ridiculous than Christianity.

[everblue2er101 906]

I'm a Christian. I believe in evolution. There's just too much scientific evidence for it not to be true. I might post more than this tomorrow when I'm more awake and willing to actually debate.

[PtahWithin 1320]

It is just a theory is not an argument against Evolution.

A Theory is defined by scientists as a hypothesis which has been tested, time and time again, peer-reviewed, modified, expanded and considered largely true by scientists. In comparison, the common usage of Theory is 'a possible explanation or idea'. In other words, the everyday usage of Theory is equivalent to the scientific usage of Hypothesis.

Calling Evolution a Theory is correct, but saying that it is 'just a theory' has no meaning. If the average person were to arrange stages of scientific ideas ('best' at the top) it would look like this:

LAW

FACT

THEORY

HYPOTHESIS

But a scientist would arrange it like this:

THEORY

LAW

HYPOTHESIS

FACT

When speaking about scientific ideas, this is the correct usage.

[154684321654951 73]

When you ask the question "Creation or Evolution" I have to side with evolution, because honestly it's easier to believe than the world being created in 6 (maybe wrong here, I haven't done my homework) weeks by an all seeing all powerful deity. I'm not a zealous follower of the theory of Evolution but I'll take it over Creationism any day of the week.

[no longer active 734]

When you ask the question "Creation or Evolution" I have to side with evolution, because honestly it's easier to believe than the world being created in 6 (maybe wrong here, I haven't done my homework) weeks by an all seeing all powerful deity. I'm not a zealous follower of the theory of Evolution but I'll take it over Creationism any day of the week.

You bring up an interesting point here. In the Bible it says "On the First day" and goes on until the sixth. On each of those days it says God creates something. However, most people take it very literally that the beings came into existence within a day. At that time though there was no clear definition of a day. Now it is 24 hours but for all we know a day Ben could have been million years. In that time evolution could have occurred. However, I do not believe man evolved in such a drastic way. If there was not creation how did man get on the planet?

[Neri 3590]

Whichever gives you the most satisfaction in life.

I'd go into it more, but you can't argue against either one of those choices, really.

[Wolf Druid Ouity 1461]

Personally, I like to think it's a bit of both.

Riddle me this- where did life actually start? More importantly, how? Membranes do not simply dorm around protiens which are moved throughout to make things by the design of nucleic acids randomly, and if there wasn't some huge outside factor involved, I'm a rabbit. Plus, I take comfort in the idea of existing forever. 100 years is al drab.

Now, the Bible States that we were made in 7 days ext from mud to people, but that's all rather silly. Put yourself in the dirty of your choice's shoes for a moment.

You're about to tell some people how you made the universe. They think the wheel is THE NEXT big thing. How will toy do it? Metaphor. They'd never understand otherwise.

"And from the mud came man" is probably one of the biggest metaphors I can think of. Very nice, actually. Man proudly rising from the primordial ooze and surpassing their evolutionary buddies in the process. "And from him came women" welp, that could be a number of things, perhaps a reference to cell division? Or perhaps God using man As a reference for females? Couldn't tell you, I'm not God.

As for that old arguwment "If he exists, why does he never call?" Read the Old Testimate. God shows up every now and again, and devestaring war almost immidiatly inswewd. If that was what happened whenever I did something in public, I would take a step back too.

[Whitebeard 126]

Scientists do not claim to know how life started or reached Earth, whether we came from some asteroid that harboured some kind of living cells or what have you..... but nevertheless no one truly knows how we got here.

However science does have an explanation or theory as to how we might have come to being after life had started. Their is not a single shred of evidence that the bible is correct thus god not existing, so until such time as their is evidence that would infer it does I believe we should side against it.

[TheRedNinja 30]

Clearly it was aliens, how else did we get here?

But really, I tend to stay far far away from this topic in discussion, there is no way to know how/why we are here. Evolution is a fact and its been proven, but again there is no proof to how we came to live on this rock.

[Rhisereld 317]

I don't believe in magic.

Saying, "I don't know what happened, lets make some hypotheses and test them until we know" sounds a lot more intelligent, logical and sane than "I don't know, it must have been God".

One vote for evolution here.

[AlphaCentaurus 173]

-snip-

I refrained from replying to this for a while after seeing that you would not be responding to it if I did, but I decided to do so nonetheless, to open up the debate to others. Now, first - we have narrowed this debate down to a single point of disagreement. You admit that there is micro-evolution, or as you say, species-evolution. Now, the thing is this - the difference between that and Darwin's Evolution is entirely intangible. The proper definitions of Micro- and Macro-Evolution are as follows.

Micro-Evolution describes smaller changes due to natural selection and environment, such as color changes. The first line of defense in an creationist's arsenal is often this. It admits to the basic principles of natural selection, but denies other aspects.

Macro-Evolution describes larger, more complex shifts in anatomy. The most commonly used example is the eye - something that creationists say is too complex to have developed in simple stages. I'll debate this point with you if necessary, but it doesn't seem needed.

(Source: berkeley.edu)

Now, as you have conceded to species-evolution, I must assume that you accept the larger theory of evolution, as well. I'll leave it at that for now.

Also, on the fossil record - the fossil record is one of the most reliable pieces of evidence we have for anything. It's not solid proof, of course, but it's pretty darn good evidence, which is about the best you can have in most of these things. There are, as with anything, fake "human ancestors." That doesn't mean there aren't real, strongly, strongly supported human ancestors. Honestly, I have no idea how anyone could mount a reasonable assault on the fossil record.

[K33MST4R 219]

While creation theories remain ever present, they have yet to be presented by actual fact. Although many may say otherwise, the Bible does not present biological and physical fact, as modern day science and theories of evolution continuously prove to do.

[Rhisereld 317]

While creation theories remain ever present, they have yet to be presented by actual fact. Although many may say otherwise, the Bible does not present biological and physical fact, as modern day science and theories of evolution continuously prove to do.

A theory is a tested hypothesis with supporting evidence. There are no "creation theories", only magic.