Jump to content

Home

Evolution or Creation


DarthSion399
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It won't prove where we come from, just how we've changed over the course of time. If you accept that the God of Creationaism is omnipotent, then none of the usual objections matter b/c God did it.

 

Maybe. If you say there is a being that can do anything, then you can virtually use god to patch up all the holes that exist in our knowledge of the universe. If something doesn't make sense... like where did the first cell originate, you could say god created that life.

 

If something conflicts with the bible or reality, then just say god COULD have done it. Therefore you open-end every single question or unknown by saying that God had the power to do anything. But what if there is no proof that God actually exists? Why not just say it's the Force? That sounds more likely to me than an all-powerful being working to advance our interests.

 

I would say that God isn't a being, but an idea. He was created by humans in order to inspire cooperation, give hope, and for a moral code. Beyond that, I see no reason to assume he actually exists. There are so many versions of god that you can't exactly claim that one is more valid than another's god. Before you can even argue with creation vs. evolution, you must first prove which of the many versions of creation is correct.

Edited by Darth_Yuthura
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator Friendly Reminder Time:

 

5. Repeatedly posting the same thing: This refers specifically to repeating the same point over and over in a way that becomes irritating, without an attempt to clarify a point or to contribute to the conversation. This should not be construed to mean that you are required to answer someone else's questions. If it's the same argument and doesn't contribute to the discussion, the post may be edited or deleted, and the poster may receive an infraction.[/Quote]

 

Anyone not familiar with the rules for Kavar, please give them a look.

 

Also this is not a chat room; LucasForums provides Visitor Messages, Social Groups, Private Messages and Blogs for less restrictive forms of chit-chat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I said what evidence is there, I was wondering what evidence there is that hasn't been disproven. Because, With the Wiki's i'll get a biased report half the time. All of the evidence I can think of has been debunked, but clung to still for ages afterward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_evolution

Insects and bacteria - macroevolution happens very, very often among these. There are numerous brand new species of insects and bacteria every year.

 

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale.

 

Well, I stand (somewhat) corrected. Macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, but at least I was right about micro-evolution and macroevolution essentially being the same process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went looking to find where evolution has been debunked by the creationist. I have to admit, I was wrong. With stupendous intellect and superior deduction creationist have been able to totally debunk the science of evolution without even bothering to use the constraints provided by the scientific method. We all know how bias the scientific method is. No, with only a simple banana, a former teen star and complete and utter genius they have totally debunked science. Heck, I’m starting to believe the earth is flat.

 

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That guy is smart. I like his reasoning.

Creation: 1.

Evolution: 0.

Seriously??? If we go by the logic that everything is "premade" for humans, then why aren't cows nicely packaged and ground up for meat distribution, and why aren't mountains already carved into nice blocks for building with?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That guy is smart. I like his reasoning.

Creation: 1.

Evolution: 0.

 

:migraine:

 

This is the problem with Evolution vs. Creation discussions - all anyone is interested in is scoring points for their sides. It's ridiculous and doesn't do anything to further the discussion.

 

Nice vid, Mim - that guy really is a genius. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously??? If we go by the logic that everything is "premade" for humans, then why aren't cows nicely packaged and ground up for meat distribution, and why aren't mountains already carved into nice blocks for building with?

 

Read Genesis.

All of creation was originally meant to be vegetarians. That includes all animals.

And Adam and Eve didn't live in a house, hut or even a tent. They lived outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay there is something that vexes me about those who say it's both. Some are christian and openly admit they accept evolution because evidence shows the evolution process. How can they and still gravitate towards creation?

 

I on the other hand take to evolution and dismiss creation completely. Does that make me biased, disrespectful, and narrow-minded? Perhaps, but maybe I just see too many contradictions between the two that they can't both be right. I do happen to see one answer that would explain all the discrepancies, but it would trample upon other people's beliefs and essentially dismiss religion out of hand.

 

I want to bring up an example where science overtakes science in a debate. Those who've been taught of seafloor spreading often are told that the cause of plate movement is attributed to the mid Atlantic Ridge. A rift of magma pushing two plates away from one another... that's wrong.

 

More recent studies have shown there is not enough force to PUSH the Oceanic plates away from one another, but if the rift were a result of two plates being pulled away from one another; that would make much more sense. It is not compression, but tension that causes the mid Atlantic ridge. It is the mass of two oceanic plates being pulled in opposite directions and magma creates new plate matter as they move apart.

 

This newer theory had replaced the older one about the rift being what pushes the plates away because it offered a more plausible explanation based on the evidence that was available. It is not in our best interests to continue believing in the older theory when another one makes more sense. The newer theory might be wrong, but anyone contesting it must explain why the plates have deformed as though under tension and not under pressure.

 

---

 

I don't wish to insult someone for believing a god, but I just cannot comprehend how people who've accepted evolution could still believe in creation. I could believe someone who brings up something very peculiar that isn't explained by evolution, such as a fossil that doesn't conform to any organisms that existed at the time period it was found. Sentience is even something that I could believe went beyond evolution.

 

Some who believe in creation admit that genesis is wrong, humans evolved from primates, and that they don't take what's in the bible as creation. My question to those who believe in creationism: If you do believe in evolution and would not take the details of the bible as fact, then what are you going by?

 

I have to agree with Bimmerman in that a belief does not belong in a classroom or laboratory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a Christian. I believe in Creation. I dismiss evolution completely. That is that.

To say you are a Creationist who believes in evolution is hypocrisy. Either its Creation or its evolution. Claiming both is disregarding Genesis, and in the process disregarding the word of God.

The same goes for a Christian who disregards Genesis by choosing evolution.

Edited by Trench
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking only for myself, I don't believe in creation and stated so in my opening post. I accept the undeniable evidence of evolution.

 

 

 

I'd also suggest some of you read my earlier warning and quit spamming the thread without adding to the discussion. It is not helping your post count as one of the moderators will be cleaning up this thread before long, but it could add to someone’s infraction count should the staff feel the spamming warrants such action.

Edited by mimartin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know how bias the scientific method is. No, with only a simple banana, a former teen star and complete and utter genius they have totally debunked science. Heck, I’m starting to believe the earth is flat.

 

You do know that NATURAL bananas are quite different from that of which he showed on the video. Those that are wild are called green cooking bananas with hard seeds embedded within them. Those of the desert type are asexually propagated by humans... so the miracle of the banana happens to be a human achievement.

 

Don't worry about fearing the world will be flat again. When little details like this come up, it puts things back into their proper perspective. It's just a matter of not being sold by half truths. Seek it all before changing your mind.

 

I am a Christian. I believe in Creation. I dismiss evolution completely. That is that.

 

Alright, then there is nothing I can say that would change your opinion. I don't actively go out and tell people that their beliefs are flawed/wrong/mistaken unless they put them where they don't belong in the first place.

 

I happen to go to church... would people find that surprising? I rather value the lessons that the ministers offer to me and many others who attend. I'm not so biased about religion that I would close myself off to it. We all could do much better for ourselves and others if we attended church every once in a while.

 

But there are aspects of it that I would rather do without. I like hearing of people overcoming their problems through shear effort, dedication, holding to a set of values, and everything that make humans different from the other animals on the planet. I DO NOT like hearing of the bible stories where god ultimately steps in and makes everything right. Those frustrate me because... we're not god.

Edited by Darth_Yuthura
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't wish to insult someone for believing a god, but I just cannot comprehend how people who've accepted evolution could still believe in creation. I could believe someone who brings up something very peculiar that isn't explained by evolution, such as a fossil that doesn't conform to any organisms that existed at the time period it was found. Sentience is even something that I could believe went beyond evolution.

 

Some who believe in creation admit that genesis is wrong, humans evolved from primates, and that they don't take what's in the bible as creation. My question to those who believe in creationism: If you do believe in evolution and would not take the details of the bible as fact, then what are you going by?

 

I have to agree with Bimmerman in that a belief does not belong in a classroom or laboratory.

 

No offense, DY, but as was pointed out you tend to conflate Creationism w/ creation. It is possible to believe that everything we see around us has been created by something b/c no one has figured out yet where everything really does come from. As to science and belief in the classroom, agreed, The whole man came from monkeys and amoebae should be shelved until the evidence is conclusive and irrefutable. Present that side of evolution as a possibility (strong or otherwise), not an irrefutable fact. I'm not against theories put forth as theories which are constantly being tested for veracity (afterall, many of the claims of religions are often untestable/unrepeatable and therefore don't belong in a science class). And as far as that goes, get the whole pseudo-science of "anthropogenic global warming as fact" out of the science classroom. It's political rhetoric, which like relgion doesn't belong in the science classroom. :carms:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like what?

 

Whence self-awareness came from and came about. What the environmental conditions are, required to evolve a being into conscious self awareness.

 

*is very interested in learning how to prove a negative*

 

One side says Can't prove it = false; unknown.

Otherside says can't completely disprove it =/= false; is unknown.

 

I was merely implying both sides remained unconvinced of the others' argument is all. :xp:

 

Evolution doesen't give a damn about creation, see abiogenesis for that, so no need to worry about the creation bit.

 

Well maybe not, but others seem to have it in their head that it isn't necessarily the other way around for creationism (stating that evolution is a tool for creation or creationism), despite what the books say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense, DY, but as was pointed out you tend to conflate Creationism w/ creation.

 

The whole man came from monkeys and amoebae should be shelved until the evidence is conclusive and irrefutable. Present that side of evolution as a possibility (strong or otherwise), not an irrefutable fact.

 

And as far as that goes, get the whole pseudo-science of "anthropogenic global warming as fact" out of the science classroom. It's political rhetoric, which like relgion doesn't belong in the science classroom. :carms:

 

Creation=the action of bringing something into existence

Creationism=belief the universe and organisms originated by acts of divine creation rather than natural processes like evolution

 

Literal definitions, but they suffice. Everything upon this planet, within the galaxy are creations. The issue is that 'creationism' goes against the idea that things just happened naturally.

 

If people believe in evolution, then they shouldn't believe in 'creationism.' They may be able to believe in god, but they shouldn't assume that everything originated from that god's actions.

 

And no, evolution should not be shelved because it has so far been the best answer to how we came to exist. It shouldn't be declared 'fact' as it still remains a theory, but there is enough evidence that it can be treated as such. Unless there is another theory that makes more sense, it is the most reasonable answer for our existence.

 

If God happened to create the first organisms that lead to our evolution, then he is responsible for us being here, but we are not his creations. Creationism assumes he created man and then woman and that we wouldn't have existed if weren't for him.

Edited by Darth_Yuthura
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole man came from monkeys and amoebae should be shelved until the evidence is conclusive and irrefutable.

 

Sure... and future children fresh out of highschool biology class won't know enough about the theorized history of human evolution to make a reasonable conclusion about it. So much for the few students eager to learn about the scientific explanation for their origins...

 

I say teach the controversy, without leaving out any important details.

Edited by Arcesious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure... and future children fresh out of highschool biology class won't know enough about the theorized history of human evolution to make a reasonable conclusion about it.

They don't now. Even assuming the adequacy (ha) of the US education system, pretty much everything you're taught as fact now, Arc, will turn out to be rubbish once you reach university; and those things which don't will turn out to be much less cut-and-dried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a Christian. I believe in Creation. I dismiss evolution completely. That is that.

To say you are a Creationist who believes in evolution is hypocrisy. Either its Creation or its evolution. Claiming both is disregarding Genesis, and in the process disregarding the word of God.

The same goes for a Christian who disregards Genesis by choosing evolution.

That assumes you hold the Bible to be the direct word of God and not the writings of man attempting to capture the words of God accurately but not necessarily succeeding. In any event, Genesis is old Testament and as Christian I hold that while the Old Testament holds important teachings to learn the actions of Christ in the Gospel overthrew the older Jewish order and thus destroyed the validity of the Old Testament as the source of information on God's will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genesis isn't a science book, and never was meant to be. The Hebrew is fluid in its meaning of 'day', for instance--it can mean a literal 24 hour day or it can mean an unspecified long period of time, sort of like when we say "back in my grandfather's day....". That is why I don't find creationism and evolutionism to be at odds with each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That assumes you hold the Bible to be the direct word of God and not the writings of man attempting to capture the words of God accurately but not necessarily succeeding.

 

I've been burned for mistaking two words with very similar pronunciations, but very different meanings; so I won't make that mistake here.

 

Evolution or Creation. That's the title. It MUST be one or the other because creationism (That is what I assume is meant by the title. Not a creation, but that Earth was a creation of God) directly opposes anything that might be explained naturally.

 

I'm not trying to keep hammering the same point again and again, but clearly there are some who think you can have matter and anti-matter sharing the same space. That you can accept something and another that conflicts with it. That evolution and creation(ism) could both be right. If one is so, then the other has to be false.

 

If for the sake of argument that I KNEW beyond a doubt that God truly existed, I would stop believing in evolution right there. Quite simply I could believe a being that can do anything could create the world exactly as it is. I could believe he could create a sample of uranium with the right number of radioactive isotopes to make it look like it's a billion years old if he wanted. He could create a Grand Canyon from scratch. He reasonably can do anything that would explain why the world is as it exists and dismiss all the evidence that they ever went through a process of nature.

 

It just so happens though that so many elements of nature can be explained without ever having needed God to make them so. If you can explain something as a natural process, why would you see reason to bring god into the equation at all? If God wanted to hide his efforts in the world around us by adding evidence of evolution among his creation, he did a very good job at that.

 

Do not mistake what I'm adding here as an insult against religion. If a person believes in evolution, then that means they don't believe God created the Earth or man as the bible makes it seem. That DOESN'T make it that God didn't have a part in it, nor that he doesn't exist. It just means it was more likely he acted longer ago than the bible states and humans are not of his creation, but that they evolved from something that he was responsible for. That is NOT creationism.

Edited by Darth_Yuthura
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...