Evolution vs Creationism - a Reasoned Debate

[lukeskywalker1]

dude u really are the prophet of no god. i totally disagree with your occupation. thats ur choice.

[ShockV1.89]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

read revolations the last gospel it has prophecies that are coming true right now if that doesn't make u beleive in the bible i dont know what will. think about it how 2000 years ago could somone have a dream about the future and its coming true right now and will continue to come true until the end of the world. if it can be right about the future why cant it be right about the past?????

 

Many of the so called "prophecies" are not unlike Nostradamus's vague descriptions. That being, they can be interpreted many different ways.

 

One that comes to mind is a lunar eclipse (or is it solar?). Whichever, the one that makes the moon turn reddish orange. Isnt that one of the prophecys? "The moon will turn to blood" or whatever. Thats been going on since the earth formed. No revelation there...

[lukeskywalker1]

Originally posted by ShockV1.89

 

Many of the so called "prophecies" are not unlike Nostradamus's vague descriptions. That being, they can be interpreted many different ways.

 

One that comes to mind is a lunar eclipse (or is it solar?). Whichever, the one that makes the moon turn reddish orange. Isnt that one of the prophecys? "The moon will turn to blood" or whatever. Thats been going on since the earth formed. No revelation there...

 

thats yet to come only it will stay that way. im talking about the diseases, and rumers of war, and it says everything will end in babalyon, ive heard about people trying to remake babalyon.

[ShockV1.89]

There have been diseases around since life first began. Those are nothing new. Rumors of war? Cmon, there's always "rumors" of war somewhere. Heck, I dont need rumors! Go to Israel/Palestine, you'll see a good bit more than rumors there! And Babylon? I live near a town called Babylon, it's on Long Island in NY. I could name my backyard Babylon. Or maybe I could name my dog Babylon. Does that mean that the apocalypse would take place inside his intestinal tract? No, of course not. It's just a name.

 

Basically, your arguments boil down to: I follow the bible because the bible says so.

 

That doesnt work.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

dude u really are the prophet of no god. i totally disagree with your occupation. thats ur choice.

 

It's not a choice - it's the way people sense things.

 

There are many Prophets of No God - we are legion

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

read revolations the last gospel it has prophecies that are coming true right now if that doesn't make u beleive in the bible i dont know what will. think about it how 2000 years ago could somone have a dream about the future and its coming true right now and will continue to come true until the end of the world. if it can be right about the future why cant it be right about the past?????

 

What prophecies are you talkng about?

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

thats yet to come only it will stay that way. im talking about the diseases, and rumers of war, and it says everything will end in babalyon, ive heard about people trying to remake babalyon.

 

Hmmm. Jesus prophetised war in Israel, or so I am told. Well, if it is an indication of the quality of his prophesies then it doesn't bode well for the faithful. Why? C'mon, you start a millitant cult that violently opposes the current theocratic regime and the superpower of the era. There will be war, you say? Well gee, that's a surprise.

 

ok ok i dont agree with u, but in the end every one has to think who is right and who is wrong,

 

But you are blindly following a genocidal organisation.

 

dude i just cant see that there is no god, other wise how did monkeys get here and how did this planet get here, and u cant say it just appeared.

 

You will want to READ the theories that you are commenting on.

 

thats yet to come only it will stay that way.

 

Huh? That doesn't make much sense.

[ShadowTemplar]

In the 19th centuary the Catholic Church felt threatend by the new way of veiwing the world (without the pink glasses that the Church promotes), and responded by educating a new school of scientists, the Modernists. They were armed with the finest tools that science at that time could offer and shielded from the heathen blasphemy of realism by the purest of faith. They were set to work on proving the Bible to be litteral truth. Do you know what happened? They all defected. Every last one of them turned heretic in some way, mainly because they realised that the Bible couldn't possibly be litteral truth (this proves beyond reasonable doubt that education is the best cure for religion (yes that is a nice way of saying: Go to a REAL school and get a REAL education)). And they started out with much the same world veiw as the creationists on this thread. Food for thought, eh?

 

Source: The Dead Sea Scrolls Deciet.

[TheWhiteRaider]

O.K. Maby I am not departed from the debate.

 

The people couldn't read the bible for themselves - the paper print hadn't been invented yet. And you're speaking as if Catholocists aren't real Christians, just like M54. Did you know Luther liked to burn "witches"?

 

I can think of two evolutionist in history that were mass murders. Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. IF you read Landmarks in the Life of Stalin you can see that he was an evolutionist all the way. Hitler used a part from The Descent of Man which goes as follows

 

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world . . . The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and gorilla.

 

to say he could kill the Jews because they were "Lower forms" and that the Germans would become "super human" if the Jews were gone. And even some more lines in Darwin's books would be called "Racist" today. I do not say you all are a bunch of black haters or anything close to that.

 

 

Thats been going on since the earth formed. No revelation there...

 

Ah, but it will be both a lunar and solar not just one.

 

Ignoring fossil records, the radioactive decay of isotopes, the non-decaying speed of light,

 

My question is how do you know that those are constants? Say someone takes up ice skateing and can jump 1 ft. the first week, 2 ft. the second week, 3 ft. the third, ect. Does that mean in 100 weeks she can jump 100 ft? I do not think so gravity will only let her go so high. You have only be monitoring it for a short amount of time so how do you know it has been a constant? Unless you were around for the "billions" of years you can not say so will any accuracy what so ever. Other wise it is assumed that those are constants and with no external evidence. I get tried of some people saying stuff like "Oh the last common ancestor of X and Z was alive over 8 million years ago." Were you alive 8 million years ago?

 

Also that Archaeoraptor fossil is a hoax. It was a dinosaurs fossil with fossilized bird parts glued to it.

 

Science can not observe the past with the same accuracy as it can observe today. Why can we study gravity? Because we can see gravity today and it can be demonstrated in a lab today also. J.F.K's death is a very good example. There were tons of theorys about who was the assassin(s), number of assassins, locations from which to shoot from, ect. and so much debate came from it. And many people debate over what happened 40 years ago and yet we say we know so well what happened millions of years ago.

 

the massively scientific falsity of the Bible is pretty ignorant in my eyes.

 

Well as you always say it.

 

"Do not confuse the unexplained with the unexplainable."

 

And about the bat as a fowl. I did some looking and found that at one time fowl did not mean "bird". It was "One who flys"(Both fly and fowl and from the same root word) not "bird" so you are going to say that it is wrong because a word changed meaning?

 

Did you even know that the phrase "I do not give a damn" was at one time "I do not give a tinker's dam". A tinker's dam was very cheap so when you say that it was ment that you would not even give something so cheap to someone's cause. It later became "I do not give a dam." And now it has been turning into "I do not give a damn."

 

The crusades were sent to sent to reclaim Jerusalem - the holy city of the Christians (and of muslims and jews as well, not to forget).

 

We are both right. Yes, it was sent to recover the holy lands. What started it though was when the emperor asked for help.

 

True, the muslims were creeping up to turkey, but that was not western Europe at all

 

There were plenty of times the muslims attacked Europe. The "Battle of Tours" was fought in FRANCE! Spain was under Muslim control for many years. The sea battle of Leponto was an attack against Europe. You do not call those countries "Western Europe"?

 

ive heard about people trying to remake babalyon

 

Sadam has said he would do that for tourist reasons.

 

Jesus prophetised war in Israel

 

I do not remember that. Would you give us a source.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

I can think of two evolutionist in history that were mass murders. Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. IF you read Landmarks in the Life of Stalin you can see that he was an evolutionist all the way. Hitler used a part from The Descent of Man which goes as follows.

 

You also know that Adolf Hitler was a devout christian,right?Infact,he created the holocaust because of his devoution and hatred to jews becuase they killed Jesus.

 

As for Stalin,I dont know much about him.

 

Edit-I'll make you a deal.

 

You dont judge us by our worse examples(Like Hitler and Stalin),and we wont judge you by your worse examples(Hitler,crusades,zealots).

[C'jais]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

I can think of two evolutionist in history that were mass murders.

 

They were hardly evolutionists, and they certainly didn't do it in the name of science. Regardless, those have nothing to do with saying science is evil (science is indifferent). They did what they did because they were skewed loonies who had some weird ideals and beliefs that made them do it.

 

And even some more lines in Darwin's books would be called "Racist" today.

 

Don't make me dig out some very racist passages in the Bible.

 

I'd like to hear those racist lines in Darwin's book, BTW.

 

My question is how do you know that those are constants?

 

Because they so far have worked in every conceivable way. And not just worked well, they're used to predict things, and in conjuction with other dating means, you can say with certainty that they've always been constants. At least for as long back as we need them.

 

If they fluctuated just a tiny bit, many inventions and experiements wouldn't have succeeded. You're basically saying that while technology is fine for giving us everything you take for granted today, it becomes useless when determining the age of the planet. Unlikely.

 

Why would God leave so much evidence, pointing towards evolution, creation of new species on the go and everything hinting at a very old earth? To test our faith?

 

Look at the sloppiness of God's handiwork: We're imperfect in many ways. Why do blind cave fish have non-funtional "eyes"? Why do we get wisdom teeth? Why does our sparse hair stand up when we're frightened? How come we can't produce all required amino acids? Why do we share "pseudogenes" with other mammals? Gee - it's almost as if we somehow evolved from them, innit?

 

Also that Archaeoraptor fossil is a hoax. It was a dinosaurs fossil with fossilized bird parts glued to it.

 

While I haven't heard of any Archaeoraptor, the Archeopteryx (and many other birds dinos) are NOT hoaxes. There have been found several of such fossils.

 

Science can not observe the past with the same accuracy as it can observe today.

 

Yet it has done a damn good job so far.

 

Well as you always say it.

 

"Do not confuse the unexplained with the unexplainable."

 

I'm glad we're clear on this. In time, every miracle, every God will be explained with natural phenomenon. We do not know everything there is to know right now, but if we stop looking in the Bible for explanations on things, and instead focus on actually discovering, researching and making scientific progress, we may yet be able to continue this cool trend of increased technology.

 

I want you to tell me of just one occasion of where the church helped the scientific progress.

 

I say we stop looking for Gods to explain things, and instead rely on our rational senses to further mankind.

 

Did you even know that the phrase "I do not give a damn" was at one time "I do not give a tinker's dam". A tinker's dam was very cheap so when you say that it was ment that you would not even give something so cheap to someone's cause. It later became "I do not give a dam." And now it has been turning into "I do not give a damn."

 

Good example. Languages evolve, why can't species evolve too?

 

There were plenty of times the muslims attacked Europe. The "Battle of Tours" was fought in FRANCE! Spain was under Muslim control for many years. The sea battle of Leponto was an attack against Europe. You do not call those countries "Western Europe"?

 

I stand corrected. That, however, does not give loving Christians the right to slaughter every innocent woman, child and man in Jerusalem. Hideous display of religious affection.

 

I do not remember that. Would you give us a source.

 

If Jesus said it, it's probably in the Bible.

[TheWhiteRaider]

They were hardly evolutionists, and they certainly didn't do it in the name of science. Regardless, those have nothing to do with saying science is evil (science is indifferent). They did what they did because they were skewed loonies who had some weird ideals and beliefs that made them do it.

 

Stalin was 100% evolutionist so was Hitler. And by the way they were not crazy. They were both very smart men now if only they did not use their brains to get power and kill people.

 

You also know that Adolf Hitler was a devout christian,right?Infact,he created the holocaust because of his devoution and hatred to jews becuase they killed Jesus.

 

He used that as a cover. He killed many Christains too. If you read anything Hitler wrote you would find that he was not a Christain. Just like when Castro said in an interview "I am not a communist" and yet look at Cuba now.

 

Edit-I'll make you a deal.

 

You dont judge us by our worse examples(Like Hitler and Stalin),and we wont judge you by your worse examples(Hitler,crusades,zealots).

 

That is fine with me.

 

You're basically saying that while technology is fine for giving us everything you take for granted today, it becomes useless when determining the age of the planet. Unlikely.

 

I never said "useless" I said "not with the same authority" it can not do as good of an explaining the past as expaining the present. And do not assume that if a scientist says so it is one-hundered percent correct(And do not come back with the "And do not assume that if the bible says so....ect.....")

 

Languages evolve, why can't species evolve too?

 

Because Language does not have DNA restrictions.

 

The french revolution had very little to do with getting rid of religion. And so did the USSR and China.

 

That is were you are wrong(At least with the french) they were trying to get rid of everything that was even a small part religion. They even tried a 10-day week because they said that "The 7-day week was made from the so called 7 days of creation."

 

 

I will have plenty of cases that show the earth is young in my next post. I have to type from book to computer so it may take a while.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

Stalin was 100% evolutionist so was Hitler. And by the way they were not crazy. They were both very smart men now if only they did not use their brains to get power and kill people.

 

There's no such thing as "Evolutionist" really. I don't get where you're going. Are you saying science is evil? Or the evolutionary model is evil, used by evil men for evil purposes or simply using these examples as a way of countering what Christianity has done to so many?

 

Science is not evil, and can never be. If you claim it is, you don't know the meaning of the word. The evolutionary model is not evil, and can never be. Whatever those men did, it was not the fault of science - it was their own damn beliefs. Stalin misunderstood evolution. Hitler was deeply religious and hated jews.

 

 

 

He used that as a cover. He killed many Christains too. If you read anything Hitler wrote you would find that he was not a Christain.

 

Here we go again: You're judging just who is Christian and who is not, like M54. Did Hitler believe in Christ and the bible? Yes - he was a Christian.

 

And do not assume that if a scientist says so it is one-hundered percent correct

 

I would never do that. What he says can never be true or 100% correct. That is the beauty of science: It is the currently least false way of explaining how things work. Religion, OTOH, is always true, and rarely to be questioned.

 

(And do not come back with the "And do not assume that if the bible says so....ect.....")

 

In fact, I was going to. You seem to accept the Bible as pure truth, without stopping to question its validity.

 

Because Language does not have DNA restrictions.

 

And what DNA "restrictions" does species have? None, DNA is not a restriction in any way.

 

Regardless, it's a moot point, because species are being advanced and created as we speak. It happens on insect level, but it happens. I'd like to see some strong arguments against this fact.

 

That is were you are wrong(At least with the french) they were trying to get rid of everything that was even a small part religion. They even tried a 10-day week because they said that "The 7-day week was made from the so called 7 days of creation."

 

Where are you going with this? I do not condone this behaviour. You're stating that non-religion is evil, but it is not. Religion is not evil either, but it limits your way of thinking, and has so far only done been the cause of genocides.

 

I will have plenty of cases that show the earth is young in my next post. I have to type from book to computer so it may take a while.

 

You do that. Don't forget to reply to why I think God's work is sloppy, while you're at it.

[SkinWalker]

Damn (figure of speech... not to be confused with damnation ), just when I think this thread will die.... it's death is definately slow!

 

It seems to me that we keep argueing what is really just simple math: person/group X is evolutionist/christian and did Y evil/good deed and therefore christianity/evolution is wrong.

 

But this discounts the idea that one (evil or good doer) cannot be a subset of both evolutionary and christian thought processes.

 

Whether Hitler was an evolutionist or christian really matters not. Because Mother Theresa (whom I admire, despite her christianity) was righteous does not indicate that christian interpretations of the bible that Earth is < 10 000 years of age is correct.

 

On both sides of this debate is the age of the Earth. Creationists position themselves to state that evolution is false because the science used to determine ages of matter is inconsistent or non-constant.

 

Non-Creationists (I, like Cjais, don't really see them as automatically "evolutionists," but rather informed intellectuals (again... this does not mean that christians cannot be of the "informed intellectuals" set)) view the data present in the bible as barely empirical, but certainly flawed by ignorance associated with the technology and understanding of the universe of the period in which it's parts were written.

 

So, while creationists argue that scientific method, particularly in relation to dating, is inaccurate because it is unknown if the methods are actually using "constants," scientists and proponents of evolution argue that the bible itself, at best, presents only the accounts of those who attempted to describe what they observed to the best of their ability. These descriptions were by individuals who most likely had little understanding of things like weather phenomena that is considered common knowledge in today's society.

 

It is clear to the indifferent, or un-biased, mind which source is more credible between that of science and creationist dogma.

 

As to the question of "how do we know that these constants are constant:" It is obviously out of the scope of this thread to provide a course in even elementry chemistry or physics, but one should stop to consider that these constants are many of the same ones that are used in today's technological advancements. Concepts such as: Avagardo's Law, which deals with gases and molecules; and Planck's Constant, which deals with the wavelength of particles in motion.

 

Our understanding of atomic structure, courtesy of scientists such as Dalton and Rutherford, has given us understandings of thermochemistry, nuclearchemistry, and gas dynamics that have allowed for technological advancements that, in turn, have provided us with consumer goods that we take for granted: automobiles, airplanes, integrated circuits, lasers, etc., etc.

 

I don't understand the logic of accepting that these things exist, yet not accepting that the same principles, which led to their development, can be applied to the scientific methods used in dating matter such as fossils and rocks or in dating the light received by astronomers who observe such phenomena as nebula, galaxies, black holes, etc.

 

As to the fossil hoax: a hoax does not discredit other discoveries. It was scientific method that sorted out the hoax! This is one of the points that I've been trying to introduce: scientists police themselves in order to maintain credibility. This is not true of cult followers... they fear discrediting any shred of doctrine lest it all be ignored. That is the weakness of religion.

 

As to "DNA restrictions:" it is precisely the nature of DNA to evolve. We went over this. Mutation seems to be the word of which there is disagreement in definition. Mutation is change from the original. Nothing more. Contemporary literature provides us with tales of "mutants" that are fantastically different in looks and abilities, etc.

 

Real mutation occurs naturally as this is the nature of DNA. These mutations are accidental and coincidental, but many assist a species in survival and thus remain in the DNA sequence for future decendents of the species. See my description of the mutation which provides protection against HIV for decendents of those who were immune against the Plague.

 

Mutation is a slow and continual process. Many mutations are unsuccessful and therefore do not pass to later decendants as the possessor of the mutation lacks survival skills, reproductive ability, etc.

 

One true bit about evolution that creationists point out is that theories about evolution cannot readily be proved. But as research continues in various areas of science, such as genetics, biology, botany, marine science, etc., many theories are confirmed and strengthened. Others are changed to fit new data.

 

But significantly more data exists to support these theories than exists to suggest that the Earth was created in 6 days, less than 10 000 years ago.

 

I go back to my original point: For the idea of "creation" to continue and thus strengthen the credibility of christianity (or any other cult), it must be updated to take in account the body of evidence that suggests that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and that life first emerged over 500 million years ago.

 

Cheers and Have a Happy Xmas!