PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution??
       NOT!

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
lil_miss104

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution....though very persuasive point of view...is not backed up by facts! sure we may resemble apes, but who says they ARE ACTUALLY  our ancestors...no one knows FOR SURE...evolution is just something scientists said because they really didnt understand..so why are we teaching it in our schools? (and i hope i didnt offend anyone, because i didnt mean for that to happen..so if i did sorry)


-------
For God So loved The World he GAVE his only begotten son!~
~Lanna~
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 5:45 PM on May 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is completely backed by facts.

It is taught in schools because it unifies biology and is one of the strongest theories in science.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:35 PM on May 9, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not only is evolution backed up by the facts, it is a fact.  Organisms change, this has been observed and documented.  

"sure we may resemble apes, but who says they ARE ACTUALLY  our ancestors...no one knows FOR SURE."

Actually, the evidence is overwhelming.  We resemble apes to such a great degree on a genetic level, that it is foolish to deny our common ancestory.

"evolution is just something scientists said because they really didnt understand"

This is wrong, evolution is the only unfalisified theory that explains the diversity of life on the planet.  This means it is the only scientific theory that can account for all the available evidence.  Everything else has been falsified, conclusively proven to be wrong.

The reason it is taught in schools is because after 150 years of testing, observation, experimentation and attempts at falsification, the Theory of Evolution is still the best explaination we have.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:20 PM on May 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually "demon", Evolution cannot be backed by genetic similarity. Did you know that you can only be 93% geneticly similar to your parents? Does that mean an ape is more of a family member to them than you are? I wouldn't use genetic similiarities to back your religion. Yes, Evolution is a religion.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:45 PM on May 10, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

I would stand and argue the fact that there is no imperical evidence for evolution, We observe micro-evolution(variations within a species) but we dont observe macro-evolution(the change from one species to another). I would like to point out that this earth wouldn't of allowed life more than 10,000 years ago. If you study the rotation of the earth, You'll noticed that it's slowing down. That means, it used to be going faster. Can you keep up? Good. If you were to reverse the amount decreased, and take it back 10,000years. The winds would be more than 5,000mph due to the Coriolis Effect. And that is only 10,000years ago. I am a young-earth creationist for multiple reasons. 1, there is no evidence for an evolutionary process. 2, there isn't sufficient time for such a process. And Finally, Evolution is a religion of death and nonsense. One that I dont chose to partake in. God bless you all.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:50 PM on May 10, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Did you know that you can only be 93% geneticly similar to your parents? Does that mean an ape is more of a family member to them than you are?"

lol, no, you can't.
You'd need 7% of your genes to be mutated.  


"but we dont observe macro-evolution(the change from one species to another)."

Speciation has been observed many times.  Try again.

"earth's rotation"

The speed is decreasing very slowly.  In fact, the decrease in speed shows us how long a day would be millions (or billions) or years ago.  Using the calculations, we can age certain formations.  By no coincidence do these dates match up with the dates given by other methods.  

" I am a young-earth creationist for multiple reasons. 1, there is no evidence for an evolutionary process. "

Obviously there is.  It's been shown many times over.

"2, there isn't sufficient time for such a process. "

No serious scientist accepts a young earth.

"And Finally, Evolution is a religion of death and nonsense. "

Evolution is not a religion.  

You're a YEC because of 3 lies?
Congrats.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:37 PM on May 10, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Actually "demon", Evolution cannot be backed by genetic similarity"

No, you're completely wrong here.  You might want to do a little research before you make such foolish statements next time.  
All living things on this planet have some ubiquitous genes, they are exactly the same.  This is strong evidence that every living thing evolved from a common ancestor.
Certain genetic factors demonstrate our common ancestory with primates.  The same transpons in the same chromosomal position in both chimps and humans is strong evidence that they have a common ancestor since, with rare exceptions, the only way this could happen is through inheritance.  The same with pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses, these factors are overwhelming evidence of our common descent.  There are only two options to accept here, the first is to go with the evidence, all living things are connected and evolved from a common ancestor.  Or that God made them that way to deliberately deceive us into thinking they evolved.  There are no other choices.  So, is your god a liar?  If not, then evolution is the only other way.

"I would stand and argue the fact that there is no imperical evidence for evolution, We observe micro-evolution(variations within a species) but we dont observe macro-evolution(the change from one species to another)."

You could argue that there was no empirical evidence but it would be a short arguement because you would be so wrong.  What about the fossil record?  What about animal distribution?  What about the vast amount of genetic evidence?  It's easy to see you don't know what you're talking about when you can't even keep the definitions of micro- and macro- evolution straight.  We have observed the formation of new species, that's a fact, so I guess your whole arguement falls flat.

"If you study the rotation of the earth, You'll noticed that it's slowing down"

Yes the rotation of the earth is slowing down, but by how much.  The rate of slow down is
0.005 seconds per year per year, so going back 370 million years would give us 386.65 days per year and a day was 22.7 hours long.
So you would not have winds blowing at 5,000 mph.  These rates have been verified using fossil corals and stromatalites.
So it appears all the reasons you base your beleif in a young earth are proven to be wrong, ergo, your beleif in a young earth is wrong.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:26 PM on May 10, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How exactly do you figure that one is only 93% related to their parents? Where did the other 7% go?  One inherits 50% of their genetic material from their mother, and 50% from their father.  50% + 50% = 100%.  Just simple math, really.
 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 7:09 PM on May 11, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 9:26 PM on May 10, 2003 :


"If you study the rotation of the earth, You'll noticed that it's slowing down"

Yes the rotation of the earth is slowing down, but by how much.  The rate of slow down is
0.005 seconds per year per year. . .



WRONG

The rate is more like .002 sec/year/CENTURY  try redoing those calculations ;-)
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 09:57 AM on May 12, 2003 | IP
JoeCook529

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mouse DNA is only 2.5% different from ours.  Couldn't we have evoloved from mice too, since their DNA isn't too much different from ours?  Its not too hard to think of it that way, since whales supposedly evolved from a dog-like mammal  and dinosaurs supposedly evoloved into birds.  If genetics cannot explain how we came into being, then what does?

There is a fairly easy explanation for this, if you think of it logically and from an un-biased view point, there has to be an intelegence behing evolution.  A 'god' could have gradually changed every living organism on this planet until they resembeled the organisms of today, or a 'god' could have used similar building materials to make every living organism.  Why change something that already works into something that is completly different, when changing a few small aspects of something would get you what you're looking for?

I am not saying evolution is totally false, since I do somewhat belive it, but I cannot see how something as complex as even a one-celled organism such as an amoeba could have come around by mere chance, and then somehow mutated into a multi cellular creature like a fish, and then that thing mutated into an amphibian, and that into a reptile, and on and on until it evolved into a human without any intelegence at all.

If anyone can show me the missing link(s) between apes and humans, I will renounce my god and worship the amoeba like the true god it is.  Until I see the skeleton(s) of the missing link(s) though, I shall keep my faith that I was created by an intelegent being, not just by my parents, and that what I am a part of didn't come about by a series of random mutations.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 09:23 AM on May 14, 2003 | IP
JoeCook529

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

BTW, sorry for any grammatical mistakes or anything like that, I have not slept at all tonight, and I cannot think very well right now.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 09:26 AM on May 14, 2003 | IP
DarKnight

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why is it that everybody asumes that genetic similarities back up evolution?

A new ford will look similar to the last, why? due to "automobile evolution" ?
Nonsense!
we built them that way!

The fact that genetic similarites exist may back up the idea of a "series-production" system yes so infact genetic similarity -one could argue- could be used to back up creationism as well.

Not forgetting to mention creationism accounts for anything and everything in life.
How does evolution account for things like the four-chambered heart?
That is, how can a species with a two chambered heart evolve a four-chambered heart? two parent organisms (with two-chambered hearts) have an offspring with a mutation which gives it a double circulatory system? thats just too much!

How about the powers that be desided to try out a revolutionary new design, which happened to work pretty well.
I'm not saying neccesarily that I belive in God(s), I'm simply pointing out that evoltuion sounds more like the assumption of failed logic whereas creation would seem more consistant.


-------
I know the beauty in the shadows of the people and strive to serve as their guardian.
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 11:58 AM on May 14, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mouse DNA is most definitely NOT only 2.5% different from human DNA. I have no Idea where you came across this number.  The only place where I think you may have gotten this number is from the comparison between a single gene between a human and mouse, not the entire organism.  There are in fact quite a few genes that differ by 2.5%(or even less); I can't recall off the top of my head, but I know that the cytochrome c molecule is highly conserved among most species.  

The mouse and human genomes are actually 90% similar in their organization, in the fact that 90% of the mouse genome can be lined up with some region on the human chromosome.  HOWEVER, on the actual coding level, there is less than a 40% similarity in the base to base coding.  Evolution has been making these changes since the ancestors of humans and mice split 75 million years ago, and has been modifying these ancestral genes into the forms we see in humans and mice today.  Humans and mice have genes that provide similar functions to them, but the specific amino acids sequence derived from the nucleotide coding is very different bewteen the two species.  An example of this would be the MHC group of genes; though mice and humans both have these groupings, the particular combinations of sequences to produce these proteins are very different, as they are the result of adaptive problems in dealing with foreign antigens.  Overtime, the mouse's MHC genes have adapted to mouse pathogens, and the human MHC genes have adapted to human pathogens.  

(I hope im making sense here.  This is where I found some of the numbers for the human and mouse comparison, http://www.genome.gov/10005831
 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 3:24 PM on May 14, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thank you for that site ufthak, I shall look at it as soon as I find the time.  The 97.5% similarity was supposed to be when you count together all the working DNA in a mouse's DNA and then compare that to the working DNA of a human.  I'm not sure how accurate it was (I didn't do a very long search since I was up all night when I posted), and if it is inaccurate, thank you for pointing this out to me.  I shall try next time to bea little more careful and thurough with stuff like that from now on

DarKnight is right, however, that genetics could also be used for the side of creationists, since DNA is a VERY complex thing which could not have came about by mere chance.  My argument was mainly that Evolution IS a fact, but the way it is implied in the scientific world is utterly un-scientific at best.  To think Evolution can be done without help of some kind of intelegence requires more faith then beliving in a creator does.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 02:10 AM on May 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way, the last post was made by JoeCook529... I'm not sure why it put me down as guest, since I did put down the correct password and username,... oh well, I'll figure it out some other time...
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 02:17 AM on May 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fact that genetic similarites exist may back up the idea of a "series-production" system yes so infact genetic similarity -one could argue- could be used to back up creationism as well.

Except you ignore pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses which are similarities which occur after creation due to what you would call "micro-evolution".

What are the chances of DNA being affected by an endogenous retrovirus in exactly the same place for humans and chimps if the two are not related?

Also remember that genetics can be used in court to prove that two people are related. It is not much of an extention to take this further and prove two species are related.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 07:57 AM on May 15, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On the contrary, DNA is an exquisitely simple substance, in reality it is not very complex at all.  It is only composed of 4 single nucleotides, but the combinations of those four nucleotides leads to an incredible diversity of products.  

Also, why must there be an intelligent creator?  If so, he did a very messy job of directing the course of evolution.  There is so much useless and junk DNA in the human genome its ridiculous.  As guest pointed out, psuedogenes are another good example.  Surely wouldnt an intelligent designer have weeded out these useless things by now? They arent serving much of a function right now.  

(By the way, dont worry about making mistakes.  At least you had the guts to admit to it, most people wouldnt do that in a milllion years!)
 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 4:34 PM on May 16, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

" I am a young-earth creationist for multiple reasons. 1, there is no evidence for an evolutionary process. "

I consider fossils to be by far the best evidence for evolution. Even before the theory of evolution was formulated many theists believed that there were many different creations over the course of Earth's History. They believed this based on the huge changes they saw taking place in the fossil record. It is unquestionable at least that life has changed dramatically over time. At one point in time there were no humans on Earth or anything that even closely resembled a human. As you view how the fossil record progresses through time you see organisms that look more and more similar to the things we have today. Just visit a Natural History Museum if you don't believe me. Those are real fossils. They were left by real organisms and radioactive dating and their relative positions in Earth's Strata can tell us what order they arose in. The changing varities of life over time is very real. The organisms themselves have changed, they have evolved.

"2, there isn't sufficient time for such a process. "

Such a process did occur. It is observered over and over in the fossil record. It REALLY did happen. If it can be proven that the Earth is only 10000 years old then the process must have only taken 10000 years to happen. However the fact that actual, real, rocks found on the Earth's surface have been dated to be over 3 billion years old kinda rules out that option.

"And Finally, Evolution is a religion of death and nonsense. "

Evolution is certianly not a religion. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that it is a valid science over 7 times after hearing the testimony of the world's leading scientists. Does death play a major role in Evolution? Yes of course. But does the fact that some people may find the implications of a certain theory to be grim make that theory false? Certainly not. Does the fact that I find Christianity to be hypocritical and oppressive make it untrue? No. Also I think I've done a pretty good job of showing that evolution is not nonsensical. At least the majority of the world seems to feel that it makes perfect sense.  In fact the only people you seem to have much trouble with it are the dogma entrenched fundamentalists of the American Bible Belt.

Posted by DarKnight
evoltuion sounds more like the assumption of failed logic

That makes absolutely zero sense. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean? Evolution is an operation of science - emperical investigation. It is not a deductive exercise.

DNA is a VERY complex thing which could not have came about by mere chance

I sincerly suggest that you read Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker. He agrees that very complex things cannot arise by mere chance. They can arise however if they are very gradually built up one small piece at a time. Eureka! That's evolution! Evolution is not guided by mere chance. It is guided by something that acts in opposition of chance. It works based on selective forces. That you are probably thinking isn't very pertinant to DNA, but it very much is. DNA did not form spontaneously on its own. DNA is also an evolved characteristic of organisms. Can you think of a simplier version of DNA that is present in all living organisms and is the only genetic material in others. That's right RNA. It was RNA that was first formed in the earliest organisms. Could RNA have formed by mere chance? Probably given billions of planets in billions of solar systems in billions of galaxies given billions of years to work with. I would say that in the right conditions it is very likely that RNA could have formed. Now that explains how something as complex as RNA could cropped up. Now you explain how something that is infinately more complex than even our universe could have arisen by mere chance. Of course I am refering to God.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:32 PM on May 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Don't understand why the account name doesn't work. but the above post was made by me. Name is supposed to be David Hume
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:49 PM on May 17, 2003 | IP
JoeCook529

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps the useless and junk DNA serves a purpose that we do not understand yet...  Genetics is a fairly new science, and the first few times we delve into its secrets we are bound to make a few mistakes.  Perhaps this is one of them.  Perhaps we will find a use for the useless and junk DNA that we had previously overlooked.  Only time will tell...

David Hume:

Your post (sorry, I'm new to this, and I don't know how to use quotes):

'Could RNA have formed by mere chance? Probably given billions of planets in billions of solar systems in billions of galaxies given billions of years to work with. I would say that in the right conditions it is very likely that RNA could have formed. Now that explains how something as complex as RNA could cropped up.'

Where did the matter for the universe come from to even give the creation of RNA a chance?  The Big Bang theory states that an explosion started the universe... if an explosion did happen, then what triggered the explosion?  What was around before matter existed in the universe?  The answer to both questions: nothing.  How could something come from nothing?  It is impossible.  Of course, this also disproves God, since God created everything from nothing, and God has also been around for all time.  If matter cannot come from nothing, then life cannot exist.  If matter can come from nothing, then the existance of a God doesn't seem too far-fetched.

'Now you explain how something that is infinately more complex than even our universe could have arisen by mere chance. Of course I am refering to God.'

It is impossible to prove the existance of a God, but it is also impossible to disprove God.  Asking an impossible question to answer is utter nonsense, since there is no evidence supporting the existance of a God or disproving the existance of a God.


As I've said before, I do belive that there is a God, and I belive God used Evolution to create us.  There is too much evidence supporting Evolution, and not enough evidence disproving God to even think that either of them are flase.  Only when Science disproves God beyond the shadow of a doubt will I stop believing in a god.  For now, they have not done so, so I remain a believer.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 07:57 AM on May 18, 2003 | IP
JoeCook529

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way, I do know evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang, but it is the most noteable theory science has come up with to explain how matter came to exist in the universe.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 09:04 AM on May 18, 2003 | IP
Ford_Prefect

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well apparently the name David_Hume has been taken already so I will be Ford_Prefect instead .

There's lots of different ways to use quotes Joe, but I find it most helpful to make use of the ezboard code. [ b ] Quote [ /b ].
Do whatever you like best though.

Anyways to get back to your post.

Perhaps the useless and junk DNA serves a purpose that we do not understand yet...  Genetics is a fairly new science, and the first few times we delve into its secrets we are bound to make a few mistakes.  Perhaps this is one of them.  Perhaps we will find a use for the useless and junk DNA that we had previously overlooked.  Only time will tell...

Perhaps there is a purpose yes. Let's see. God gave us a psuedo gene for producing vitamen C instead of the real thing. The purpose I guess would be to give sailors throughout history scurvy?  What purpose could these forgotten genes possibly have? They aren't even used by the cell. They just sit there taking up space.

Where did the matter for the universe come
I do not know.

What was around before matter existed in the universe
I do not know.

How could something come from nothing?  It is impossible

According to the Laws of Physics established in this universe yes, but we are not speaking of something that occured within this universe. Whatever caused the big bang (If indeed casuality even existed) is something beyond this universe.  The event would not be bound by the laws of this universe. In that secenario it may be very possible for something to come from nothing. Do I know anything about what this thing that caused the Big Bang is? No I know absolutely nothing. The only thing I know about it is that I can never know anything about it.  Could it possibly be the Christian God? Certainly, but there is no compelling reason to believe it to be so. Whatever it is, it is fundamentally impossible for us to learn anything about it. I call it "I don't know." You call it God.

It is impossible to prove the existance of a God, but it is also impossible to disprove God.  Asking an impossible question to answer is utter nonsense, since there is no evidence supporting the existance of a God or disproving the existance of a God.

I didn't ask you to prove the existance of God. I just meant to point out that appealing to God isn't really offering a solution to how complexity arose. It is merely creating something even more complex on top of the complexity we already see.  

Only when Science disproves God beyond the shadow of a doubt will I stop believing in a god.  For now, they have not done so, so I remain a believer.

And if you truely adhere to that principle then you will remain a believer forever. Science can no more prove God then disprove him. Questions of faith will always be that, questions of faith. Science can take no stand on them.  May I assume that you are choosing to believe in the Christian God until science disproves him? If so... I find it interesting that you would choose that God. Why not choose to believe in Buddah, Zues, or reincarnation until they are proved wrong without a shadow of a doubt? It all seems to be a bit of poorly applied Pascalian thinking to me.


-------
"There are of course many problems connected with life, of which some of the most popular are `Why are people born?' `Why do they die?' `Why do they spend so much of the intervening time wearing digital watches?'"<br><br>--Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 12:18 PM on May 18, 2003 | IP
JoeCook529

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ahhh... thank you for telling me how to use quotes... I think I will try that in this message.

(hope this works)

[ b ]  Quote: "Perhaps there is a purpose yes. Let's see. God gave us a psuedo gene for producing vitamen C instead of the real thing. The purpose I guess would be to give sailors throughout history scurvy?  What purpose could these forgotten genes possibly have? They aren't even used by the cell. They just sit there taking up space." [ /b ]

Interesting.... I had not thought of it that way.  In the bible, however, as a punishment of Adam and Eve, he put a curse on them.  If the bible is accurate in saying that he cursed humanity so that it would die for the sins Adam and Eve commited, wouldn't some of that curse still be found in our DNA today?  If he's punishing us for the original sin, then why wouldn't he give us DNA that could be harmful, or even fatal, to us, or serves no purpose at all?  Keep this in mind as you read that, I have not really read the Bible, but I have read Genesis a few times.  It also wouldn't be too hard to speculate that the worthless genes were part of what made Adam and Eve perfect, but since God cursed them, the gene that completed their perfect DNA was taken away, leaving behind the part that remains.  

I shouldn't even be talking of the Bible though, since I am not an athority on it, but this could explain why there is DNA that is only harmful to us, and DNA that has no meaning or purpose.  

[ b ] Quote: "I didn't ask you to prove the existance of God. I just meant to point out that appealing to God isn't really offering a solution to how complexity arose. It is merely creating something even more complex on top of the complexity we already see." [ /b ]

You asked me to explain how something infinately more complex than even our universe could have arisen by mere chance.  This is basically asking me to explain how a God could exist.  You are right though, it is creating something even more complex on top of the complexity we already see, but it also makes the theories of Evolution and the 'Big Bang' a lot easier to believe, then that each one of these happend 'just because'.

[ b ] Quote: "May I assume that you are choosing to believe in the Christian God until science disproves him? If so... I find it interesting that you would choose that God. Why not choose to believe in Buddah, Zues, or reincarnation until they are proved wrong without a shadow of a doubt?" [ /b ]

I find no reason to belive in any of those other Gods... I dislike organized religions, no matter how good they sound, or how many followers they have.  Organized religion is something created by humans in order to enslave people's minds, and getting so involved in a religion that it runs your life completly is a VERY un-healthy thing.  I would rather reach my God on a personal level then have to go to some Church or Mosque or what ever to reach him, as required by all organized religions.  I believe god judges people on the way they lived their lives, not on what they believed in, which is what most organized religions say ("belive in us, or you will be cast into the fiery pits of hell for not!").  If God worked that way, then someone as great as Gandhi would have gone to hell (if there such a place as hell) even though he did great things for humanity.  This is my reason for believing in the Christian God, even though its not a very good one, and most Christians would be angry at me for even mentioning something like this, but its my personal belief.  I've personally seen what happens to people who believe in the bible WAY too much (my father is a fanatical believer in the bible), and I do not wish to become one of them.

I hope that answers your questions on why I believe in a Christian God.  Science is something that I want to make a career out of (biology in particular) so I base a LOT of my beliefs on science and scientific theories.  In my scientific mind, there has to be proof of something before I believe in it.  Evolution has a lot of that proof, so I believe it is a true theory.  Evolution, however, does not give a good explanation to how life began, but a God gives at least a semi-believable explanation to how and why life was created, and there are too many things Evolution cannot give a good explanation for.  This is yet another reason why I believe a God must have have had something to do with the creation of life on earth.

I could keep going on and on, but I don't want to spam everyone with too much information, so I'll leave it at this.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 9:51 PM on May 18, 2003 | IP
JoeCook529

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmmm... guess I messed up somewhere on the quote thingy... could someone tell me where I messed up?
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 9:52 PM on May 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You were using the bold tag.
I don't think there is a quote tag on this board.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:29 PM on May 18, 2003 | IP
Ford_Prefect

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No the bold tag works fine
The problem is the spaces [ b ]
don't use any spaces. Like this.

Joe, it seems to me that you have choosen to believe in the Christian God mostly for personal reasons. That's fine by me, but I just to make sure you agree with me that you have choosen Christianity over the others because it appeals to you more, not because of the weight of evidence.

my second problem is the fact that like so many others you have embraced the God of the Gaps arguement. The fact that there is a lack of scientific knowledge in one area is not a compelling reason to believe in God.  I don't understand how making up a force to fill a gap in scientific knowledge is preferable to just admitting that a gap exists. And why fill this gap with God. Why not fill it with lepracauns, aliens, or invisble pink unicorns. Centuries ago the orbits of the planets was not understood. Many attributed the orbits as an act of angels. However, it did not turn out that planets orbit the sun because of angels carefully guiding their movements. God's role in the universe shrinks everytime a gap is found. Do you really want to believe in a shrinking God?

I accept abiogenesis for one very simple reason. 1. We know that at one point there was no life. 2. We know that now there is life.
3. The only forces we have every observed acting in this universe are natural. Therefore it is most likely that life was formed by some unknown natural process. This seems infinately (yes i do mean infinately) simplier than creating a God to take care of it.

What does occam's razor have to say about this course of action?


-------
"There are of course many problems connected with life, of which some of the most popular are `Why are people born?' `Why do they die?' `Why do they spend so much of the intervening time wearing digital watches?'"<br><br>--Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 11:03 PM on May 18, 2003 | IP
JoeCook529

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Occam's razor... I've never heard about that, so I had to look it up.  Is this corect?

Quote: "God's existence cannot be deduced by reason alone."  

Perhaps I should have just stated that I belive in him on personal faith alone instead of what I wrote down... thank you for telling me about the Occam's Razor thing... I have NEVER heard about it, and it has made me realize the true meaning of my faith

Now that I think about it, I only really belive in him because my parents taught me to belive in him.  While this isn't a bad thing, I have chosen to believe in him after my own personal doubts about God, and without any outside influence (i.e. organized religion).  So I guess you are correct in stating that I belive in God because of personal appeal more then anything else.

That still doesn't change the fact that I belive Evolution was caused by a God, and that all things in the universe were created by God, but it at least makes me realize my own flawed logic.  Thank you Ford
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 03:45 AM on May 19, 2003 | IP
JoeCook529

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

BTW, thanks for telling me what I was doing wrong with the bold quote thing.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 03:48 AM on May 19, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quoting "Perhaps the useless and junk DNA serves a purpose that we do not understand yet...  Genetics is a fairly new science, and the first few times we delve into its secrets we are bound to make a few mistakes.  Perhaps this is one of them.  Perhaps we will find a use for the useless and junk DNA that we had previously overlooked.  Only time will tell..."

Thinking about this, (though I am in no way advocating the intelligent designer theory) humans have found a use for much of the nonsense DNA that make up the bulk of our genome - genetic fingerprinting.  Much of the genetic evidence used in courts and such come from microsatellite and minisatellite loci in the genome.  These loci are large stretched of repeating DNA sequences that reapeat 10-100 times, and are among the most polymorphic of all DNA sequences.  Microsatellites are usually repeats of 2 or 3 base pairs, eg ACTACTACTACT etc, while minisatellite loci are often base pair reapeats of 10 or more base pairs.  These arise due to slippage errors in the replication of the genome.  

Though we do have a use for them, i still maintain my stance that they serve no useful biological purpose to humans.

 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 3:33 PM on May 19, 2003 | IP
Ford_Prefect

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're welcome Joe.

I hope that one day you will find that the quest for truth is a more noble pursuit than the illogical belief in a God just because he gives you a warm gooey feeling. But to each his own. It was fun debating you.

And Occam's Razor is a logical tool that states "The simpliest explanation is the best explanation." A good descrition of it is given in the movie Contact.



-------
"There are of course many problems connected with life, of which some of the most popular are `Why are people born?' `Why do they die?' `Why do they spend so much of the intervening time wearing digital watches?'"<br><br>--Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 5:50 PM on May 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is no true facts to back up evelotion or creationism, but if people have found human and dienasour bones together side by side dosn't that right there give you a little hint that darwins theory isn't right. And if Dawins theory is right(but it not!) why arn't Monkeys, apes, and chimpanzies still changeing today and he never said once in his theory that the chimps would just stop right in the middle and wouldn't change for centries! [b][center][size=14][color=navy][/color]
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:14 PM on May 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is no true facts to back up evelotion or creationism

Wrong.

but if people have found human and dienasour bones together side by side dosn't that right there give you a little hint that darwins theory isn't right

Good thing no one has found such a thing.

And if Dawins theory is right(but it not!) why arn't Monkeys, apes, and chimpanzies still changeing today

Who says they're not?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:05 PM on May 20, 2003 | IP
katie_king

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what if god created the original being a dinsaur or whatever and then they evolved into us


-------
Always and Forever, Katie
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 10:36 PM on May 22, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yea God could have created the first living creature and everything on Earth has evolved from that.

God would have used evolution to create life for a very good reason.

Evolution allows creatures to adapt to the changing environment. If creatures couldn't adapt they would go extinct.

There are lots of people who accept evolution and believe in God. Many believe God started evolution and some believe he is working with it in the background.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:58 PM on May 23, 2003 | IP
surfgurl

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

evolution....what a thought. People making up an excuse to not have a creator. Our DNA cannot, and I say again, cannot change over time! DNA cannot change! so why argue w/it. And if they say its a very slow process....then why don't we see people who are half monkeys and half human? half fungi and half human? (I've always wondered about that...) this is one of the millions of reasons why I don't agree and do not believe it...
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 10:25 PM on May 24, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry surfgurl, you obviously know nothing about evolution.  How can you reject it when you don't even understand it?!  But our DNA does change over time, it's a fact, so why argue against it?  you're just plain wrong.
The reason we don't see people who are half monkey and half human or people who are half fungi and half human (?!?) is because it's impossible and has nothing to do with evolution.  Now, on the other hand, I've never seen god "POOF!" anything into existance, so how can you believe in such a ridiculous concept?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:58 PM on May 24, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Demon,
Just a little note : "god" did not create anything. God did.
Eliminate foggy ideas.


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 09:58 AM on June 2, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And you've personally witnessed him (sorry, Him) doing this?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:51 PM on June 2, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon,
Did you witnessed the "Big Bang" "personally"?
Anybody else? But you think it is a "fact" do not
you? Of course because they "photographed"
the "background noise" of it? (assumption) The "Big Bang" is an assumption too. Do you think that an assumption can be PROVEN by another assumption? Yeah, in evolution of course.


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 1:30 PM on June 9, 2003 | IP
TheGarbageman

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well you certainly go back in time and proved it never happend, and you can never see it happen again since the big crush theory is a bunch of bull.


-------
I shall send you to Heaven, before I send you to Hell.-Sideshow Bob
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 3:59 PM on June 9, 2003 | IP
nothing_satisfies

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gabor, perhaps you should try doing some research, and presenting evidence to back your claims, it would appear that your bark is much larger than your actual bite.  

Now as far as the arguments go, creationism can be disspelled by logic, history, and most importantly facts and science (try using it)

1. Logical proof that creationism is false:

I think everyone can agree that in order for creationism to hold true there must in fact be a "higher being", diety, "God", whatever you want to call it and however you wish to capitalize it or not.  Now basically what this point is going to boil down to is the sole fact that no religion provides an explanation for where their diety comes from.  This explantion is an intrinsic value for all creationist ideals and must be confronted (and as can be seen it is not).  However one could hypothesize that this is possible through chance and probability since all things indefinetly will occur during the course of eternity.  This however can not hold true under the properties of universal self-containment (look into people like hawking to learn more) and since under these properties no outside force could act upon our universe this rules out any sort of diety.


2. Historical evidence:

this is definetly a weaker argument however it is still a valid one.  A large majority of religions (islam, christianity, wiccan, judaism, hinduism, all the tribal religions, etc...) do not hold the same beliefs about creation, and all i would like to see is someone PROVE why their version is "right".

3.  Scince and facts

I covered a large portion of this in my 1st point, but here's what I've got left to say on this part.  If you actually take the time to look at All (both sides) of the evidence (i'm not going to list it that would take me far too much time)  you can see that the theories and laws that support evolution are time tested and outweigh the creationist arguments.  (which i think have been covered good enough by other people)


now at somepoint in the near future i plan to lay out my pro-evolutionist arguments so don't get uptight thinking that i'm not going to try and prove evolution works.  

Also i would like to say that the cosmological theories i addressed are very complex and I certainly do not understand a fair portion of it but i do belive that what i've taken from it is a fairly accurate interpretation, however if there's anyone out there that actually understands it and feels that i've misinterpereted it i apologize and welcome corrections.  However if you're going to correct me i ask that you explain and don't just say that i'm wrong.


 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 12:37 AM on June 10, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Did you witnessed the "Big Bang" "personally"?
Anybody else? But you think it is a "fact" do not
you? Of course because they "photographed"
the "background noise" of it? (assumption) The "Big Bang" is an assumption too. Do you think that an assumption can be PROVEN by another assumption? Yeah, in evolution of course.


Gabor the thing is that before background noise was found science EXPECTED it to be there. But noone could not find it. This was a major flaw in big bang theory - where was the noise?
Then it was discovered by accident using a radio telescope. It had the exact temperature that had been predicted using models.
Also there is the fact that there is a lot more helium in the universe than could have been created by stars. The exact amount observed can be explained if the universe was once denser and hotter.

Also we know that all galaxies are moving further away from each other - the universe is expanding. It doesn't take a genius to note that at some point in the past the galaxies would have been on top of each other.


 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 08:25 AM on June 10, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon,
Did you witnessed the "Big Bang" "personally"?
Anybody else? But you think it is a "fact" do not
you?


Did I winess the Big Bang personally??!!  Since it happened 14.5 billion years ago I guess not!  So that means it didn't happen...
Seriously, the Big Bang is supported by a preponderance of evidence, creationism is not.
Creationism has been disproven, shown to be wrong, it is no longer a valid theory!  Void made a very good point, the background radiation was a prediction of the Big Bang Theory, the discovery of this background noise
further strengthens the theory.  So no, the Big Bang is not an assumption, it is the best, the only valid explaination for the formation of the universe.  

The "Big Bang" is an assumption too. Do you think that an assumption can be PROVEN by another assumption?

OK, we have analyzed this background radiation, it exists, it is empirical evidence and since it is a physical reality it is, therefore, not an assumption.  So, since it's not an assumption, you're wrong again.  So how is the Big Bang an assumption if all the physical evidence supports it?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:28 AM on June 13, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So no, the Big Bang is not an assumption, it is the best, the only valid explaination for the formation of the universe.

Just thought I would clarify this in case someone misunderstands it. It's not the only valid assumption, it is the best valid assumption
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 07:30 AM on June 13, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's not the only valid assumption, it is the best valid assumption

You're right Void, thanks for the catch. But shouldn't that be the best valid  explaination?

(Edited by Demon38 6/13/2003 at 2:32 PM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:30 PM on June 13, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yea
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 8:41 PM on June 13, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know how anyone could think that the earth could not support life 10,000 years ago being that their is proof of an ice age 20,000 years ago and Proof of Dinosouars and being the Pyramids are at least 5000 years old and there are plants that are alive today that sprouted from seed  before the birth of Christ. I don't understand the uneducated view of these bible thumpers that think that the earth is only 10,000 years old and that we were molded out of mud and clay and came from only 2 people when for one if this was true we would all be inbreed swamp dwellers eating gators and being that many religious cults make referance to the people east of eden. And the ones that say the scientists don't understand what they discovered and evolution is not based on facts well the Bible is not based of facts either it is just blind faith for people that can't rationalize and are to scared to think other wise.(The engine by which mystical ideation becomes cultural doctrine includes three primary components: insanity, evil, and feebleness of mind. The insanity is embodied principally by schizophrenics, though also by individuals with certain other types of brain disease. The evil is embodied by the power lusting second hander. The feebleness of mind is embodied by ordinary people, of ordinary mental fortitude and ordinary susceptibility to memetic infection. By mental fortitude, I mean capacity to maintain rational consistency, particularly when presented with a concerted effort to befuddle.) Quoted from http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/ancient.html#metatop. Before dismissing the fact that evolution is based on facts and their has been observations of evolution in birds and monkeys seperated by geographical reasons such as migration seperate from another breed that is so simular yet very different, that at some point in its history decided to take a different root to get to nesting grounds and ended up on some island far away from their origanal flocks that they developed different features, and monkeys simply divided by a river that got larger and larger over the centuried that now the monkeys can't cross the river to make contact with the origanal group and now have different features such as maybe color of the hair to how they feed them selfs or the sound they make. I just think you know it all religious types are victims of mind control, what would happen if you dared to think different? and being that thousands of people died at hands of the church all through history because of some superstition that witches exsisted, and the reading i have done here by you bible thumpers that go on about forcing evolution in schools well i must remind you that when religion was in control of state it was called the dark ages. If any of you had independant thought you might want to look into evolution just so you can see the facts hitting you in the face that many of you claim that the facts don't exsist it because you are ignorant to anything but the bible and you are dumbed down by your religion that will not let you look at such science that might conflict with your teachings that have been forced on you. Your creation theory has no wind in its sails it is no different than some Native North American therory that the raven gave us life.

WAKE UP!!

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:48 PM on July 16, 2003 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.