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
     Who is a creationest???
       a gathering for creationests and debating.

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

    
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If u are a creationest, post HERE!


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:28 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hi creation17


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:07 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
Creation17

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i am posting because i am a creationist![color=aqua][color=lime]


-------
God is real.
Creation is real.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 8:08 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

welcome!


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:20 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
submitmj

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe in GOD and worship Him alone. I believe that GOD created the Heavens and the Earth and that Evolution is a Divinely guided process within species only.

Evolution can never explain the initial creation of all things.
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 01:35 AM on October 14, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is a Divinely guided process within species only.

Yet it's a fact that we've seen new species evolve, both in the wild and in the lab.  So this claim is wrong.

Evolution can never explain the initial creation of all things.

Since it doesn't attempt to explain this, why should it?  That's what theoretical physics and astronomy try to do.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:12 AM on October 14, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution has never been reproduced in the lab.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 9:52 PM on October 14, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution has never been reproduced in the lab.

This is not true, evolution has been reproduced in the lab.  You can't back up your claim.  Here are some documented, verified examples of evolution of new species in the lab.  From here:
LabSpecies

"Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, Nereis acuminata (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects."

So you have been proven wrong.  Either falsify MY claims or shut up.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 08:48 AM on October 15, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No lab had made a mixture of chemicals, and the through random natrual selection made simple life into highly complex life forms.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 10:10 PM on October 15, 2007 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]No lab had made a mixture of chemicals, and the through random natrual selection made simple life into highly complex life forms.

I think you're confusing abiogenesis with evolution.  Abiogenesis is the origin of life.  Evolution is the change of species brought about by the process of natural selection.  

You are correct in stating that no lab has yet been successful in creating life from non-living substances.  But the basic building blocks for organic molecules (nucleic acids, nucleotides, etc) have been created in the lab using similated conditions thought to have been present on the early earth.  The fact that the fossil record shows a progression of more diverse life over time is extremely strong evidence that evolution does indeed occur.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:53 PM on October 15, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No lab had made a mixture of chemicals, and the through random natrual selection made simple life into highly complex life
forms.


No one claimed they have.  I made the claim that macroevolution, a change at or above the species level, has been observed in the wild and in the lab.  And I have proven that this is a fact by siting examples.
You're now talking about abiogenesis, which is a seperate field from evolution.  Incidently, many biochemists claim that we will be able to create life in less than 10 years, that's how close we are to doing it.  And now man can create tailor made life, essentially making more complex life, so you are wrong there, too.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:48 PM on October 16, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

life is all 2 complex for just one big accident. welcome orion! Glad 2 c another creationest here on my side.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:52 AM on October 17, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lol... Gotta feel sorry for poor old Creationest6 every once in awhile.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:41 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You know, if I were God, I would find it more interesting to have established natural laws and processes (like evolution), and then sit back and see what happens.  I would think God would get kind of bored with just creating 'kinds' of organisms and leaving it at that.  

The thing that really bothers me about religions like Christianity is that they are so antrocentric - believing that humans are the central point of the universe.  That we are the pinnacle of God's creation.  That seems to me to be an awfully arrogant and self-serving idea.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:16 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

tell me about it.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 3:43 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

life is all 2 complex for just one big
accident.


Evolution doesn't claim life is an accident, abiogenesis doesn't claim life is an acident.  Please show us the scientific sources that make this claim.  Please show us the peer reviewed reports that support "life is just one big accident".
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:12 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
Anarchy 117

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am a creationist to

well was it not the big bang that you claimed started the universe ?? how was that not in accindent unless you believe in a super natural being ????  it has been a long time sence I have debated and even studied Evo VS CRE

so I am still a little rusty
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 3:32 PM on November 23, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well was it not the big bang that you claimed started the universe ??

Well, it's physicists and astronomers who say the evidence supports the big bang and I agree.  What does this have to do with evolution or abiogenesis?

how was that not in accindent unless you believe in a super natural being ????

Wait a minute, are you claiming it's either an accident or a supernatural being created it????
There are other choices!  Reactions take place when certain conditions are met.  This is not an accident, nor is it caused by a supernatural being.  When it rains, is that an accident or did god do it by magic?  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:06 PM on November 23, 2007 | IP
The_Wizard

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just to set the record straight... The Big Bang Theory is in the science of Astronomy and Astrophysics. It is a companion to biological evolution.

First let me say, it is possible to have an accident and a scientific logical process to explain things and happenings in science. Things don't just happen. Everything is science has a reason for happening even if we at this time don't know or understand why.

How did the Big Bang start... no one knows for sure. How do we know it happened? The universe is expanding from a central point not unlike a balloon. We know this from Doppler Shifts in the light spectum of distant stars. Stars/Galaxies moving away from us give off what is called a Red Shift. Stars/Galaxies moving towards us give off a Blue Shift. These shifts from red to blue give speed and angle. Mind you that these shifts do not indicate the color of the Stars/Galaxies just the direction, speed and angle it's light is coming from. We know the galaxies are moving because we have pictures of galaxy collisions. It's like a single frame from a high speed film of a bullet going through an apple except the film is millions of years long.

Radio telescopes scan the universe and track thousands of stars at a time and that data is entered into computers which can produce a model of what the universe looks like, where the galaxies are headed and if run backwards where they came from. All models to date have the universe coming from a single point in space. Police use a similar process to track bullet trajectories from a gunman or gunmen, if they were still or moving and at what angle the bullets came. From this a simulation can be created to show the movement and possition of the attackers. It is accurate enough to be upheld in a court of law as evidence. Is it perfect... no.

Like I said, it is possible to have an accident and a scientific logical process to explain things and happenings. Earth and evolution is a good example. There are millions of planets in the universe that have planets almost identical to early earth that will never spring forth life. There are millions of planets like early earth that will but will be vastly different from what we know. So was life on earth an accident? Yes and no. The simple answer we don't know why it happened here... not yet. We do know that it had to do with chemistry and time. What was the catalyst? How long did it take? These answers have not been discovered yet. Like the ingredient in a cake... some people can half-ass it and create a succulent confectionary masterpiece. Others can follow a recipe to the "T" and create and adobe brick that will be found by our ancestors who will think it a marvel in build materials.

So how does one expaine their cakes? One would say, "I just through it together... I'm surpised how good it is!". The other would say, "I had an accident in baking your cake.". The truth is if you study the cakes in a lab, you would find there was a logical scientific reason why one failed and one succeeded. Baking is nothing more than chemistry you can eat. Break it down and you will find a chemical reason why the cakes failed or succeeded. But there are other factors as well. Outside temperature, barametric pressure and altitude. Most baking recipes have a High Altitude alternative setting in them or on the box. Most of these are not taken into consideration when cooking or baking but they do have an effect. We chalk up failure in the kitchen to cooking prowess or an accident.

So my point being is while accident do happen in nature science can explain what happen if given the time.

(Edited by The_Wizard 11/24/2007 at 3:45 PM).


-------
Never Talkin', Just Keeps Walkin'
Spreadin' His Magic...

The Wizard
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 9:12 PM on November 23, 2007 | 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.