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
     Why creationism/evolution?
       Give the main reason, and only one.

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Inquartata

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Explain the main reason why you believe in Creationism or Evolution.

No long lists, just the main reason, as short as possible.

Not why people should believe what they do, just give YOUR reason. Why do YOU believe what you do?


-------
In Ferro Veritas
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 4:49 PM on June 15, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The scientific method is a reliable and vital process for helping to understand our world, and it is through that same scientific method that the facts surrounding life's history (ie evolution) are revealed.


-------
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: 6:48 PM on June 15, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The progress of science (via the scientific method) over the past 600 years in contributing to our understanding of nature is indisputable.  If you examine the history of science over the past 600 years, you can see a steady progress in each of the disiplines (astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc).  Most of the discoveries, and resulting theories, are unquestioned by the general public.  It’s only the fact of evolution that causes consternation among people with fundamentalist religious views.  Because evolution threatens, and directly contradicts, their view of Humankind’s place in the universe.  Yet there is no substantial evidence supporting Creatists claims.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:53 PM on June 16, 2008 | IP
Inquartata

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Come on creationists!

One reply?

So far we have two replies from the evolutionary standpoint...and one picture(?).

So nothing to loose.
Give your own reason.


-------
In Ferro Veritas
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 05:50 AM on June 20, 2008 | IP
ArcanaKnight

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution explains and predicts all the evidence that we have gathered, and creationism denies the evidence that doesn't fit their preconceived explanation.
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 4:41 PM on July 15, 2008 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm strongly in favour of evolution as it has be proven millions of times as has fit with every single piece of evidence. If a scientific theory does not fit a single piece of evidence it is invallid. We can saftly say that evolution fits every single piece of evidence.

There is just no argument for creationism.

No Creationists. Maybe they have no reason for believing what they believe.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 04:29 AM on August 20, 2008 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well see cause, mah parents taught me creation, and i cant think for me selves.  I speek gud Reed inglish


-------
“It is impossible for any number which is a power greater than the second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 4:39 PM on October 13, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

cause mah parents taught it ta me... oh yeah thats how we all talk (sarcasm). I myself believe in creationism because thats where the evidence (and my own personal experiences with God) have led me.

(Edited by oct08 12/21/2008 at 9:16 PM).
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 9:15 PM on December 21, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I myself believe in creationism because thats where the evidence (and my own personal experiences with God) have led
me.


Kind of crazy statement since there is no real evidence for creationism.  And what personal experiences with God have you had that dealt with modern biology???
You're just afraid to think on your own and study the real world.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:20 AM on December 22, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why must you always lace an insult into your posts I've done my own research and as for my personal experiences with God don't worry I don't see that as hard evidence.

(Edited by oct08 12/22/2008 at 8:35 PM).
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 12:42 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
tonechild

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution, because ah blahndly buhleeve that scientists never make mistakes.  lol

(Edited by tonechild 12/22/2008 at 1:47 PM).
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 1:18 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is that supposed to be a joke.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 8:34 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why must you always lace an insult into your posts I've done my own research and as for my personal experiences with God don't worry I don't see that as hard
evidence.


You haven't done any real research because there is NO evidence to support creationism!  Claim what ever you want but you're not fooling anyone.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:53 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How would you even know what research I've done?
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 10:58 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How would you even know what research I've done?

I've seen the anti science web sites you've posted to support your claims.  The silly, creationist errors you've made by the quesitons you've asked.  It's plain to see you haven't done any real research with real sources.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:00 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you want to know why I believe what I believe. Well first off I know that no matter I post you will begin with an insult or possibly some sort of bragging in your intellectual superiority, followed by either evidence or on occasion a misconsrtrued statement about my argument, and finally you will end with another insult. So why should I post anything, but you know what I'll give it a shot because if I don't you'll say that I'm running.

My first reason n is the Anthropic Principle which as I'm sure you know is a long list of conditions on earth that must be at a precise point or life would not be possible.

My second reason is that if life itself is an accident and my creation was nothing but a matter of chance and luck then I would probably shoot myself to know that life holds no meaning and we are nothing but advanced apes.

The third reason is one that you would not understand and it a very personal one that involves my own experience and observation, and I won't even bother going into detail about it because I don't want to sit here and read your assault towards one of the most important events in my life.

Now chances are none of these reasons mean anything to you as the majority of them are based on personal belief and I understand that but please can you keep the insults to a minimum because I am starting to lose my temper here.

 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 11:25 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My first reason n is the Anthropic Principle which as I'm sure you know is a long list of conditions on earth that must be at a precise point or life would not be possible.

Nonsense.  The earth was here first, we evolved to live on earth, your anthropic principle is simply 20/20 hindsight!  If that long list of conditions on earth that must be at precise point were different, life would be different!  It's a silly argument that proves nothing.

My second reason is that if life itself is an accident and my creation was nothing but a matter of chance and luck then I would probably shoot myself to know that life holds no meaning and we are nothing but advanced apes.

Life wasn't an accident, it was a natural process.  I see you aren't prepared to face reality.  Life has precisely the meaning we give it!  No other animal can make that claim!  And we're apes, not really more advanced tahn any other.  I'm sorry the real world crushes your superiority complex...

The third reason is one that you would not understand and it a very personal one that involves my own experience and observation, and I won't even bother going into detail about it because I don't want to sit here and read your assault towards one of the most important events in my life.

Fine, if you're happy with your religion, good for you!  But don't come on this site using your faith as anti science evidence.  Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains it.  Evolution is valid because we successfully use it in industry medicine, farming, raising animals and it will be even more important in the future.  If it wasn't for our understanding of the theory of evolution, we could not feed the population of the planet.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:35 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So if the Earth being created was a guided process then what guided it.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 11:48 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So if the Earth being created was a guided process then what guided it.

It wasn't an intelligently guided process.  The earth being created was guided by the laws of physics and chemistry.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:57 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First off, sorry if i'm sometimes impolite. I like to laugh at people's beliefs (and i like it when they laugh at mine).

My first reason n is the Anthropic Principle which as I'm sure you know is a long list of conditions on earth that must be at a precise point or life would not be possible.
The Anthropic Principle is a strong one, but it's a matter of personal awe. Can't be used when talking to others.

Because your very birth is very unlikely (multiply the chances of your particular sperm reaching your particular egg, times the same for each of your parents, times the same for each of your grandparents...

Most likely you're not here.

And yet we know you are, and we can imagine how it happened.

The awe of the Anthropic Principle is a private matter, and has no bearing upon reality.

My second reason is that if life itself is an accident and my creation was nothing but a matter of chance and luck then I would probably shoot myself to know that life holds no meaning and we are nothing but advanced apes.
I hope you didn't (you probably wouldn't, because of that very biological imperative that you strongly deny). I hope you find other meanings than some god's whim (it didn't look like love at all).

There are many other meanings. Even your own whim is better than that.

The third reason is one that you would not understand and it a very personal one that involves my own experience and observation, and I won't even bother going into detail about it because I don't want to sit here and read your assault towards one of the most important events in my life.
I seriously doubt that your personal experience is so related to biology as to make you deny evolution.

I'd guess that it was either your elaboration after your experience, or your lack of elaboration after your being told what to believe.

So if the Earth being created was a guided process then what guided it.
Goddidit.

Now, what if it wasn't?

I guess it's a matter of semantics. I don't know what you mean by "guided".

Demon says it was guided by the laws of physics and chemistry.
I'd say it wasn't guided at all.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:17 AM on December 23, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon says it was guided by the laws of physics and chemistry.
I'd say it wasn't guided at all.


You're right, it's just semantics.  Would you agree with me if I said the earth was FORMED by natural processes and no supernatural forces were required?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:35 AM on December 23, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

100%


Edit: Guidance smells like purpose.


(Edited by wisp 12/24/2008 at 11:58 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:08 AM on December 23, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from oct08 at 11:48 PM on December 22, 2008 :
So if the Earth being created was a guided process then what guided it.


What's cool is that we are now beginning to be able to watch it happen elsewhere.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 7:04 PM on December 23, 2008 | IP
robert71

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Look around at every living thing on the planet! Evolution is taking place before our eyes people. The growth and development stages of world wide vegitation, the growth and developmental stages of the human body, science and technology. this computer I'm typing on right now?  Evolution means just what it means... and is in fact going on around us all right now...!  It's the gradual development progress of something, no matter what it may be... living or mechanical.

We are born as children or babies, we develop into mature adults! Would that not be enough evidence to support our argument? That's just one analogy of many that can be brought forth.

So where is the proof that a mighty creator just created everything?

We are what we are over millions of years of certain evolution and the progressions of life it's self.

There is no great creator!
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 1:39 PM on January 9, 2009 | IP
robert71

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All these Bible thumpers want to push this belief onto everyone about an all mighty creator!

When the actual science of it all, is taking place just before their eyes. Nothing but self centered ignorance is being brought forth from them all.

You can't believe in the science of things and still have the faith of a book that continues to deny the actual events going on around us.

There are no actual comparisons between the two, as most try and proclaim either.

If this were the case, there would be several different variations of each one of us walking around right now... and more being created with each passing day.

So where are all of our younger duplicates?
If we are created by a creator, then each one of us would have to be remade each day, every moment of the day so on and so forth!

Make any sense at all?

This would meen we could only change with time it's self at every moment we age. Age is what evolution is all about. Time and it's progression of change.

So if there is only one of me right now getting older as there is only one of you right now, wouldn't it be safe to assume that we are evolving with time?

I'm still trying to figure out where in fact are all the other me's are at right now in previous time! if a creator created us then we must surely have duplicates somewhere!
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 2:00 PM on January 9, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is the third time I am attempting a post -I write submit and it doesn't work -so here I go again....


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:35 AM on January 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok seems to be working now so ....
Everything is running down to a greater state of disorder according to the second law of thermodynamics. Not even one protein much less a living cell is statistically probable via natural laws even given all the so-called evolutionary time available.
Evolution is wishful thinking not based on evidence.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:41 AM on January 10, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Everything is running down to a greater state of disorder according to the second law of thermodynamics. Not even one protein much less a living cell is statistically probable via natural laws even given all the so-called evolutionary time available.


Absolutely untrue, and you don't seem to understand physics very well.  An increase in disorder (2nd Law of thermodynamics) only applies to a closed system.  A closed system is one where there is no net energy change.  While entropy of the universe as a whole is increasing, the earth is not in a closed system - we are recieving a constant source of energy from the sun.  So your argument is bogus.

The more sophisticated creationists gave up this argument long ago.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:20 PM on January 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well if you are a naturalist then it is a closed system overall. No supernatural out of the system 'stuff' allowed.
The sun's energy is destructive without machinary to can convert it to something useful. Where did that machinary of photosynthesis come from, for example -chance?
Sophisticated creationists never gave that argument up -they probably just got sick of hearing the usual -refuted, refuted, refuted and moved on to the next 10 000 arguments.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:16 AM on January 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:16 AM on January 11, 2009 :

The sun's energy is destructive without machinary to can convert it to something useful. Where did that machinary of photosynthesis come from, for example -chance?


The sun's energy is able to synthesize the precursors of photosynthesis in interstellar ices:

Molecular Biosystems   Cofactor precursors thought to exist in interstellar ice clouds

With the successful Mars Rovers and Cassini missions, the interest in space research is increasing again. Recent work by a group of French, German and Dutch scientists brings us a little closer to understanding what is really going in interstellar space.

The team simulated the physical conditions at low pressure, low temperature and UV radiation that may exist in interstellar clouds to see whether it is possible to find any enzyme cofactor precursors in the irradiated samples after warming up to room temperature. The interstellar clouds contain dust particles with an ice mantle containing mostly H2O and then CH3OH, CO, CO2 and NH3. The ice layer of the same composition was prepared in the laboratory and irradiated with UV light. Previously it was shown that building blocks of proteins and nucleic acids were generated under prebiotic conditions but the data on cofactors is rare.

Their results show that hexahydro-1, 3, 5-triazine and its derivatives together with some monopyrrolic molecules are formed in ice clouds under low pressure, low temperature and UV radiation. All of them are precursors of uroporphyrinogen which can be transformed into biological porphyrinoid cofactors.

To exclude the possibility of sample contamination, experiments using 13C-labelled gases were also performed and showed similar composition. These results support the heterotrophy origin theory of the biological cofactors, which assumes that the structural prototypes of cofactors were synthesised under prebiotic conditions and further perfected by organisms. The other, autotrophy origin theory, suggests that organisms are capable of synthesising all carbon constituents directly from CO2.

The researchers are now waiting for the results of the Stardust and Rosseta missions which are going to analyze cometary materials to compare them with their own findings. Stardust should bring the samples of the dust surrounding comet 81p/Wild2 to the Earth, while Rosetta is going to perform in situ GC-MS measurements of comet nucleus. A comparison could shed more light on still unanswered question about the emergence of the first living organisms on Earth.



U. J. Meierhenrich, G. M. Munoz Caro, W. A. Schutte, W. H.-P. Thiemann, B. Barbier, A. Brock, Chem. Eur. J., 2005, 11, 4895–4900


Look at the rich biochemical fraction of the Murchison meteorite or the Tagish Lake meteorite as an example.

We can duplicate conditions in deep space and synthesize complex organic compounds.  And as for the Second Law, I've never seen a need for an evolutionary process to move heat from a cooler to a warmer body, which would be a violation of the Second Law.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 03:57 AM on January 12, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very interesting information - thanks.

Once again more compelling evidence that Life will find a way, and that perhaps its not so difficult for life to begin - given the right conditions.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:41 AM on January 12, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My one reason for believing in creation is that God gave me the faith to believe in His word. I don't expect you to understand as 15 years ago I wouldn't have understood either. But even if I am wrong at least I know that the principals guiding me are the same as they were for Christ. Unfortunately the main principal guiding the general scientific community is preservation of funding. How can anyone have faith in a bunch of people whos primary aim is to glorify themselves and their ideas through government sponsered and sanctioned "research"? Everybody has an agenda. Mine is to seek the truth through the "eyes" of scripture.
What is your agenda?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:16 AM on January 12, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is this "faith" thing that people always go on about. To me it sounds like "Trust me, despite the fact that I have no evidence."

"Mine is to seek the truth through the "eyes" of scripture."

How does scripture show you the truth? If you are going to base your argument on scripture then at least read more than one book. Surly experiments and observations make a much better tool for reason.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 1:00 PM on January 12, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How can anyone have faith in a bunch of people whos primary aim is to glorify themselves and their ideas through government sponsered and sanctioned "research

Hmmm, it sounds like you have some hostility towards science and government.

Regardless of how you feel about science, and I suspect you have plenty of company as a lot of people don't understand or like science, you cannot deny that the scientific process is the most powerful tool we have in understanding nature.  It works.  

There's an animosity towards science in the American society today, particularly when what we learn about nature clashes with sacred religious beliefs, especially Christian beliefs.  

So what are we to do?  We can't turn back the clock and go back to thinking that the Earth is the center of the universe.  Copernicus showed us that sacred belief was wrong.  We had to come to accept that the Earth's place in the universe was not so special.  

Then along comes Darwin and he's saying that Man isn't so special either.  We evolved from less flattering creatures.  There goes 'God created Man in his own image'.  Some people still can't stand the thought of that belief not being true.  

But the scientific process is a beautiful thing.  It brings us an understanding of how nature is and it works.  Some people have a natural curiosity to want to know the answers, the truth.  I don't think most scientists pursue their field of interest for glory.  I think most are in science because they have a sense of curiosity about nature, a love for learning.  Some might even say they want to know how God did it.  

And it turns out that how God did it doesn't mesh with a literal interpretation of the Bible.  And I find that refreshing because I think how God did it in real life is a much more interesting story.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:25 PM on January 12, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

The whole idea of God is flawed.

If there were truly a God then surly there would be some sort of evidence (for all those bible bashers out there the Bible is as credible evidence as Peter Pan). Surly there would also be some interaction made by him. So far this God is proving to be not only elussive but also lazy. Getting the laws of physics to do it all whilst he watches soap operas.

Why do religius people continue to try to explain the complex world with even more complex explinations. Science has shown us many times that simple systems interacting on a large scale can create something much more complex that any large complex explination could.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 2:32 PM on January 12, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion,

I do admit a certain animosity towards science and government but only where the two diametrically opposed disciplines attempt to intersect. Any political involvement in research taints the research. Even weather forcasting is influenced by a political agenda.

I do not deny that the scientific process is a powerful tool though I believe individual intelect and instinct can be more powerful. Edison knew the lightbulb would work long before he proved it.
The scientific process is absolutely necessary, though, in order to bring about concensus.

I take exception to the implication that I don't understand or like science. Just because we interpret some things differently doesn't mean I don't like science. In fact I spend many hours exploring nature and gaining an understanding as to how systems work. I am sure we would find many facinations in common. The diference is in the interpretation.

Please enlighten me as to where what we learn about nature clashes with Christian beliefs. I see the clash occuring only in interpretation.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 2:48 PM on January 12, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Aswissrole,

The evidence of God is in the creation which could not possibly have put itself together. If we see design in nature, it IS design, so therefore we need a designer. You are unfortunately living in the matrix -you are not where you think you are and there's a very powerful dark spiritual being that really hopes you stay blind to reality. That being wants you to believe that there is no God, in fact that's what he wants everyone to believe, hence evolution indoctrination in the education system.
Pray for help if you want to see!
You need to escape the matrix believe it or not.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:48 AM on January 14, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And who is this spiritual being who hopes that I remain blind?  

You mean Satan... Lucifer... the devil himself?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:48 PM on January 14, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for showing me how to use the quotation feature and I feel somewhat guilty about using it aginst your argument.

here's a very powerful dark spiritual being that really hopes you stay blind to reality.

Um... Right. Evidence for this being is supposidly out of the window along with most religion, so I will ask why this being wants too keep us blind. What could be so vital that he would persist on using his time and energy to keep humanity blind and how would he do such a thing?

You need to escape the matrix believe it or not.

Ok, back up a bit. Someone has been watching a little too much TV here, lol.
I know you mean it in just a metaphorical scense (at least I hope you do). I think you may have something confused here. You see it is religius people that are in a "matrix" as you claim rediculus things with no evidence to back it up.

(Edited by Aswissrole 1/14/2009 at 1:58 PM).
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 1:56 PM on January 14, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
That being wants you to believe that there is no God, in fact that's what he wants everyone to believe, hence evolution indoctrination in the education system

You believe that the theory of evolution is the work of the devil?  I'm truly amazed that anyone can think such a thing.  That kind of thinking leads down a dark path.  If everyone held such anti-intellectual  beliefs we would still be in the Medieval Age practicing mysticism, alchemy, astrology, and burning people at the stake for witchcraft and being heretics.

You wonder why evolutionists fight so hard to keep Creationism out of the science classroom - that is certainly one reason!  

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:19 PM on January 14, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well fact of the matter is that either we were created or everything created itself in contradiction to natural law.
How do you imagine that your brain managed to make itself ?

It's only anti-intellectual if it's not true.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:23 AM on January 16, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well fact of the matter is that either we were created or everything created itself in contradiction to natural law.

How is this a contradiction of natural law???
Especially since we know that on a quantum level things "create themselves" all the time!

How do you imagine that your brain managed to make itself ?

It didn't make itself.  Why do you claim it did?

It's only anti-intellectual if it's not true.

Only creationism is anti-intellectual, as you've just demonstrated.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:46 AM on January 16, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"How do you imagine that your brain managed to make itself ?"

Firstly, I don't think my brain made itself. It is the product of billions of years of evolution.

Secondly, how do you imagine god make himself/herself?
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 11:08 AM on January 16, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38
How is this a contradiction of natural law???


The law of entropy -order does not come from disorder.

on a quantum level things "create themselves" all the time!


meaning what exactly?

How do you imagine that your brain managed to make itself ?

It didn't make itself.  Why do you claim it did?


You know exactly what I mean - did it come together by random processes or was it created to do what it can do?

Aswissrole answers Lester10:
"How do you imagine that your brain managed to make itself ?"

Firstly, I don't think my brain made itself. It is the product of billions of years of evolution.


Well that would be the same as creating itself via, I suppose, random mutations and natural selection -as opposed to requiring some intelligent input as do all structures of great complexity and co-ordination - as far as we ever see.
'Billions of years of evolution' seems to be the evolutionist's alternative creator -shouldn't Evolution start with a capital letter in that case?

Secondly, how do you imagine god make himself/herself?


He is the creator, not the created. God  created time, space and matter and is outside of his creation so He is eternal. Remember: "In the beginning (time) God created the heaven (space) and the earth (matter)...."












-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:57 AM on January 17, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well that would be the same as creating itself

Personally I woudn't call that creating itself any more than I would say stars create themselves. If you really want to argue against that then feel free but it is just a choice of words, it means nothing, you seem to understand what I mean by it.

'Billions of years of evolution' seems to be the evolutionist's alternative creator

An intresting idea. Evolution is the scientific alternative to a creator but it is very different from a creator. You believe in a conseus being that has designed the universe (what the hell for may I ask?) where as evolution shows that simple natural processes are able to create the vast divercity of life on this planet (and other planets if we find life there).

He is the creator, not the created. God  created time, space and matter and is outside of his creation so He is eternal. Remember: "In the beginning (time) God created the heaven (space) and the earth (matter)...."

Yet another perfect case of creationists trying to avoid the question.
He is the creator, not the created.

What is this section suppost to mean? Do you mean to tell me that God just appeared out of nowhere with no natural process to explain his creation, let alone his existance? Why do you ask evolutionists to try and give you a complete theory of life based upon scientific reasoning when you cannot even present a fully thoughtout fictional story to explain things?

You know exactly what I mean - did it come together by random processes or was it created to do what it can do?

The brain is the product of billions of generations of random mutation. The weaker species died off allowing the stronger ones to survive and breed. Brains gave a survival bonus and so larger brains ment a larger chance of survival and passing on their DNA...
Why do I feel as if I have explained this too many times?
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 7:30 PM on January 17, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Aswissrole,

I believe you may be a good dancer. You dance around the real subject with certainty but refuse to understand the point.

"What is this section suppost to mean? Do you mean to tell me that God just appeared out of nowhere with no natural process to explain his creation, let alone his existance? Why do you ask evolutionists to try and give you a complete theory of life based upon scientific reasoning when you cannot even present a fully thoughtout fictional story to explain things?"

Nobody asked for a complete theory of life. We are asking, however , for consideration  based on the same standard levied to you. You believe, with only circumstantial evidence, that life came from non life. Every time you say it is a fact, we simply ask for the empirical avidence to support that fact. The only fact presented is that you have none. Than you procede to attack our beliefs. I have stated on numerous occasions that I have no proof for a creator other than circumstantial evidence. I tell you I can offer no proof other than the testimony of others who believe as I do. And you procede to relegate my beliefs to the realm of myth while avoiding the same accusation leveled at you. Nice pirouette.

If you can admitt that the evolution of life from non life and than into the biodiversity we see today is a belief you hold in faith than maybe we can get somewhere. Can you not see that faith is belief in a fact that is unseen and unproven?

Again I say that evolution is a religion and should be treated as such; With respect for the believer who in turn respects other beliefs.



 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:59 AM on January 19, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why is no one listening to me!

I have repeatedly stated that evolution does not deal with the beginings of life! Scientists do not know how life began and there is not enougth evidence to prove either theory!

I acsept the idea that a creator of some kind may have been involved in the inital creation of life. I merly find that hyposthesis extreamly unlikly as there is no evidence for such a thing and no reason why anyone would do it.

I have apsolutly no idea how life began! Out of the theories currently available I think the idea of life starting on earth from amino acids is most probable. This is a guess as there is little evidence for any of the theories.

"We are asking, however, for consideration  based on the same standard levied to you"
Provide evidence and your theory will recieve consideration.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 11:15 AM on January 19, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm sorry, Aswissrole but the theory of evolution absolutely DOES deal with the beginnings of life. In order for life to progress forward it must have a starting point.

I acsept the idea that a creator of some kind may have been involved in the inital creation of life. I merly find that hyposthesis extreamly unlikly as there is no evidence for such a thing and no reason why anyone would do it.

I have apsolutly no idea how life began! Out of the theories currently available I think the idea of life starting on earth from amino acids is most probable. This is a guess as there is little evidence for any of the theories.



Thank you, Aswissrole. This is all the consideration I ask of you. Now if more people, on both sides, can be as reasonable, than we can agree to disagree and move on.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:44 PM on January 19, 2009 | IP
flippo

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

evolution: because there are plenty of data that support it and which can be checked.  I'm a scientist; I check the data every day. Do you?
 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 03:41 AM on January 20, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I'm sorry, Aswissrole but the theory of evolution absolutely DOES deal with the beginnings of life. In order for life to progress forward it must have a starting point."

General relativity, newtons laws of motion and quantum mechanics don't deal with the beigning of the universe. Are they wrong? No. A theory does not have to cover all aspects for it to be right.

"we can agree to disagree and move on."
Why did we join a debating forum and debate creationisum and evolution. I think the purpose of such a debate is to find which one of the theories is wrong or how much truth lies in each one.

It is true that evolution does not deal with the origins of life at the moment but it clearly shows that all life on earth has evolved from one or two organisums.

Flippo-
What kind of scientist are you?
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 11:09 AM on January 20, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
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.