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
    

    
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

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


Whereas I see the evidence pointing to a common creator.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 12:45 PM on January 20, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx -
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.


the theory of evolution deals with how life has changed on earth over time, and the processes driving those changes - which is basically natural selection.

If you want to talk about how life got started  here, I would say that is called abiogenesis.  Technically that would be a different field than evolution.      
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:03 PM on January 20, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Than you Orion. Abiogenesis is indeed the word and it is different from evolution. Untill scientists find out how life originated they will not know. When they find out they will either fit it into the theory of evolution or adapt and create a new theory to include the origions of life. This is how the scientific process works.

I see the evidence pointing to a common creator.

This was a pretty usless statment. We already know your view on the matter and you have agin failed to provide evidence to support your theories.
I could look at the sun and tell you we are revolving around it. You might tell me that you see the sun revolving around us but it doesn't make you right.

 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 3:16 PM on January 20, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, Aswissrole, I will beat my head on this wall one more time.

My "useless statement" describes the problem precisely. The reason I can not give you evidence to support my hypothesis over yours is that we have exactly the same evidence. The only differance between your evidence and mine is interpretation. I interpret based on my presuposition:"I see the evidence pointing to a common creator. "
You interpret based on your presupposition: "I see evidence pointing to evolution."
The other problem we have is defining terms. I agree with you that natural selection results in variety. I disagree that this will automatically lead to new species.
Yes, abiogenisis is the spontaneous origination of life from non life. And evolution presumes the variety we see today as resulting from  some earlier primitive life. But there is no evidence of any type of mutation or adaptation resulting in increasingly more complex forms of life. A single celled organism is more complex than the space shuttle. So how can we see any increase in complexity on a microscopic level? I have no idea. Maybe "millions of years" would show demonstrable increase in complexity. I am not saying it couldn't have happened that way. But this explanation does not fit my presupposition. And untill science can provide demonstrable proof for such a change than my presuposition will not change. And the same for you, I grant.
The biggest difference between us becomes personal. I believe that if I am wrong I will suffer no long term ill effects. But if you are wrong, well, you get to take that up with your maker.
I recomend you look at this web site which I stumbled across tonight. Just pick a piece of evidence you are familiar with. Read the opposing interpretations. It won't hurt you and it might even help you with your own arguments. Good luck.
trueorigin.org




 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:20 PM on January 20, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Aswissrole
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.


No it doesn't -it shows a common genetic code which apparently came into being right way back in the beginning via ?natural selection -but we needed it in order to reproduce otherwise there would be no natural selection.

What if it is the mark of a common creator's programme (like WINDOWS) rather than something random that just happened into existance by the accumulation of random mistakes. Which one looks more likely considering the code and complexity of the genetic code. I do not have the faith to believe that something  that complicated built itself.





-------
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: 02:42 AM on January 21, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx - your link only gives me a 404. Are you sure you copied it correctly?

Your theories would fit very well if the life we see today is how life had existed since the begining of life and there were no extinct species. As it turns out there are many extinct species and clear changes that have occured in previus animals to lead to some of the ones we see today.

I would like to know what your definition of the word species is. It is a very hard thing to define in many respects.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 10:42 AM on January 21, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Try this:
http://www.trueorigin.org/

Pronunciation: \ˈspç-(ˌ)shçz, -(ˌ)sçz\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural species
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, appearance, kind, species, from specere to look — more at spy
Date: 14th century
1 a: kind , sort b: a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name ; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class c: the human race : human beings —often used with the d (1): a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name (2): an individual or kind belonging to a biological species e: a particular kind of atomic nucleus, atom, molecule, or ion
2: the consecrated eucharistic elements of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Eucharist
3 a: a mental image ; also : a sensible object b: an object of thought correlative with a natural object

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 12:46 PM on January 21, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A creationist web-site.  Looking at one of the first entries - Russ Humphreys indicates that helium diffusion in zircon crystals indicate a young earth.

Hmmm.  I'm not a physicist, so I wonder what his peers have to say about this?

from Sandia National Laboratory

His very own Sandia colleagues don't seem very convinced of his arguments.  In fact, they point out many of his flawed hypothesis.

It seems as though Russ Humphreys has tried to present ideas outside his field of expertise.
The Unraveling of Starlight and Time

I authors of the above articles are certainly not bashing Humphreys because of his Christian beliefs.  They say:

Before proceeding with our discussion of the present state of the Starlight and Time hypothesis, we wish to make it clear that our observations about Dr. Humphreys' cosmological writings are not intended to cast aspersion on the sincerity of his Christian faith or the quality of his Christian testimony. The errors and defects in Humphreys' ideas are not moral errors, but scientific ones, and our pointing out of Humphreys' errors in these scientific areas does not imply criticism of his moral integrity. The one moral criticism which we would make of Dr. Humphreys' advocacy of his model, is his failure to heed the counsel of skilled Christian physicists in this matter. This is not a small criticism, for Humphreys' overconfidence in this matter has led to the widespread dissemination of a false theory. The inevitable collapse of this theory may damage the faith of many Christians who have leaned on it to reinforce their faith. The responsibility for such damage will rest with Dr. Humphreys and those of his associates who have promoted his theory, disregarding the expert counsel which God has made available to them. It is also possible that the widespread distribution and acceptance of his theory will have negative consequences for the credibility of Christian testimony to unbelievers. Again, responsibility for this will lie with Dr. Humphreys and his associates.



Here is another critical article on Humphreys technical and procedural flaws.

Helium Diffusion and Retention in Zircons

There are many more scientific reviews of Humphreys work regarding a young earth - none of them favorable.  

I really don't think this puts a good light to the Creationists cause.  Do you?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:40 AM on January 22, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is alot of writting here and well done for finding it. I will not be able to read it all as I don't really have the time. Most of the articles are rather indepth with biological functions that I have no knowledge of as I am no student of biology.

Scimming over one or two articles I noticed a few things:

I noticed one about the moon suggesting that it was vital for life.
This is indeed a possibility as the tides are very important for life, particulary early life where the tides washed in minerals from the land. Many animals also use its motion to find mating grounds and to attend matuing grounds at certain times of the year.

However, does it not make sence that life evoved to the moon rather than the moon beging created for life? The idea of the moon washing minerals into the sea acturly supports the evolutionist argument further as this allowed early life to survive and begin evolving. Anyway, pretty much all of the planets in this solar system have moons, infact we are unusural in the fact we only have one.

I also noticed an article talking about a young earth. Whether you are a young earth creationist or not I am not sure. The article talked a little bit about how he thought radiation dating was not good enougth evidence that the Earth was 4.6 billion years old. Why this person decided that an apparent lack of evidence showed the world to be very young continues to delude me. He then began talking about how the solar system and unvierse must also be younge. The proof for these begin much older is blatently obvius. Scintists have been able to scan deep space and can see almost 14 billion light years away. Since light moves at a constant speed throughout the unvierse this proves that the universe must be almost 14 billion years only (13.7 billion is the current estimation). The distance of these very distant objects can be confired through paralax and possible red shifting.

You have clearly shown that there are "reasonable" doubts in the theory of evolution and that "scientists" are exploring other possibilities. However, these "scientists" seem to have a comman flaw. They are all trying to disprove evolution so they can insert their own creationist beliefs. Science does not work by nit picking and interpretating evidence to disprove theories. It is my understanding that science works through scientists making new discoveries and proposign alternative theories as oppoesed to nit picking existing ones. All of these people see that their percieved doubtfullness of evolution is proof of God. This is obviusly not the case as evidence for a God would have to be found. (you cannot work by deafulting on a theory).
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 5:44 PM on January 22, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Aswissrole,

I'm glad you looked at a few articles. I often look at evolution web sites such as www.talkorigins.org I agree that some of the articles that I understand cast a "reasonable doubt" on creation. I find it both ironic and enlightening that I view their one inherant flaw the same as you view in the creation sites."However, these "scientists" seem to have a comman flaw. They are all trying to disprove CREATION so they can insert their own EVOLUTIONIST beliefs. Science does not work by nit picking and interpretating evidence to disprove theories. It is my understanding that science works through scientists making new discoveries and proposign alternative theories as oppoesed to nit picking existing ones. All of these people see that their percieved doubtfullness of GOD is proof of EVOLUTION."

As for evidence of God, I can only refer you to all of creation.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 4:45 PM on January 23, 2009 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 01:20 AM on December 22, 2008 :
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.


Demon38, in case you don't know what this topic is about, it's about why you believe, not making naive, insulting criticisms on how stupid someones belief is. So please, if you aren't going to actually post in this topic, kindly shut up.

I believe in creationism mainly because it gives me something to look forward to in life, eternal rewards, than just dissolving into nothingness. In my studies, Evolution has been dis-proved consistently, while creation has been proved consistently.



-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 5:15 PM on January 23, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yet again you keep telling me to look at the natural world. I have done so and found evolution to be the most viable theory.

Science does not work by telling people to go and look at the beauty aroudn them. Science works through testable theories and explinations to account for the world around us. Relgion seems to just look at the world around us and dream up imaginative explinations with no basis.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 5:23 PM on January 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My "useless statement" describes the problem precisely. The reason I can not give you evidence to support my hypothesis over yours is that we have exactly the same evidence. The only differance between your evidence and mine is interpretation. I interpret based on my presuposition:"I see the evidence pointing to a common creator. "
You interpret based on your presupposition: "I see evidence pointing to evolution."
Your "common creator" explanation of the similarities between species is one thing. But to say that the similarities point to a common creator is false.

If every species (or every phyla, or every class) was totally different, evolution could not be true. You would still speak of creation, and i would be with you.

Such a difference would be evidence for creationism.

When opposite cases could be considered evidence of the same hypothesis, your hypothesis is not testable, and thus not science.

And that's the whole deal! Creationism can't possibly be taught in a science classroom.

Your faith makes you believe that the Bible speaks the truth. Thus, evidence isn't (or shouldn't be) important.

I do have faith. I don't deny it. But i don't have faith in Evolution. I understand Evolution. Faith is believing without understanding.

I don't understand my own existence. But i believe in it. If someone showed me evidence against it, i wouldn't believe it. I would say "Ok, i don't understand how that works, but it must be wrong. I exist.

I think that's pretty much the way creationists behave when facing evidence against their beliefs.

But there is no evidence of any type of mutation or adaptation resulting in increasingly more complex forms of life.
It's more than evidence. It has been plainly observed.

Gene duplication + mutation = more complex forms of life.

That's one of the few things in the theory that can be PROVED. Just like math. 1 + 1 = more than 1.

Use your God given intelligence.

And untill science can provide demonstrable proof for such a change than my presuposition will not change.
(1+1) > 1.

The biggest difference between us becomes personal. I believe that if I am wrong I will suffer no long term ill effects. But if you are wrong, well, you get to take that up with your maker.
I'm serious about this: if a God made me, made the world in 6 days, made it appear as if things evolved, and then gave me the intelligence to see it, just to use that intelligence against me, well... screw him.

I will never worship that tricky god. I rather go to hell. It's a matter of principles.

I bet you don't think that's what He really did, and thus you shouldn't feel offended by my words towards that hypothetical god.

Oh, and besides you could be wrong and some other creation myth could be right (to me christian myths aren't special). And perhaps you'd still go to Hell, or some other ugly place.

However, these "scientists" seem to have a comman flaw. They are all trying to disprove CREATION so they can insert their own EVOLUTIONIST beliefs.
Creationists really need to understand this: It wasn't like people wanted evolution to be true. It was a hard blow on human pride. People didn't like it. They opposed it. They hated it. The only reason why today it's a common knowledge is that it's a true knowledge.

If you "make up" some concept that can be seen as humiliating (being relatives to those ugly monkeys, for instance), people won't accept it just like that. You will have to show them a lot of evidence, and still some won't believe it (that would be you).

The "Goddidit" approach was a lot easier (and more dignifying). It took little thinking (but quite a lot of marveling). The theory of evolution took a lot of thinking, and a lot of observation. And a lot of fighting human pride.

It takes faith to go against the evidence. It doesn't take a bit of faith to go where the evidence leads.

So evolution is not a religion. No more than not_collecting_stamps is a hobby.

There's no common ground for science and creationism.



-------
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: 08:28 AM on February 2, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe in creationism mainly because it gives me something to look forward to in life, eternal rewards, than just dissolving into nothingness.

Same reason kids believe in Santa Claus, not because it's real but because ist's nice.

In my studies, Evolution has been dis-proved consistently, while creation has been proved consistently.

Unother fairy tale!  Evolutoin is a fact and is used in industry, medicine (ever hear of Darwinian medicine?) farming, raising animals, and on and on.  How can evolution be disproven when it's so vital to the world?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 08:54 AM on February 2, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So much to choose from, so little time.

Creationists really need to understand this: It wasn't like people wanted evolution to be true. It was a hard blow on human pride. People didn't like it. They opposed it. They hated it. The only reason why today it's a common knowledge is that it's a true knowledge.

If you "make up" some concept that can be seen as humiliating (being relatives to those ugly monkeys, for instance), people won't accept it just like that. You will have to show them a lot of evidence, and still some won't believe it (that would be you).

The "Goddidit" approach was a lot easier (and more dignifying). It took little thinking (but quite a lot of marveling). The theory of evolution took a lot of thinking, and a lot of observation. And a lot of fighting human pride.


It would help you to understand creationism as it relates to science by knowing the history of modern scientific method as it relates to darwinian evolution. When Darwin first introduced the theory of evolution the secular scientific community rejected it most vociferously. It was in fact the "natural theologians" who embraced the theory because as Christians they believed in law. They liked the idea of the laws of nature because they seem to reflect the law giving nature of God. They liked the idea of changing and developing within the laws of nature. They also liked order and reason as these are both traits exemplified in the Bible. They embraced evolution since it fits the evidence around us. They agreed with Darwin that natural progression must have a starting point and Darwin himself didn't think a purely naturalistic starting point made any sense. While he did not invoke a creator he left enough room for one which his original supporters happily filled with the Christian God.

Where evolution has gone wrong is in extending the meaning beyond speciation and into the realm of  speculation.
Change by selection or mutation within a species and even within a genus are useful, observable and reproducible. Changes within a family or an order can be argued but will most likely decay into arguments over semantics much like some of these debate threads.
However changes among kingdom, phyla and class are based on pure speculation. If you believe that somewhere early on something branched off into the 5 (or 6) kingdoms and so on you are basing your belief on circumstantial evidence. You have faith because that is where the evidence points you. I have faith though the evidence points me in a different direction.

The final straw dividing Biblical Christianity from the theory of evolution is the notion that life itself sprang from non life. Yes, abiogenisis, the foundation upon which pure naturalism rests.


 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 3:25 PM on February 2, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

However changes among kingdom, phyla and class are based on pure speculation. If you believe that somewhere early on something branched off into the 5 (or 6) kingdoms and so on you are basing your belief on circumstantial evidence. You have faith because that is where the evidence points you. I have faith though the evidence points me in a different direction.

What's your evidence that points you in a different direction?  The bible doesn't count.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:16 AM on February 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I meant people in general.

There's always someone who will like something.

In general, people didn't like or accept Evolution.

Nevertheless i didn't know what you posted. I found it very interesting. Where could i find out more about that subject?

Where evolution has gone wrong is in extending the meaning beyond speciation and into the realm of  speculation.
What do you mean?

Do lions and tigers descend from a single couple, back in the good Ark days? Or were they always two kinds?

I don't even know if there were supposed to be any lions in the Garden of Eden...

Does the donkey belong to the horse kind? How do you make such guesses?

Did God make different kinds that were capable of mating?

The dogs from the Ark... Did they already have the instructions to become fast as the grayhound? As strong as the Rottweiler? As smart as the Border Collie?

Were they already all that?

If that's what you believe, they should also be as furry as a Pyrenean Mountain Dog and as bald as the Peruvian Hairless Dog.

I don't understand many aspects of YEC. I believe neither do their believers.



-------
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: 03:23 AM on February 3, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Change by selection or mutation within a species and even within a genus are useful, observable and reproducible.

here's something you don't seem to understand, species is the only meaningful classification in nature.  Every classification above it, genus, family, phylum, is man made and has no real meaning as far as nature goes.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:43 AM on February 3, 2009 | IP
earth

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

When people talk about creationism it always involves religion.  Maybe thats what its supposed to mean but I'd like to take a broader view.

I believe in both creationism and evolution.  I cannot see why they can't coexist.  

Glow in the dark pigs didn't evolve did they?

We created them.

I think evolution is a very plausable idea and probably happens but is there any evidence?  Again I think it may happen but I think in years to come people will be creating all manner of life forms.  I'm not judging the ethics in this post either I just think its inveitable that it will happen.

My point is that there is  proof of creationism.  Its happening now.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 2:45 PM on April 5, 2009 | IP
DiggzDime

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe in evolution because all available hard evidence at this time supports it. I dont believe in creationism because Im not catholic. If evolution was not the tool that helped us get here, then it could have been a space alien or some other religions creation story...but in the light of all available facts..Im going with evolution.


-------
Yes!
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 6:24 PM on April 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I dont believe in creationism because Im not catholic.
I guess we could have our own gluteus.

DiggzDime, are you trying to make us look bad?

The Catholic church does not subscribe to creationism.
Get your facts straight before posting.



-------
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: 08:42 AM on April 8, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

DiggzDime - Wisp is correct, the Catholic Church actually supports evolution.  The science branch of the Vatican (did I get that right) just held a symposium a couple weeks ago where they denounced ID and Creationism.  

However, I do have some family members who are Catholic, but who strongly deny evolution.  On the other hand, I have other family members who are Catholic and strongly support evolution.  So you have people who both deny and support the official Church stance supporting evolution.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 09:28 AM on April 8, 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.