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 vs Creationism

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from CipherComplete at 04:44 AM on June 2, 2006 :
ENK:  "I don't follow. Morality is SUBJECTIVE, so there of course cannot be any absolute or utterly righteous form of morality. What's your point?"

Yes, it is subjective of course if you conform to changing standards. Why do you then have a problem with murder? (Had to bring this up as a result of ur post - I understand the notion of society based morals). Subjective implies that even the murderer has the subjective right to be a subject which murders ruthlessly.

The ten commandments have been based millennia ago but many societies today still subscribe to them. This is in an "absolute or utterly righteous form of morality".


morality is subjective by objective measures--i.e. morality is dependant on an individual's culture and his/her own genetic makeup.  the standards do not change, its just that the circumstances change.  if a person threatened to kill you, would you not deem murder of that person to be righteous?  or would you say that murder is ultimately wrong by god's laws and accept that your time has come?  morality is only a prediction of what your actions will cause and a judgement of whether that effect is what you intend.

 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 2:42 PM on June 3, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think most people would say that murder is wrong, by any standard, but that there is a difference between the term "murder" and the term "kill".  Self-defense is not usually considered "murder".  Fried chicken is not "murder".  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 6:59 PM on June 3, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think most people would say that murder is wrong, by any standard, but that there is a difference between the term "murder" and the term "kill".  Self-defense is not usually considered "murder".  Fried chicken is not "murder".


I was having a similar discussion on another board about sacrifice vs. suicide.   While most of us could agree on the extremes of each definition, we had problems drawing a line between examples that fell into the pesky gray area.   Life would be so easy if everything was black and white.  Maybe boring, but still easy.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 7:27 PM on June 3, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 1:59 PM on June 3, 2006 :
I think most people would say that murder is wrong, by any standard, but that there is a difference between the term "murder" and the term "kill".  Self-defense is not usually considered "murder".  Fried chicken is not "murder".  


but either way its taking a life.  nature/god/destiny whatever you want to call it does not take implications into consideration.  what happens is what happens and that is all that happens.  i am not saying that we should be able to kill at will, but that we should be aware that our morality is based on a sense of cause and effect and responsibility of that effect.  and this is not in contradiction with the idea of god creating morals because ultimately, our perception of cause and effect and the relationships of their repercussions are based on the laws of nature/laws of god.


(Edited by RoyLennigan 6/4/2006 at 02:09 AM).
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 02:06 AM on June 4, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree that a nature/destiny view of life does not allow for intentions to be taken into consideration.  I disagree that God does not take intention into consideration.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:33 AM on June 4, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 03:33 AM on June 4, 2006 :
I agree that a nature/destiny view of life does not allow for intentions to be taken into consideration.  I disagree that God does not take intention into consideration.


i guess you would be right.  intention still causes reaction in itself.  intention causes tendancies in a situation, those tendancies, however small, affect the situation and so they spread out as a wave of effect.  this is how i would describe god's 'consideration' of intention.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 8:00 PM on June 4, 2006 | IP
Orionman

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Having Faith...hmm.

Pigs can fly. Yep.

But I never saw one fly.

Just have faith, they do.

You mean if I have faith and just believe. I'll stop questioning that pigs can't fly? Exactly. That way I can keep you in line. If not you'd ask too many questions and I wouldn't be able to answer them all and my belief in that pigs can fly would fall apart. Oh I see. So I should just believe anything you say? Now you're getting it. Just have faith. Now put some money in the basket. Flying pig school doesn't come cheap ya know.

(Edited by Orionman 2/3/2007 at 10:41 PM).
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 10:39 PM on February 3, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

While I'll admit that most "Christians" (i.e. denominations) have what equates to "blind" faith, you'll find that most Christians base their faith on an historical, archaeological, and scientific body of evidence.  Evidence which doesn't support the "billions" of years hypothesis and does back up the biblical record time and time again.  If you'd bother to study the bible instead of off-handedly considering it "flying pig" material, you'd probably know this.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:06 AM on February 4, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

While I'll admit that most "Christians" (i.e. denominations) have what equates to "blind" faith, you'll find that most Christians base their faith on an historical, archaeological, and scientific body of evidence.  Evidence which doesn't support the "billions" of years hypothesis and does back up the biblical record time and time again.  If you'd bother to study the bible instead of off-handedly considering it "flying pig" material, you'd probably know this.


"Billions of eyars hypothesis"? It's a fact.

There is no body of evidence to suggest otherwise, either.


-------
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: 5:14 PM on February 4, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is more likely that the Earth is billions of years old, than it is that the earth is only a few thousand years old.


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

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 08:40 AM on February 7, 2007 | IP
dontNeedToKnow

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What proof is there for Evolution?
Can anyone give me enough evidence
that will without a shadow of a doubt prove
the theory of evolution?


-------
DontNeedToKnow
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 5:59 PM on February 22, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What proof is there for Evolution?

A mountain of evidence, here's a good start:

EvolutionEvidence

Can anyone give me enough evidence
that will without a shadow of a doubt prove
the theory of evolution?


Scientific theories don't deal in proof, but here's the experts' consensus:

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

"The theory of evolution is the only scientifically defensible explanation for the origin of life and development of species. A theory in science, such as the atomic theory in chemistry and the Newtonian and relativity theories in physics, is not a speculative hypothesis, but a coherent body of explanatory statements supported by evidence. The theory of evolution has this status. The body of knowledge that supports the theory of evolution is ever growing: fossils continue to be discovered that fill gaps in the evolutionary tree and recent DNA sequence data provide evidence that all living organisms are related to each other and to extinct species. These data, consistent with evolution, imply a common chemical and biological heritage for all living organisms and allow scientists to map branch points in the evolutionary tree.
Biologists may disagree about the details of the history and mechanisms of evolution. Such debate is a normal, healthy, and necessary part of scientific discourse and in no way negates the theory of evolution. As a community, biologists agree that evolution occurred and that the forces driving the evolutionary process are still active today. This consensus is based on more than a century of scientific data gathering and analysis."

Virtually all biologists agree, evolution is valid, it is the only theory for the diversity of life on earth fully supported by the evidence.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:51 PM on February 22, 2007 | IP
dontNeedToKnow

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Science not based on proof. And thats where the problem lies.  I have faith in God.  Thats the way God wants it.  I cannot prove to someone else scientifically that he exists.  If I could what would be the purpose of faith?  You admit science doesnt deal in proof but hypothesis and theory.  Proving all life came from a single celled organism is a big claim.  To prove that would take big evidence not microevolution.  Theres still too many unanswered questions to call it fact.  My hand is connected to my arm that is a fact.  It can be seen and touched.  Birds evolving from dinasouars or other macroevolution can not be reduplicated or tested.  I have not seen it, so if I were to believe it it would be on faith.  My faith in God is justified.  There is the biblical documents, prophecys that have been fullfilled. Miracles that have been witnessed. I have faith in God.  Anyone who believes in evolution cannot say it is fact if there is still questions unanswered or unexplained. I know no one has witnessed macroevolution or evolution between species.  Tell me if I am lying if I say there many questions about evolution that cannot be answered. I can speak english (even though sometimes not so well) that is a fact.  It can be heard, tested and proven as so.  Evolution cannot. To believe in evolution takes some amount of faith.  I have faith in God I have admitted this, I dont have faith in evolution.  Either way the choice has some amount of faith involved.

(Edited by dontNeedToKnow 2/22/2007 at 11:24 PM).

(Edited by dontNeedToKnow 2/22/2007 at 11:26 PM).

(Edited by dontNeedToKnow 2/22/2007 at 11:28 PM).


-------
DontNeedToKnow
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 11:21 PM on February 22, 2007 | IP
dontNeedToKnow

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Science not based on proof. And thats where the problem lies.  I have faith in God.  Thats the way God wants it.  I cannot prove to someone else scientifically that he exists.  If I could what would be the purpose of faith?  You admit science doesnt deal in proof but hypothesis and theory.  Proving all life came from a single celled organism is a big claim.  To prove that would take big evidence not microevolution.  Theres still too many unanswered questions to call it fact.  My hand is connected to my arm that is a fact.  It can be seen and touched.  Birds evolving from dinasouars or other macroevolution can not be reduplicated or tested.  I have not seen it, so if I were to believe it it would be on faith.  My faith in God is justified.  There is the biblical documents, prophecys that have been fullfilled. Miracles that have been witnessed. I have faith in God.  Anyone who believes in evolution cannot say it is fact if there is still questions unanswered or unexplained. I know no one has witnessed macroevolution or evolution between species.  Tell me if I am lying if I say there many questions about evolution that cannot be answered. I can speak english (even though sometimes not so well) that is a fact.  It can be heard, tested and proven as so.  Evolution cannot. To believe in evolution takes some amount of faith.  I have faith in God I have admitted this, I dont have faith in evolution.  Either way the choice has some amount of faith involved.

(Edited by dontNeedToKnow 2/22/2007 at 11:24 PM).

(Edited by dontNeedToKnow 2/22/2007 at 11:26 PM).

(Edited by dontNeedToKnow 2/22/2007 at 11:28 PM).


-------
DontNeedToKnow
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 11:21 PM on February 22, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thats the way God wants it.  I cannot prove to someone else scientifically that he exists.  If I could what would be the purpose of faith?

What is the purpose of faith?  Wouldn't God save more souls, bring more people to him if he didn't rely on faith and just show himself?  Why doesn't he?

You admit science doesnt deal in proof but hypothesis and theory.

No, I said science doesn't deal in proofs, it deals in evidence.  A scientific theory is supported by evidence and testing.    

Proving all life came from a single celled organism is a big claim.

And one that is completely supported by all available evidence.

To prove that would take big evidence not microevolution.

And, of course, it has much more evidence than "microevolution".

Theres still too many unanswered questions to call it fact.

No there's not.  Common ancestry of all life on earth is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.  Did you bother to read the link I provided?  If there are unanswered questions, explain to us how they falsify common decent.

Birds evolving from dinasouars or other macroevolution can not be reduplicated or tested.

Macroevolution has been observed in both the wild and in the lab, it can be tested and duplicated.  As far as birds evolving from therapod dinosaurs, some dinosaurs had feathers, some dinosaurs were structurally similar to birds, there are transitionals between dinosaurs and birds, the best explaination for these facts is that birds evolved from some therapod dinosaurs.  A theory isn't a fact but an explaination of a set of related facts.

I have not seen it, so if I were to believe it it would be on faith.

What you have seen or not seen has no bearing on reality.  What you know or understand has no bearing on reality.  Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean "Goddidit".

My faith in God is justified.

How?

There is the biblical documents, prophecys that have been fullfilled.

No there aren't.

Miracles that have been witnessed.

No such thing as miracles, just uninformed witnesses mistaking what they saw.  That is why eye witness accounts are the worst kind of evidence, they're so unreliable.

Anyone who believes in evolution cannot say it is fact if there is still questions unanswered or unexplained.

Nonsense, evolution has been observed, tested, duplicated, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains it.  We don't understand every aspect of it but that doesn't change the fact that it happens.  We don't understand what gravity is but that doesn't change the fact that we know how it works.  

I know no one has witnessed macroevolution or evolution between
species.


You don't do enough research then, there are plenty of examples of new species arising.  Look up ring species, look up the hawthorne fly, look up the Ensatina salamander, there are many examples of observed speciation, all you have to do is look.

Tell me if I am lying if I say there many questions about evolution that cannot be answered.

Many questions about evolution are still being investigated, we don't know everything about how evolution works.  What we do know is that evolution is a fact, that there is so much evidence to support common ancestry that it's ignorant to deny it.

Evolution cannot.

Evolution is tested, observed, is a fact.  It is the cornerstone of modern biology.  

To believe in evolution takes some amount of faith.

No one believes in evolution, like any scientific theory, you accept or reject it based on the evidence.  There is no doubt in the scientific world that evolution occurs.  So you are wrong, it takes no faith to accept the theory of evolution.
Stop trying to drag science down to the level of your superstitions.

Either way the choice has some amount of faith involved.

Wrong.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:37 AM on February 23, 2007 | IP
dontNeedToKnow

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is the purpose of faith?  Wouldn't God save more souls, bring more people to him if he didn't rely on faith and just show himself?  Why doesn't he?

When times up he will.

No, I said science doesn't deal in proofs, it deals in evidence.  A scientific theory is supported by evidence and testing.

I know there is evidence for microevolution, there isnt enough evidence for macroevolution for me to
consider it fact. Has science witnessed any naturally occuring  beneficial mutations that have been passed down generations?  Have all transitional fossils been accounted for?  Why do some  fossil records show life quickly appearing?  How does evolution explain morality or cooperation and dependency between species? And can evolution explain all the complexity seen in life?

And one that is completely supported by all available evidence.

If it,  is can we reduplicate it? Can science physically create different life forms from one single celled organism?

No there's not.  Common ancestry of all life on earth is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.  Did you bother to read the link I provided?  If there are unanswered questions, explain to us how they falsify common decent.

I have posted some more questions.

Macroevolution has been observed in both the wild and in the lab

you say macro evolution has been observed in nature and reduplicated. When has one species evolved naturally into another species? And when was this reduplicated?

No there aren't.

Yes there are.  Each book in the bible has prophecys that have been fulfilled.  

No such thing as miracles, just uninformed witnesses mistaking what they saw.  That is why eye witness accounts are the worst kind of evidence, they're so unreliable.

Im sure there are instances when eye witness were mistaken.  But is that good enough for you to
call all eye witness liers?  Ive witnessed occurances
and so have you. We can be witnesses at the same place observing the same thing and still come up with stories that dont exaclty match.  Does that mean the event never happenned?

Nonsense, evolution has been observed, tested, duplicated, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains it. We don't understand every aspect of it but that doesn't change the fact that it happens.  We don't understand what gravity is but that doesn't change the fact that we know how it works.

Earlier you said "a theory isn't a fact but an explaination of a set of related facts".  I dont understand how the theory isnt a fact but what it says is. And I stll havent witnessed one species evolving into another.  A fish into something thats not a fish. Gravity cant be compared to evolution we all see daily how that exists.  We can test it ourselves and duplicate the results over and over regardless of where we are at.  I looked at the salamander you pointed at.  That is no different than the example of the birds beaks changing sizes.  Thats not  a fish turning into a frog or  a dog into a cow.  

Many questions about evolution are still being investigated, we don't know everything about how evolution works.  What we do know is that evolution is a fact, that there is so much evidence to support common ancestry that it's ignorant to deny it.

I dont accept plausibility as evidence.

No one believes in evolution, like any scientific theory, you accept or reject it based on the evidence.  There is no doubt in the scientific world that evolution occurs.  So you are wrong, it takes no faith to accept the theory of evolution.


Again plausibility is not evidence.  Your saying you can tell me how the first cell evolved into something else step by step or for that matter how the first life form came to be without a small amount of doubt cannot be true.

Stop trying to drag science down to the level of your superstitions

 And here come the insults. I figured it was just a matter of time.  Not unusual.  Is that part of evolution as well?




(Edited by dontNeedToKnow 2/23/2007 at 10:36 AM).


-------
DontNeedToKnow
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 09:19 AM on February 23, 2007 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would strongly suggest this book to don'tNeedToKnow:

The Language of God by Francis Collins
Amazon.com - Language of God

One part of the book talks about where gaps exist in science and how it is dangerous, as a Christian, to put "God in the gaps."

The discussion of how science cannot explain the origin of life if a perfect example. Here, dontNeedToKnow is putting God in the gap of science by saying "God created each species and therefore, there is no common ancestry." This is doing a huge disservice to the Christian community. One day science will answer this question, and Christians who claim this will have to take it all back! There are many examples of this throughout history.

So, as a Christian, I would like to say that dontNeedToKnow does not speak for me. I can see the logic and EVIDENCE behind evolution and can say that, without a doubt, the ToE is the best explanation of our diverse world. Evolution has reached the high scientific status of a theory and has been there for 150 years. Saying, "Evolution is just a theory and it takes faith to except it," is the equivalent of saying, "I don't understand how science works, and I know little about evolution."

Another interesting site for Creationist and Evolutionist - http://www.evolutionvscreationism.info



(Edited by rockclimber_10 2/23/2007 at 5:07 PM).


-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 4:56 PM on February 23, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is the purpose of faith?  Wouldn't God save more souls, bring more people to him if he didn't rely on faith and just show himself?  Why doesn't he?
When times up he will.


In other words, you have no idea why God doesn't show himself, the old "God moves in mysterious ways" cannard.  So you can't tell us what the purpose of faith is...

I know there is evidence for microevolution, there isnt enough evidence for macroevolution for me to consider it fact.

That's because you refuse to look at the evidence.  Macroevolution has been observed, in both the wild and the lab, it is a fact.

Has science witnessed any naturally occuring  beneficial mutations that have been passed down generations?

Yes, most definitely.  Look at this page for a number of beneficial mutations that have been observed that have been passed down generations:
BeneficialMutations

Have all transitional fossils been accounted for?

No of course not, we haven't found all the fossils there are to find and only a tiny portion of life even becomes fossilized.  But we have found a huge amount of transitional fossils that can only be explained by evolution.  And any transitional fossils disprove creationism.

Why do some  fossil records show life quickly appearing?

Evolution moves at different rates, we haven't found all the fossils there are yet, what's the problem?

How does evolution explain morality or cooperation and dependency between species?

It explains morality and cooperation and interdependency between species very well, where do you see a problem?

And can evolution explain all the complexity seen in life?

Yes it does, all the experts agree it's the only valid explaination for the complexity of life on earth.

If it,  is can we reduplicate it? Can science physically create different life forms from one single celled organism?

As I said, yes, we can cause species to evolve into new species in the lab.  And yes, we can cause single celled organisms to evolve into multicellular organisms in the lab, from here again:
Multicellular
"Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella. " "

you say macro evolution has been observed in nature and reduplicated. When has one species evolved naturally into another species? And when was this reduplicated?

Already answered this, didn't you bother to read the links I posted?  Here's a link to observed speciation:
Speciation

Yes there are.  Each book in the bible has prophecys that have been fulfilled.

No there aren't, the Bible makes vague, general predictions that can be shoehorned into meaning anything.  The Bible makes no clear, unambiguous predictions that have come to pass.

Im sure there are instances when eye witness were mistaken.  But is that good enough for you to
call all eye witness liers?


I called no eye witnesses liars, I said they were mistaken.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, eye witness claims can't be trusted.

We can be witnesses at the same place observing the same thing and still come up with stories that dont exaclty match.  Does that mean the event never happenned?

It doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it is NOT evidence for miracles.  Magic is not real, there is absolutely no evidence to support it.  

Earlier you said "a theory isn't a fact but an explaination of a set of related facts".  I dont understand how the theory isnt a fact but what it says is.

No theory is a fact.  It explains related facts.  Life evolves, that's a fact, the fossil record changes thru millions of years, all life is genetically related, these are the facts, they are explained by the theory of evolution.

And I stll havent witnessed one species evolving into another.

Already listed many examples of new species arising.

A fish into something thats not a fish.

And yet we see fish with lungs and rudimentry leg like fins, we see land animals with gills, we see living transitional animals between fish and land animals still alive today, evolution explains this, nothing else does.

Gravity cant be compared to evolution we all see daily how that exists.

You miss the point, yes we see the affects of gravity all the time, but we don't know what gravity is!  We see the affects of evolution everyday AND we know many of the causes of these effects.  Gravity, we see it's effects too, but we have no idea what causes these effects.  According to your logic, gravity can't be valid because there too many unanswered questions about it, gravity is much less understood and mysterious than evolution.  Your complete inconsistency undermines your claim.

We can test it ourselves and duplicate the results over and over regardless of where we are at.

you keep ignoring the fact that we can do the same with evolution and we still know much more about evolution than we do gravity.

That is no different than the example of the birds beaks changing sizes.

Birds beaks changing size in response to natural selection, is evolution.

Thats not  a fish turning into a frog or  a dog into a cow.

Evolution does not say a fish will turn into a frog or a cow, you obviously don't understand the theory of evolution at all!

I dont accept plausibility as evidence.

As we have seen, you refuse to look at any of the evidence, so your opinion is worthless.

Your saying you can tell me how the first cell evolved into something else step by step or for that matter how the first life form came to be without a small amount of doubt cannot be true.

We know many of the ways the first single celled population could have evolved, since we see some of those pathways today, but we can't say for sure exactly which pathway life took billions of years ago.  But the evidence clearly shows that life DID evolve and you have shown us nothing to falsify this.
And evolution doesn't try to explain how life originated, that's a completely different subject.

And here come the insults. I figured it was just a matter of time.  Not unusual.  Is that part of evolution as well?

What insults?  Do you deny that you claimed that the theory of evolution, a scientific theory is based on faith?  That is wrong, no scientific theory is based on faith.  Do you deny that your belief in superstitions are faith based?  Merely pointing out that you are wrong and then showing you how you are wrong is not an insult, it's called a debate.  From your posts you don't understand the theory of evolution and don't know any of the evidence supporting it, again, this isn't an insult, merely a valid observation.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:05 PM on February 23, 2007 | IP
tanzanos

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I find it interesting that the Christians who believe in Creationism are from the modern Sects(Evangelists, Baptists) where Money is up there together with Jesus and the rest of us can go burn in hell. We the others (Christians, Jews, Moslems) have absolutely no problem accepting Evolution and science in general. It seems that the more money the sects make from their religion business the more they brainwash their followers into becoming anti education, science fanatics. Also I bet that the vast majority of Creationists live in the U.S.A.



-------
Mighty is the Sword that Draws Blood,
Mightier is the Pen that Draws Ink,
Mightiest is the Tongue that Draws Ears.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 12:06 PM on February 28, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Huh, I must hang out in different circles.  The average "creationist" I know attends a small, non-denominational congregation of no more than 70 members which can barely afford to pay the bills and give the preacher a modest salary (and he often, like Paul, has a second job on the side).  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:35 AM on March 2, 2007 | IP
Yiannis

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You say:

Huh, I must hang out in different circles.  The average "creationist" I know attends a small, non-denominational congregation of no more than 70 members which can barely afford to pay the bills and give the preacher a modest salary (and he often, like Paul, has a second job on the side).[i]

I agree but!

On the higher echelons; money is the aim. By keeping the congregation ignorant of science the congregation is more easily influenced. Send 10$ and Ye shall pass through the pearly gates.

Ignorance is possibly the most dangerous trait of mankind. All regimes including some sects use this method of maintaining ignorance on their followers so that they may never question their evil motives.

More people have been murdered by people proffessing to be true believers of God than by atheists. In the name of God thou shall be smitten etc.

Evolution (if you bother to read the theory) instills more respect for life than any religion could possibly hope for. Also do not be confused by the word theory as meaning unproven. The definition of the word Theory is:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.[b]

I have no problem with religion per se; but the fact that most Creationists come from America and America being the most powerfull nation affecting world politics is influenced by creationists (Bush administration) SCARES me!
I will not accept ignorance to rule my society.
Yes this is a political statement so now we can see that creationism is not only a threat to science but to society in general.

PS: The middle Ages was a time when most people believed in creationism. Now we all know what effect that had. eg:  witch hunts, persecutions, Inquisitions, Wars, etc. All in the name of God.

Hey NASA get me out of here!!!!



-------
Mighty is the Sword that draws Blood.
Mightier is the Pen that Draws Ink.
Mightiest is the Tongue that draws Ears.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 11:12 AM on March 2, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

PS: The middle Ages was a time when most people believed in creationism. Now we all know what effect that had. eg:  witch hunts, persecutions, Inquisitions, Wars, etc. All in the name of God.

All information can be used for good or ill.  Just because people have used religion as an excuse, doesn't mean that "it" caused those things.  People caused those things.  Atomic and Nuclear weapons have come about by people who hoped (providing one believes them) to create better energy sources.  Again, all information can be used for good or ill.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:16 PM on March 3, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All information can be used for good or ill.  Just because people have used religion as an excuse, doesn't mean that "it" caused those things.

The same thing applies to the theory of evolution, it didn't lead to Hitler's rise to power or communism as some creationists claim.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:53 PM on March 3, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow, I hadn't even heard that claim.

What is the purpose of faith?  Wouldn't God save more souls, bring more people to him if he didn't rely on faith and just show himself?  Why doesn't he?


He has shown Himself.  We have eyewitness accounts of it.  We have evidence of his handywork.  In fact we have just as much evidence of God as we do of the Roman Empire, yet no one seems to be disputing that the Roman Empire really happened.  Like children, He has shown us what we need to know and let us go out on our own.  Sure He could appear and tell us we are doing things wrong everytime we mess up, but like a parent, He is willing to let us make our own mistakes.  Hopefully we will learn from them, but He is not forcing anyone to accept Him.  It's called free will.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:53 AM on March 4, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He has shown Himself.  We have eyewitness accounts of it.  We have evidence of his handywork.  In fact we have just as much evidence of God as we do of the Roman Empire, yet no one seems to be disputing that the Roman Empire really happened.


Evidence of the Christian religion itself is not evidence of God. There are archaelogical ruins of Rome; not so with God.


-------
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: 11:31 AM on March 4, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I beg to differ.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:25 PM on March 4, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I beg to differ.


That's nice. No, really.

But until someone finds the Ark, geological evidence of a rain canopy, or perhaps the skeletons of these people who allegedly lived hundreds of years, that's all you can do.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/4/2007 at 11:05 PM).


-------
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: 11:02 PM on March 4, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you are saying that nothing exists today that God claimed to create?  You either know very, very little about God, or you are very, intentionally dense about the whole thing.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:04 AM on March 5, 2007 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 04:04 AM on March 5, 2007 :
So you are saying that nothing exists today that God claimed to create?  You either know very, very little about God, or you are very, intentionally dense about the whole thing.


He is arguing that unless we have tangible evidence of biblical events that cannot be explained by scientific means, we don't have evidence for god.   I agree.

But I only agree in the sense that we would have evidence for a christian god.  You can explain god as a great number of things, as people have been doing since we discovered the manipulation of ideas back in caveman days.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 1:30 PM on March 5, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But until someone finds the Ark, geological evidence of a rain canopy, or perhaps the skeletons of these people who allegedly lived hundreds of years, that's all you can do.


I'm just curious... how many boats from that time period would you think would still exist... what evidence of a rain canopy would you be looking for... and, how would you prove the age (at death) of a human being that would, by all reasonable estimations, have aged at a much slower rate than we would today?  

He is arguing that unless we have tangible evidence of biblical events that cannot be explained by scientific means, we don't have evidence for god.

Well, I've heard theories, but I've yet to hear of a scientifically reproducable, replicatable (what-have-you) theory of how the earth was created.  No, no, I've seen the little movies they show you in science class.  I'd like to see someone recreate it, even on a small scale.  Oh yeah, and then make life from inorganic matter while your at it.  Not just some sort of protein, but an actual animal.  I'm waiting.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:10 PM on March 5, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm just curious... how many boats from that time period would you think would still exist... what evidence of a rain canopy would you be looking for... and, how would you prove the age (at death) of a human being that would, by all reasonable estimations, have aged at a much slower rate than we would today?  


All very valid questions, and they lend a hand towards the claim that Biblical events cannot be scientifically examined.


-------
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: 8:44 PM on March 5, 2007 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, I've heard theories, but I've yet to hear of a scientifically reproducable, replicatable (what-have-you) theory of how the earth was created.  No, no, I've seen the little movies they show you in science class.  I'd like to see someone recreate it, even on a small scale.  Oh yeah, and then make life from inorganic matter while your at it.  Not just some sort of protein, but an actual animal.  I'm waiting.

You can't be serious. Your making Christians look like idiots...please quit.

He is arguing that unless we have tangible evidence of biblical events that cannot be explained by scientific means, we don't have evidence for god.

I would like you to "scientifically" explain the existence of Moral Law and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.


Science will never disprove the existence of God, and no logical argument can be made to prove that God is real. Emyer's attempts to discredit every scientific finding that he views as a treat to Christianity is not the answer, and RoyLennigan's claim that science is the answer to all our questions is ridiculous. There is a common ground, and its called Theistic Evolution.


-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 8:54 PM on March 5, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Rock, then by your own comments the entire discussion is null and void since it can neither be proved nor discredited.  Hence, one wonders why you even bother to post since you feel it is a waste of time.  By the by, I'm not sure what scientific findings I've discredited.  Perhaps you've read more into my post than I typed in.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:06 AM on March 6, 2007 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

then by your own comments the entire discussion is null and void since it can neither be proved nor discredited.

The discussion is great, but actually proving or disproving the existence of God isn't going to happen it this little chat room. With that said, I personally find more indication in favor of the existence of God than not, hence the Theistic Evolution (TE) comment. But seriously, emyers, what do you think about TE?


Well, I've heard theories, but I've yet to hear of a scientifically reproducable, replicatable (what-have-you) theory of how the earth was created.  No, no, I've seen the little movies they show you in science class.  I'd like to see someone recreate it, even on a small scale.

This seems like an attempt to discredit scientific findings. If, by this, you meant to praise the science, I apologize (sarcasm).


-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 10:26 AM on March 6, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Which scientific findings, specifically?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:35 AM on March 7, 2007 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Any of the scientific findings presented in the "little movies they show you in science class" about how the earth was created. If you don't understand this, you have a very narrow definition of what a scientific finding is.


-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 09:38 AM on March 7, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ah, so... specifically.... none.  Thanks for clearing that up for me.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:58 PM on March 7, 2007 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Eh...whats your point? It seems like your just ignoring the main points of each post and replying to some imaginary, peripheral, irrelevant portion.

But seriously, Emyers, what do you think about TE? In the true spirit of discussion, all sarcasm aside, I really would like to know.


-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 09:57 AM on March 8, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've yet to see anything new come out of TE.  It's supporters usually just sound like people who want to hedge their bets on all sides.  They don't know enough about abiogenesis and the like to see the holes in it, nor enough about history, science, or archaeology to defend the Bible so they waffle down the middle and hope no one notices.  It's like listening to a bunch of lawyers discuss loopholes so that they can appear to uphold the law while finding everyway possible to not be beholden to it.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:28 PM on March 8, 2007 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've yet to see anything new come out of TE.

Well...there has been lots of new stuff come out of the evolution side in the past 20 years, surely you've seen some of that. I can't think of what you want to see from the theistic side.

It's supporters usually just sound like people who want to hedge their bets on all sides.

If you believe in TE, as I do, there is no need to hedge your bets. Science and God are not threatened by one another. If you had actually read about it, you would have a hard time with this argument.

They don't know enough about abiogenesis and the like to see the holes in it

I can't speak for all TE believers, but my stance is that science knows very little about the origins of life, but that doesn't mean God is automatically and directly responsible. This comes back to the "God in the gaps" problem.

nor enough about history, science, or archaeology to defend the Bible so they waffle down the middle and hope no one notices

How history, science, and archeology relate to the Bible depends on your interpretation of the Bible. Once again, believers in TE don't see it as "waffling."



(Edited by rockclimber_10 3/8/2007 at 11:16 PM).


-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 7:54 PM on March 8, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They don't know enough about abiogenesis and the like to see the holes in it,

What holes?  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:51 PM on March 8, 2007 | IP
PoeticNeko

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Admiral Valdemar at 3:35 PM on January 11, 2005 :
Creationism is no more a theory than me explaining the rotation of the planets by way of fairies in their cores.


Sorry new here so took a quote from the start of the topic. Struck me because of something I recently read.

Apparently Dr. Russel Humphreys made a prediction in 1984 about the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on a creationist model. He was proven right, disproving the evolutionist 'dynamo' theory. This was despite making a prediction 100,000 times that of the one of the one based on the 'dynamo' theory. The fairy might in fact exist.

"They don't know enough about abiogenesis and the like to see the holes in it,

What holes? "

Well, in my opinion, the biggest hurdle to abiogenesis is that it has never been duplicated or observed. That definitely sounds a little unscientific to me. Even evolutionary science writer John Horgan admits that if he were a creationist today he would focus on origin of life because it '...is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology...'


-------
If the object be too far, we take a falling meteor for a star
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 03:27 AM on March 16, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apparently Dr. Russel Humphreys made a prediction in 1984 about the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on a creationist model.

The Creationist model?!?!  I'd like to see some sources for this.  I've never seen a "creationist" model  for anything in science.
So let's see your sources and let's see this creationist model...

Well, in my opinion, the biggest hurdle to abiogenesis is that it has never been duplicated or observed.

Well, it did occur over 3.8 billion years ago, so it is extremely difficult to investigate.  But this isn't a hole.  Just because we haven't observed or duplicated it yet, doesn't automatically mean Goddidit.  I asked what holes, what exactly prevents abiogenesis?

That definitely sounds a little unscientific to me.

What looks unscientific?  That we haven't figured out the exact process that lead to life?
What about all the SCIENTIFIC research being done right now in an attempt to discover that path?  How is that research 'unscientific'?  The fact is, at point there was no life on earth and then there was.  Creationists claim life was magically zapped into existance, non creationists claim it arose naturally, I don't believe in magic...

Even evolutionary science writer John Horgan admits that if he were a creationist today he would focus on origin of life because it '...is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology...'

Yes it is the weakest strut in the chassis of modern biology because it's the hardest to study.  Life arose over 3.8 billion years ago, there is scant fossil evidence for this first life and we still don't know the conditions that caused it to form.  But so what, that it did form is evident this is nothing more than a god of the gaps argument.  Science says it arose by natural processes that we don't fully understand yet, creationists say it was magic.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:45 AM on March 16, 2007 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apparently Dr. Russel Humphreys made a prediction in 1984 about the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on a creationist model. He was proven right, disproving the evolutionist 'dynamo' theory.

Creationist model?!!!


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 12:11 PM on March 16, 2007 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
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.