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
     Christian
       I am

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

    
Kolya

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Christian I am. Disprove me.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 5:20 PM on September 14, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why would anyone want to disprove Christianity? Religion has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not anything evolved.


-------
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: 6:59 PM on September 14, 2005 | IP
Kolya

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me rephrase that then:

I am Christian. Evolution in the sense of billion years and so on is wrong. Adaptation is possible, but not evolution. Disprove me.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 11:00 PM on September 14, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution in the sense of billion years and so on is wrong.

The earth is known to be roughly 4.5 billion years old by multiple means, the best is by radiometric dating.  A young earth has been scientifically disproven.
Evolution is an observed fact, we see new species arising today.  The fossil record is layed down in a pattern only explainable by evolution.  The fossil record contains clearly transitional fossils, disproving special creation.
The hierarchy of life, as determined by comparing anatomy and physiology, is confirmed by the hierarchy of life determined by examining the genetic code.  The ONLY reason these two different methods would concurr is that evolution is valid.  We can now trace when mutations occurred and what mutations caused a species to split away from the original population, this is explainable only by evolution.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:16 PM on September 14, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And before we get into an argument on Radiometric Dating:

Just be aware that by somehow attempting to prove both Carbon-14 (which we don't use for non-organic material nor much of anything beyond 50,000-years-old) and Uranium-258 to be inconsistent with the Evolution timeline, you'd inherently be submitting that not only are scientists "a tad off" on their calculations, but really, "99.99% off."

The debates on Radiometric Dating tire me. Might the numbers be off by even several tens of millions of years? In a handful of cases at best, perhaps. Are the techniques all going to be off approximately 4,500,000,000 years? Well, truly, only a mind of logic could reasonably answer that question.


-------
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: 07:16 AM on September 15, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the thing about radiometric dating Ent was talking about is that even if it were off a few million years, thats a blip in the overall life of earth and the universe.  so 4.5 billion years +/- a few million.  If done properly, uranium-lead radiometric dating has an accuracy within 2 million years for rock that is ~3 billion years old.  I'd say thats pretty precise.

As for evolution.  You believe in adaptation?  That is evolution.  Adaptation through multiple generations.  Its proven fact, I don't see why so many people don't believe it is.  

I'm guessing your reasoning for not believing in evolution is that you don't think humans evolved from apes and whatnot?  Well, you don't have to believe that to know that evolution is truth because it hasn't been proven 100%.  Evolution occuring in individual species has been proven to the point that it isn't even debatable now.  But evolution in the sense of all life on earth deriving from a single ancestor has not been fully proven, though it is the most plausible explanation.

So I would still respect you if you did not believe many aspects of the theory of evolution, so long as you still admitted that organisms adapt through gene differentiantion and survival because of gene differentiation.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 2:49 PM on September 17, 2005 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The beautiful thing about Darwin's theory of evolution and Common Descent is that he came up with his ideas to explain his observations and the observations of others.  Scientist didn't know about Genetics and DNA at the time Darwin wrote his 'On the Origin of the Species' in 1859.  But discovery of genetics and DNA only solidify the theory of evolution by giving a mechanism that fits the theory perfectly.

During Darwin's time geologists were also finding evidence that the Earth was millions of years old - fossils, sedimentary rock, and the process of weathering.  This was puzzeling at the time because scientist could not reconcile the age of the sun to the new evidence that the earth was so ancient.  Then new discoveries in the next 50-60 years in nuclear physics explained the power source of the sun, and also now showed how the sun could itself be burning bright for not only millions of years, but billions of years.

These ideas and others, like plate tectonics, mesh nicely together to explain the history of the Earth.  It's really beautiful to see how observation, logic, and reason (not to mention brilliant minds) can work together to explain the world around us.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:20 PM on December 28, 2005 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is disconcerting to observe a group of so called enthusiasts silently disagreeing on  a theory which they appear to be self-appointed experts of. I am, once again, not an ardent anti-evolutionists but one who is called to expose its fallicies, esp. on this forum. As one who genuinely scrutinises opinions which may be presented as facts, I am very much interested in Enk's assertion about radiometric dating.... Firstly, I would like to  believe that we all agree that it is a fallible, inconsistent dating technique; clearly, as a product of a fallible being (humans!)... If none of us have felt what a million years is like, how can we than claim to reverse time precisely to such extreme limits?

Koyla, next time dont begin a new topic then absconding leaving the forum to the pollution of the pro evolutionist! Cement what you do/dont believe!

(Edited by CipherComplete 8/3/2006 at 06:31 AM).


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 06:28 AM on August 3, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Firstly, I would like to  believe that we all agree that it is a fallible, inconsistent dating technique; clearly, as a product of a fallible being (humans!)... If none of us have felt what a million years is like, how can we than claim to reverse time precisely to such extreme limits?

Clearly, it's not a "fallible, inconsistant dating method", it has been tested and cross checked.  How can you make such an incorrect statement without anything to back it up?!?!

"If none of us have felt what a million years is like, how can we than claim to reverse time precisely to such extreme limits?"

By using science, by examining the evidence, where's the problem?





 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:49 AM on August 3, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is disconcerting to observe a group of so called enthusiasts silently disagreeing on  a theory which they appear to be self-appointed experts of.


1.) Where exactly are we disagreeing on the ToE?

2.) Why would this be disconcerting? Is it better to correct misconceptions as people in every field do, including religious studies, or should we leave them as is?

I am, once again, not an ardent anti-evolutionists but one who is called to expose its fallicies, esp. on this forum. As one who genuinely scrutinises opinions which may be presented as facts, I am very much interested in Enk's assertion about radiometric dating....


Please owe up to your statement next time and actually scrutinize what you disagree with, as opposed to merely calling it an opinion I’ve masqueraded as fact.

Firstly, I would like to  believe that we all agree that it is a fallible, inconsistent dating technique; clearly, as a product of a fallible being (humans!)... If none of us have felt what a million years is like, how can we than claim to reverse time precisely to such extreme limits?


And…? …Or was that really all you had to say? Surely you’re aware radioisotope dating is determined consistent by a combination of other methods.



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


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:45 PM on August 3, 2006 | IP
reasonEQUALSsmart

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i just happened upon this discussion while searching the net for what evidence (archeological) there is to support the first books of the bible, from 'let there be light' to moses.  

I would like to state that I feel that having these debates on evolution only works to convince undecided people that there is indeed doubt about it in the scientific community and to make those who argue against it seem like they come from a valid scientific view.  I think it may be best not to dignify creationism as an idea worth debating.

by the way, my searching found that all archeological evidence goes against the stories of the Torah.

-dmd
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 12:43 AM on August 5, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This ought to be interesting.  By all means, do tell.


-------
"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: 04:00 AM on August 5, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis: “The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on earth as being derived from earlier forms via a complex set of processes related to imperfect replication during reproduction.”

Entwickelncollin: “… it's a scientific theory “
“ … Evolution often fails when an entire species is on the verge of  extinction”Evolution fails…

The crux: RoyLennigan : “ …evolution in the sense of all life on earth deriving from a single ancestor has not been fully proven, though it is the most plausible explanation.”

It is a plausible explanation in that it is stands as an allegation, a thesis coupled with an anti-thesis, merely a faulty assertion! That is why I cited silent disagreement, not utter disagreement. When evolutionists converse their arguments are inconsistent consistently (borrowed) and thus they appear sluggish and diverting from the truth to the on-looker.

Much respect, the cipher is complete...



-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 06:26 AM on August 11, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is a plausible explanation in that it is stands as an allegation, a thesis coupled with an anti-thesis, merely a faulty assertion! That is why I cited silent disagreement, not utter disagreement. When evolutionists converse their arguments are inconsistent consistently (borrowed) and thus they appear sluggish and diverting from the truth to the on-looker.


You cited absolutely no disagreements or inconsistencies at all:

Apoapsis: “The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on earth as being derived from earlier forms via a complex set of processes related to imperfect replication during reproduction.”


Entwickelncollin: “… it's a scientific theory “
“ … Evolution often fails when an entire species is on the verge of  extinction”


RoyLennigan : “ …evolution in the sense of all life on earth deriving from a single ancestor has not been fully proven, though it is the most plausible explanation.”


No contradictions; no disagreements. Please underline the following:

1.) where in each statement there is an inconsistency

2.) where in another’s statement the former is inconsistent with

Moving on:

Entwickelncollin: “… it's a scientific theory “
“ … Evolution often fails when an entire species is on the verge of  extinction”Evolution fails…


Please clarify exactly what point the underlined portion is supposed to make—other than your keen ability to spot clauses within a sentence that might, under entirely different circumstances, aid your case.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 8/11/2006 at 5:03 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: 5:01 PM on August 11, 2006 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

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

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

 

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