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
     Evo vs. Crea  which is right?
       Which is right - Evolution or Creation and explain why.

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

    
The Debater

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Which is right: evolution or creation? Please give evidence.

P.S.   I recently created a poll on which is right. Please vote.


-------
The Debater
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 4:14 PM on November 24, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
0

Rate this post:

Evolution is an aknowledged, observable fact, ask any biologist.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:50 PM on November 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's a false dilemma. A logical fallacy.

The option is:
a) Science.
b) Any of the dozens of creation myths men have come up with.

Even the matrix hypothesis is stronger than creationism.


(Edited by wisp 11/25/2009 at 01:04 AM).


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:45 PM on November 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Starting two threads that could easily fit in a single silly one, the logical fallacy, the willingness to put Creationism and Evolution on the same level, and the "give evidence" instead of reading a little is so very creationist that i'll raise the odds from 90% to 97%.

Losing bets is not my forte.

So welcome, creationist. Feel free to read the threads and pick up the ball dropped in any of them by your fellow Science deniers.

Don't marvel at my guess. Our predictions regarding the natural world are even more amazing.

Edit: I had missed the flag in your avatar.

98%


(Edited by wisp 11/25/2009 at 12:57 AM).


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:49 PM on November 24, 2009 | IP
fisher

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

look at yourself in a mirror, if you have any knowledge of biology then you would know that you didnt just become who you are from a puddle of mud over a billion years.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 01:33 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fisher at 07:33 AM on November 25, 2009 :
look at yourself in a mirror, if you have any knowledge of biology then you would know that you didnt just become who you are from a puddle of mud over a billion years.

And yet you think that we came from a load of dust blown on by an imaginary creature? You believe that to be more likely? LMAO. Exactly what biology tells you that evolution is false?


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 02:05 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
fisher

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Do you think that our entire DNA sequence just happened to evolve the right way, the first time. The entire process just for RNA transcription and translation is mindboggling, how can you believe that it just happened by change, one mistake and the organism dies. I dont know about you but it would take much more faith to believe that everything just happened on its own instead of believing in a creator.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 02:32 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fisher

Do you think that our entire DNA sequence just happened to evolve the right way, the first time. The entire process just for RNA transcription and translation is mindboggling, how can you believe that it just happened by change, one mistake and the organism dies.


I will agree with you that the sheer diversity of life IS mind-boggling.  It's a truly wonderful thing to behold.  I am simply awestruck by it.

However, I look at it from a different perspective from you do.  You look around and say 'How could all this happen by chance?'  

But it didn't all happen just by chance.  There is a powerful, yet simple, process that drives life's changes and formation - Natrual Selection.  

But is Homo sapiens here by chance?  

Certainly.  And that's what bothers people about evolution, and that's why they reject it.  But rejecting it doesn't make it false.  And it certainly doesn't make it go away.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 07:24 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is a powerful, yet simple, process that drives life's changes and formation - Natrual Selection.


Natural selection can be likened to quality control at a factory, let's say a car factory. Each time a car comes through the factory, it either passes or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it doesn't make it into the outside world.

How long would it take using this quality control or natural selection, to turn a car into, say, an aeroplane?

But it didn't all happen just by chance.  


Whoops, there's the philosophy right there. What he's implying is that it didn't require intelligent design either and that natural selection was good enough to do the job.


-------
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: 07:42 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
There is a powerful, yet simple, process that drives life's changes and formation - Natrual Selection.
Natural selection can be likened to quality control at a factory, let's say a car factory. Each time a car comes through the factory, it either passes or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it doesn't make it into the outside world.
Now that's dumb.

Here's why: "Quality" would mean to stick with a fixed blueprint. In life you have functional variability (you have acknowledged that).

So your analogy is no good.
How long would it take using this quality control or natural selection, to turn a car into, say, an aeroplane?
If the "quality control" forces things to remain the same, never.

Natural Selection doesn't do that, so your analogy is no good.

But it didn't all happen just by chance.
Whoops, there's the philosophy right there.
What an empty statement.

You agree with us. Life didn't happen just by chance.
What he's implying is that it didn't require intelligent design either and that natural selection was good enough to do the job.
Yeah. So?



-------
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: 11:49 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
The Debater

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well heres some insightful evidencefor creationism (or at least to dissprove most if not all of evolution).

Darwin (establisher of the concept of evolution) even left a loop hole in his theory (which he ignoliged) that said in a simple form that evolution is incorrect if a organism cannot survive without a structure that is devoloping through evolution. Modern biology has proven that single celled organisms are so compleck that they could not survive if they were missing one of there structures. So if every thing "evolved" the entire organism would have to apper all at once at the time the species came into exsestence. That is not possible. Evolution even says that is not possible.

I did not make this statement to prove creation but only to help disprove evolution.

The reason why all most every non-religios scientist beliefs in evolution is that it is (as far as i know) the only awnser they have.

p.s. I am a christan.    And please when you reply to my statement include facts and no name calling.


-------
The Debater
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 3:36 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The religious stance against evolution is the minority within the religious community.

Debater: "Modern biology has proven that single celled organisms are so complex that they could not survive if they were missing one of there structures"

I very much disagree. Prokaryotic cells are without many of the organelles Eukaryotic cells have. For one thing prokaryotes don't even have a nucleus!


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 5:29 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
The Debater

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Still some structers are nessesities. For instance, a cell membrane. Without it any thing could enter or leave a cell. The cell would not be able to go about performing tasks. for instance the cell would fall apart.

Please state a fact that proves me wrong.


-------
The Debater
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 6:49 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Hahaha! A creationist! Gotcha!!

Don't you think it was cool the way i predicted it?

That's the thing about knowledge: it lets you predict.

The Debater
Well heres some insightful evidencefor creationism (or at least to dissprove most if not all of evolution).
Boy, how confident!
Darwin
Bad start. To Hell with Darwin. Evolution doesn't depend on him. Darwin is as dead as Jesus. We grew in knowledge since then.
(establisher of the concept of evolution) even left a loop hole in his theory (which he ignoliged)
Ignoliged? What does that word mean?

Edit: Hahahaha! "ACKNOWLEDGED"!!!! xDDD

From your many mistakes i thought English wasn't your native language, but the way you write shows me that you heard many words that you didn't read, and try your best to write them down, so unless you learned English watching TV it was your native language. Then i saw the flag in your avatar.
that said in a simple form that evolution is incorrect if a organism cannot survive without a structure that is devoloping through evolution.
Devoloping! xD

No, that's not a way. Structures evolve. Most mammals would die without a jaw bone. The jawless fish we evolved from didn't need one. You lose.
Modern biology has proven
Proven? A Science?

No, Debater. Science doesn't deal with "proof". You're scientifically (and not only scientifically) illiterate, and it shows.
that single celled organisms are so compleck that they could not survive if they were missing one of there structures.
THEY wouldn't. The simpler organisms they evolved from could.

You lose.
So if every thing "evolved" the entire organism would have to apper all at once at the time the species came into exsestence.
The word is "existence". And no. Something can appear in a species that makes them fitter, and pretty soon it will become vital.

You lose.

That is not possible.
Let me show you: Take the airplane away from a guy while he's in midair. He'll die. Have you "proven" that he always had the airplane?

You lose.

Evolution even says that is not possible.
Not true.
I did not make this statement to prove creation
How typical.
but only to help disprove evolution.
Help?

If facts contradict the ToE there would be no need for "help".

The reason why all most every non-religios scientist beliefs in evolution is that it is (as far as i know) the only awnser they have.
No. My reason to accept the ToE is it's predicting abilities.

There could be hundreds of other explanations. Everything could have been created last Thursday (including our memories) just the way they are. That hypothesis is not testable, and allows for no predictions, so to Hell with it.

That's the valid criterion.
p.s. I am a christan.    And please when you reply to my statement include facts and no name calling.
Do you consider saying "creationist" to be name calling??

Still some structers are nessesities.
I suffer with your misspellings...
For instance, a cell membrane. Without it any thing could enter or leave a cell. The cell would not be able to go about performing tasks. for instance the cell would fall apart.
Yeah. So?

If you think you really have something, start a specific thread.



-------
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: 10:29 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Quote from The Debater at 6:49 PM on November 25, 2009 :
Still some structers are nessesities. For instance, a cell membrane. Without it any thing could enter or leave a cell. The cell would not be able to go about performing tasks. for instance the cell would fall apart.

Please state a fact that proves me wrong.


A cell membrane is essential, but you can simplify the cell membrane. In the cell membrane today you have everything from proteins to cholesterol to ion pumps all nicely packaged up in a bi-layer. The simplest cell membranes would essentially be a vesicle made up of fat (phospholipids), devoid of all proteins and what not into something very simple that scientists have created, and can do so quite easily. All that is required is a bunch of dehydrated lipids in water and vesicles spontaneously form.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 11:15 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

fisher
look at yourself in a mirror, if you have any knowledge of biology then you would know that you didnt just become who you are from a puddle of mud over a billion years.
Yeeeah... That's how they teach biology now. Look at yourself in the mirror.
Do you think that our entire DNA sequence just happened to evolve the right way,
Look at the amazing biodiversity. What right way? Seemingly there are tons of "right ways".
the first time.
What first time?? What are you talking about?
The entire process just for RNA transcription and translation is mindboggling,
Biologists know. You're only interested in it because you think it strengthens your religious beliefs.
how can you believe that it just happened by change, one mistake and the organism dies.
Argument from ignorance.

And no, there are many mistakes that don't kill the organism.
I dont know about you but it would take much more faith to believe that everything just happened on its own instead of believing in a creator.
Go ahead and believe that, if it makes you sleep better at night. Meanwhile let's discuss facts.


(Edited by wisp 11/25/2009 at 11:19 PM).


-------
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: 11:17 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 01:49 AM on November 25, 2009 :
Starting two threads that could easily fit in a single silly one, the logical fallacy, the willingness to put Creationism and Evolution on the same level, and the "give evidence" instead of reading a little is so very creationist that i'll raise the odds from 90% to 97%.

Losing bets is not my forte.

So welcome, creationist. Feel free to read the threads and pick up the ball dropped in any of them by your fellow Science deniers.

Don't marvel at my guess. Our predictions regarding the natural world are even more amazing.

Edit: I had missed the flag in your avatar.

98%
Ah, predictions... It's the coolest consequence of Scientific thinking, and it can be extended to your everyday life.


-------
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: 3:34 PM on January 10, 2010 | 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.