Creation of the universe: Darwin or Bible

[girox]

Yeah... my bad, I'll watch my comments from now on

[Enkidu]

It was just a short and "fun" way to say it... gosh I'M SORRY and yes my faith isn't what it used to be 13 years ago I have my reasons why to think like that and I do know about darwin's theory

Don't worry about it, but in a debate thread, you DEBATE not talk down to other people from what seems to be a self justified position of higher moral authority and simply state I believe what I believe and your beliefs are just wrong.

but anyway, lets get back on point here.

[Zafur]

This forum has been awfully quiet...

The "missing link" has been found, any comments?

I've only read one article on it so far, so I'm still neutralish. Could or could not be, but sounds believable so far.

[wraith89]

I highly doubt that missing link is actually a missing link. Funny thing is, that article is dated back at 2006 or something.

[Illithian]

I highly doubt that missing link is actually a missing link. Funny thing is, that article is dated back at 2006 or something.

Scientists are fairly certain its the missing link.

Look at it this way. National Geographic (as of today) has officially proclaimed it the missing link. Thats a massive organization with a big reputation. They don't want to say things that end up being disproven later. Yes, it happens, but it still looks bad. They are pretty sure about something before they announce it, let alone put it online.

I'm not going to make a long statement about why I think science can explain everything (and my freakishly sci-fi version of "creation of the universe"), but I might write a novel about it. Someday. Far, far away.

[Enkidu]

There hasn't just been ONE missing link, every time the scientific community finds a "missing link" , the religious community disregards it entirely saying, well now you need to find a BETTER transitional fossil.

Theres another "missing link" that was found yesterday too.

-> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0413_060413_evolution.html

-->http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html

--->http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html

[wraith89]

It's not even that. It's that the last time they claimed to have found missing links... many happened to be hoaxes (a boar's tooth for Nebraska Man anyone?)

I'm very skeptical about their claims and I want to do some further investigation before accepting it as if it were a fact.

[Okami]

Another missing link has been found? Gasp. </sarcasm>

Pardon my disrespect there, but seriously. They just need to give it up, because this new one looks too dinosaurish to be anything closely related to a human.

[Zafur]

Dinosaur? May I ask which one you're referring to? All I see is a lemur-monkey and something that looks like an amputated fish/fish growing legs.

[wraith89]

Dinosaur? May I ask which one you're referring to? All I see is a lemur-monkey and something that looks like an amputated fish/fish growing legs.

LOL. More the reason to shun this whole "missing link" hypothesis

[Zafur]

Bwuh? I don't know how my question sounds anti-evolutionist. The lemur-monkey would be the link between lemurs and monkeys, and the fish with stubs would be the link between... fish and land animals.

Edit: Hey, I was just wondering... Does this necessarily have to be Creation vs. Evolution?

Hypothetically speaking, if none of you guys believed in your religion, would your stance on the theory of evolution change? Is your disbelief purely because of the Bible?

[Illithian]

It's not even that. It's that the last time they claimed to have found missing links... many happened to be hoaxes (a boar's tooth for Nebraska Man anyone?)

I'm very skeptical about their claims and I want to do some further investigation before accepting it as if it were a fact.

The missing link fossil was found more then 5 years ago; extensive testing was done on it before the scientific community announced it.

Do the research. Do the investigation. The data is there, use it.

[wraith89]

The missing link fossil was found more then 5 years ago; extensive testing was done on it before the scientific community announced it.

Do the research. Do the investigation. The data is there, use it.

I will do my research, Illithian, no need to tell me to do it. And yet, when many things are based on assumptions, I cannot tell who to trust.

Don't get me wrong. I am NOT against science. I am against lies and I want to find the truth. But missing link? Pssh. Whatever. Just because something LOOKS like something doesn't always mean they're linked.

[Jiggy-Ninja]

So we all know that somehow this world we all live in today, the entire universe came to be. The complexities of everything right down to mitosis all had to happen somehow. So how do you think that it happened. Darwin's theory has something to do with ooze that became X which became X which became X which became X and so on and then X turned into us or humans. The bible states that God created everything in 6 days on the 7th day he rested. I think those are the two main ones on the subject of creation. Please post your opinion and back up your answer...now for mine...

Darwin is far more logical and sensible. I'll attempt to refute your support of God.

You see I believe in the bible. I think it makes more sense and I believe the bible to be 100% truth. The actual probability that over billions and billions of years the universe fell into the precise location it lies in is just inprobable. The actual idea that over billions of years the earth formed into the exact location it is now in order to sustain life. If our planet was just a little bit off where it is now life would be unable to exist! The actual theory that life came from inanimate ooze that was zapped by who knows what is just well 0.

Yes, it is highly improbable that the universe would end up in exactly its current configuration. However, it obviously must end up in some kind of configuration, and all the possible configurations it could be in are all equally improbable, so it is inevitable that the universe would end up in an improbable configuration.

There are an uncountable number of planets in an uncountable number of solar systems, each of them having different conditions. A common saying in probabilities is that anything that can happen, will happen, no matter how improbable, if given enough chances. Winning the lottery might be a 1 in a 1,000,000,000 chance, but if you play the lottery enough, it's highly, highly likely that you will win eventually. If, among the uncountable number of planets, none of them had the right characteristics to support life, I would find that even more shocking.

As for how we happened to end up on a planet capable of supporting life, I believe it's known as the "Anthropic Principle". We ended up on a planet capable of supporting life because we could not exist anywhere else. If this planet was inhospitable to life, it wouldn't exist long enough to wonder why the planet could support life.

The scientists that back this thing say that miracles are impossible because they dont see it and it is not able to be replicated. Well....what about your ooze! Did you see it? "well know it was X years ago no one was around..." is it able to be replicated? "Well know it is a once in an existance thing it can only happen once..." well then you are incorrect by your own basis.

I call strawman.

A "miracle" is not something that can only happen once, it is something that cannot be explained by any rational means. The "ooze" might not be able to be feasibly repeated, however it is rational, and in principle can happen again.

However, because the "ooze" has not been able to be repeated yet, its still only a hypothesis in need of more testing. It remains, however, the best explanation we have.

Also, such a thing exists called "extrapolation". If we observe that, as we look at the fossil record as it progresses backwards through time, creatures get less and less complex, extrapolation will lead us to the conclusion that the progression began with the ultimate anti-complexity, the "ooze".

The "ooze" explanation does have the weakness that in its current form, it is highly improbable. However, the transition from inanimate to animate only needs to happen once, and then evolution takes over.

Well you know how they say that the ooze goes to X and then X well then how come there is not a single legit fossil record of a transspecies creature? Your answer-because they dont exist. The whole theory in my opinion is nonsense and the guy who made it up and his offspring are now filthy rich because of it and because of money no one is able to stop them.

Transitional species do exist, and there are tons of similarities between species. A whale's flipper, a bat's wing, and a human hand all have very similar skeletal structure, despite being very different species and the relevant appendages being used for extremely different purposes. The best explanation science has come up with is that those species have a common ancestor.

Towards the end of the Cretaceous period, there were dinosaurs that grew feathers. That's a transition from reptiles to birds.

As for gaps in the fossil record, gaps are to be expected. It is impossible to complete since the only fossils we can study are those that were able to survive untold years of weathering. It's likely that only a very small portion of the whole record came through.

There are a lot of wholes in the theory and the earth does not top 10000 years of age. The bible has the answers and I believe to be the greatest historical record in the history of man kind. The whole evolution thing just has to many wholes to believe in. Ok, there is my argument. Now what do you say?

If God and creation have far more holes than evolution does.

IIRC, I heard that two of the Gospels don't even agree on what generation Joseph was down from David. You might think that's an insignificant detail, but if it can't even get a simple thing like that right, how can it be trusted on far bigger and more important things like the origin of life? (EDIT: Looks like I'm wrong about this. Didn't expect I remembered it right anyway)

The theory that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old has radioactive dating and other evidence to support it. The 10,000 years only has an old book written 2,000 years ago with absolutely no way to verify its claims. I pick 4.6 billion.

The Bible was written by people, not God. Even if it was based on God's world, there's no guarantee that His Word wasn't corrupted by people sometime between when it was written and now. There's no way to verify what God's will might be, if He even has a will that we need to be concerned about.

To assume to know the Will of an omnipotent, omniscient Creator (if he even exists) is the HEIGHT of arrogance.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Jiggy-Ninja

[wraith89]

IIRC, I heard that two of the Gospels don't even agree on what generation Joseph was down from David. You might think that's an insignificant detail, but if it can't even get a simple thing like that right, how can it be trusted on far bigger and more important things like the origin of life?

What? One line comes from Mary, the other line comes from Joseph. Why would such a thing matter?

If you are willing to refute the Bible, find a REAL contradiction before saying "the Bible is wrong".

[Jiggy-Ninja]

What? One line comes from Mary, the other line comes from Joseph. Why would such a thing matter?

If you are willing to refute the Bible, find a REAL contradiction before saying "the Bible is wrong".

My bad. I didn't expect I remembered it right anyway, which is why I put the IIRC there.

Still, that doesn't change the fact that the Bible was written by people, and is susceptible to the same potential faults that any human endeavor is subject to: corruption, misinterpretation, or just plain being wrong.

Scientists are susceptible to these same pitfalls, which is why peer review, falsifiability, and repeatability are so important to the scientific method.

[Enkidu]

What? One line comes from Mary, the other line comes from Joseph. Why would such a thing matter?

If you are willing to refute the Bible, find a REAL contradiction before saying "the Bible is wrong".

A real contradiction?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

Another missing link has been found? Gasp. </sarcasm>

Pardon my disrespect there, but seriously. They just need to give it up, because this new one looks too dinosaurish to be anything closely related to a human.

Wow ok, You obviously don't know what finding a "missing link" is trying to do, and the majority of you have no idea about what the theory of evolution even is! this is ridiculous to even try and hold an argument on this here.

--> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

A transitional species DOESNT ( YES READ IT, DOES NOT ) have to look like a human, it has to bridge the gap between species even further back than ape > human, because every time science finds a new "missing link" some theist says,

" well where did that one come from? Must be god, and oh look another inconsistency! you haven't bridged the gap between anything, because for us to believe that you would have to map out the history of EVERYTHING, which by the way we already know because the bible told us so"

Now I'm sorry I'm coming off as a little angry, but all most of you are saying - insert assertion that is backed up by nothing - is right, and your scientific beliefs are worthless and inane. THAT is no way to debate or even talk to another person and I feel that many of you are saying it that way. ( and everything can be debated so i really don't want to here" oh you interpreted it wrong" because I can walk up to a black man and call him the N word and explain myself for it and get off scot free, that doesn't change the fact that its wrong. )

Using the bible as the end all reference point in an argument means A: Your not actually debating and B: is arguably not evidence. since nothing anyone can say will "shake your faith" ( which in other words means, Nothing you say will change my mind about )

If that's where your coming from, than there's no debate is there? All there is , is you pointing out inconsistencies in science ( which by the way, knows it doesn't have the answer for everything, so please stop talking about it like it pretends to ) and then saying that because of inconsistency X, Y and Z every number between 1 and infinity is wrong.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Enkidu

[Minamimoto]

Everyone has seen that video,fenzo.No one cares.

JK! PLEASE DONT BANHAMMER ME!!

[wraith89]

A real contradiction?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

LOL. Really? I can refute most of them if I tried... because many are taken out of context. What seems like inconsistencies is really because you WANT them to be inconsistent... or it's really how you perceive.

The Shape of the Earth contradiction?

SATAN: And behold, to the Northwest - the splendors and magnificence of Rome! The Senate building! The great Temple of Zeus! The -

JESUS: Where is that?

SATAN (flustered): I beg your pardon?

JESUS: The Senate building. Which one is it? It's kind of hard to tell from here.

SATAN: It's the one with the red roof, right there! Next to the Emperor's Palace!

JESUS (straining and leaning forward): Sorry. Can't see it.

SATAN: It's the rectangular building, right next to the - waitaminnit - maybe it's the one a few blocks to the right -

JESUS: Why don't we just go down and look at it? We're supernatural beings, it would be really easy -

SATAN (losing patience): NO! This is my tour, and I'll do it the way I want to! We stay on the mountain!

JESUS (Sighing): Okay. But this is going to be a hassle when we get to the glory and splendor of Cathay.

Sorry, I had to put that in. It was funny (I didn't make it)

I know what the "theory" of evolution is (my university is BIG on evolution)... and it certainly isn't a theory. It doesn't even pass the qualifications of being a theory. It's more of a hypothesis.

Hypothesis - "A statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon."

Myth - a. "A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing." "It may be broadly defined as a narrative that through many retellings has become an accepted tradition in a society."

b. "A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon."

Hmmm... could evolution be THOSE two?

Theory - "An explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations."

Scientific Method - "The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis."

It doesn't pass the scientific method either. What exactly have you observed? Yeah, that's right... you've all BEEN THERE billions of years ago, right? You evolutionists also have a god too. His name is time... and he explains everything that possibly couldn't happen other than through miraculous ways.

"A dinosaur became a bird through a process of MILLIONS of years"...

I don't care how long it takes, be it a decade or an Avogadro's number's worth of years. A dinosaur will remain a dinosaur... and a bird is a completely different specimen.

[Varna]

LOL. Really? I can refute most of them if I tried... because many are taken out of context. What seems like inconsistencies is really because you WANT them to be inconsistent... or it's really how you perceive.

3. "It has to be understood in context." I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you?

:creep:

[wraith89]

Hm... if I quoted you guys theoretically by saying "I think Christians are stupid because they say the Bible is how you live your life", you'd all agree with me. But say I quoted "I think... the Bible is how you live your life" from you. You'd all kill me right here.

He doesn't ever show an example when John 3:16 was ever given out of context. If he showed me HOW, then I'd be glad to see his POV. But he fails to even give one, so that point is negative.

[Zafur]

Hm. If you refuse to believe that a species of dinosaur evolved into a bird, then do you believe that both dinosaurs and birds existed in the same time period? Because it seems odd that the dinosaurs would die out while the prey would thrive. Or do you believe that God is constantly putting out new species?

This is more of me just trying to understand what you believe.

Also, the domestication of the silver fox in Russia should count as an observation of evolution. The foxes started getting more dog like coat patterns and actually started barking, traits never seen in foxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Silver_Fox

Selective breeding, especially when dealing with mutations, is a readily available example of evolution.

Is it so much of a stretch to think that if something like that could happen in 50 years of breeding, reptiles could mutate feathers and become birds over a couple million? Especially with evidence such as Velociraptors to back it up... (Which I posted a few pages back...)

Also, I think people need to tone down the cockiness in this thread. It's distracting.

[wraith89]

Hm. If you refuse to believe that a species of dinosaur evolved into a bird, then do you believe that both dinosaurs and birds existed in the same time period? Because it seems odd that the dinosaurs would die out while the prey would thrive. Or do you believe that God is constantly putting out new species?

This is more of me just trying to understand what you believe.

Also, the domestication of the silver fox in Russia should count as an observation of evolution. The foxes started getting more dog like coat patterns and actually started barking, traits never seen in foxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Silver_Fox

Selective breeding, especially when dealing with mutations, is a readily available example of evolution.

Is it so much of a stretch to think that if something like that could happen in 50 years of breeding, reptiles could mutate feathers and become birds over a couple million? Especially with evidence such as Velociraptors to back it up... (Which I posted a few pages back...)

Also, I think people need to tone down the cockiness in this thread. It's distracting.

I'm glad you're trying to understand what I believe. People should tone down the cockiness in this thread because it gets nowhere. I tend to respond cockiness with cockiness... so maybe it should stop.

I think it's very possible that dinosaurs coexisted with birds. And every animal breeders know that there are limitations to breeding. For example, you cannot breed a dog with a horse... but a horse can breed with a donkey, for it is its own kind. Dinosaurs and birds are FAR off.

[Okami]

Basically I don't believe in evolution because they say that animals evolved into animals over hundreds of thousands of years into what they are today (including humans, in the case of Darwin's theory) but yet, the fossil record shows something that doesn't fit with that theory, and that's that there were tons of different species starting to show up rapidly at one point or another. For me, my disbelief in macroevolution is because of the evidence that goes against it, nothing to do with my faith.

Plus, science has distorted so many things over the years that I don't really know what to believe anymore. Nothing against science in and of itself, it just bothers me. If something is true, then why do you have to distort the truth to make it such?

The social sciences are much easier to deal with, in my personal opinion.

[wraith89]

Basically I don't believe in evolution because they say that animals evolved into animals over hundreds of thousands of years into what they are today (including humans, in the case of Darwin's theory) but yet, the fossil record shows something that doesn't fit with that theory, and that's that there were tons of different species starting to show up rapidly at one point or another. For me, my disbelief in macroevolution is because of the evidence that goes against it, nothing to do with my faith.

Plus, science has distorted so many things over the years that I don't really know what to believe anymore. Nothing against science in and of itself, it just bothers me. If something is true, then why do you have to distort the truth to make it such?

The social sciences are much easier to deal with, in my personal opinion.

The fossil records only exist in textbooks. You won't find it anywhere on Earth. Claims that it is found is usually spurious.

And I'm glad someone made a distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. It's micro that I know exists... but macro takes HUGE faith to believe in spite of all the evidences against it.

I'm of the belief that evolution itself is a religion. It isn't a fact because it requires people to "believe" in it.