Jump to content
pokemonfan

Creation of the universe: Darwin or Bible

Recommended Posts

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.

We have fossils, anatomy, DNA, and fruit flies and bacteria research to observe.

In fact, scientists observe evolution ALL THE TIME on small scales through research on bacteria and fruit flies. Since those creatures have some of the highest rates of reproduction in the animal kingdom, it's easiest to see with them.

We don't need to be there to gain information about that era. Paleontology, archeology, and geology are means to look back to see what happened in the past. The things we can learn are limited by the things from the past left to study now, but there are things left, and those things have clues about the past.

Sure, some conclusions made by people might stretch the boundaries of truth and border on opinion, but to dismiss everything just shows how much you don't understand about the subject.

And time is not a God for evolutionists. It's not like they see "We don't know how, but somehow, through Time, birds formed from dinosaurs."

On the contrary, evolution is very well defined process composed of two parts: genetic mutation and natural selection. Genetic mutation has been observed in ALL animal species, and ALL animal species face the axe of natural selection in one way or another. As I already mentioned, evolution is observed on small scales all the time in laboratories. It's not a huge stretch of the imagination to conclude that those small changes, each successive mutation compounding on top of the previous ones, would add up to big changes over very long periods of time.

"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.

That is a highly unscientific statement. Many scientists constantly try to falsify their own ideas, and far more scientists attempt to falsify the ideas of others. To date, I don't think evolution has yet come across a credible falsification.

Plus, I would like to say this now. Much of the arguments I see for Creationism/Intelligent Design (not just here, but anywhere I see this stuff) are actually against evolution. A basic principle of argumentation is that debunking your opponent's position does not strengthen your own. If evolution is somehow shown to be definitively false, that does not mean Creationism or Intelligent Design are true. Neither of those really have any legs to stand on currently, and eliminating their main competitor does not give them any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that too, Wraith. textbook images, especially that of Biology, are generally distorted, like I said. They try to make a theory pure fact, but it can't be fact, because it is a theory. Going in circles.

Now don't get me wrong, I love Biology, I love Biology because it corresponds so well to Psychology, getting in depth to anatomy and the mind, the brain. That's the kind of thing I have a passion for and love.

Yes, exactly. There is a world of difference between macro- and mircoevolution. Obviously species evolve, you can see that just by looking at a dog or a cat...there are so many inner species of both, from Great Dane to Terriers and Teacups and whatever else!

Macro- takes as much faith to believe in as any sort of religion. Meaning people can have their reasons and nothing is there to stop them. If you believe in something with all your heart and have reasons to do so to back you up, good for you. It doesn't always mean you're going to get someone to agree with you, just because you know in your heart what is right.

Time is, in and of itself, a god. No two ways around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have fossils, anatomy, DNA, and fruit flies and bacteria research to observe.

You're giving me a laundry list. Give me SPECIFIC examples on HOW these prove evolution. If it's based on baseless assumptions, I can't buy into it. Sorry :shrugs:

In fact, scientists observe evolution ALL THE TIME on small scales through research on bacteria and fruit flies. Since those creatures have some of the highest rates of reproduction in the animal kingdom, it's easiest to see with them. We don't need to be there to gain information about that era. Paleontology, archeology, and geology are means to look back to see what happened in the past. The things we can learn are limited by the things from the past left to study now, but there are things left, and those things have clues about the past.

Are you sure? What exactly would paleontology, archeology, and geology prove? My biggest beef against modern science is that they FIX the FACTS to match their THEORY rather than do the logical: fix the THEORY to match the FACTS. If you could show me specific examples, I'd be glad to oblige.

Sure, some conclusions made by people might stretch the boundaries of truth and border on opinion, but to dismiss everything just shows how much you don't understand about the subject.

And time is not a God for evolutionists. It's not like they see "We don't know how, but somehow, through Time, birds formed from dinosaurs."

It really is. There's also time's mother, nature, who does the selecting. I guess we have two deities working through evolution. What exactly did they observe? Has anyone seen a pine tree become a dog or something? We need observations: it's not exactly working out.

On the contrary, evolution is very well defined process composed of two parts: genetic mutation and natural selection. Genetic mutation has been observed in ALL animal species, and ALL animal species face the axe of natural selection in one way or another. As I already mentioned, evolution is observed on small scales all the time in laboratories. It's not a huge stretch of the imagination to conclude that those small changes, each successive mutation compounding on top of the previous ones, would add up to big changes over very long periods of time.

Mutation is taking away genes or substituting an existing gene for another. There is no addition in mutation so it's not going to work. You won't change a fruitfly into a hummingbird no matter how much genes your goddess Nature and your god Time will do.

Oh yes, Water is H2O, right? Why is it that two Hydrogens and one Oxygen only results in mixture but not exactly water? Something's missing here, don't you think? Some stuff in science you can't prove.

Dolphins have sex for pleasure? How do you know? People give me this explanation: "because they do it for a long time". So? What if they needed longer time to procreate? It's not going to explain the level of pleasure at all! More baseless assumptions really.

That is a highly unscientific statement. Many scientists constantly try to falsify their own ideas, and far more scientists attempt to falsify the ideas of others. To date, I don't think evolution has yet come across a credible falsification.

Plus, I would like to say this now. Much of the arguments I see for Creationism/Intelligent Design (not just here, but anywhere I see this stuff) are actually against evolution. A basic principle of argumentation is that debunking your opponent's position does not strengthen your own. If evolution is somehow shown to be definitively false, that does not mean Creationism or Intelligent Design are true. Neither of those really have any legs to stand on currently, and eliminating their main competitor does not give them any more.

Yes, science MUST try to falsify their own ideas... but this evolution thing is being taught as FACT when it is NOT. That disturbs me... it's this ONE thing they won't let go! When will these people give it up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like trying to understand different mindsets and beliefs. It's helpful.

Has there been fossil records of birds near the same time frame as dinosaurs?

Also, you're bringing up hybridization. Hybrids are a bit different than species naturally, (or with help of man) changing characteristics until they can no longer be classified as their original species. Although, I guess interbreeding could help that, presuming fertile offspring.

Of course dinos and birds are far off. They're millions of years apart. It doesn't mean it's totally impossible that dinosaurs didn't slowly over those years turn into birds. They both share characteristics, such as scales, some birds have reptilian looking eyes, similar foot structure, some dinosaurs have had beaks... Then there's species that are in between, such as the velociraptors I keep mentioning. And was it here that mentioned the species of birds that keep their claws on their wings when first hatched?

I wasn't suggesting that prehistoric birds and dinos interbred to create modern birds... Not sure why you put that example?

I don't think micro and macro evolution need to be differentiated too much in this debate. As mentioned, if you "believe in" micro evolution, then why is it hard to believe the mutations kept happening and building up until the species changed so much it can't be classified as the same one as before?

@Okami: What evidence goes against evolution that you've found? I don't exactly go looking for it so I wouldn't know of any offhand.

And where has it been shown that people involved with science change facts to match theories?

Anyways. Evolution is not a religion. "Belief" in evolution is believing the facts, and knowing that those facts could possibly be changed with the next discovery if it happens to contradict previous beliefs. If that happens, we try to figure out why it contradicts, or if there's an explanation that doesn't contradict it, and we change our beliefs accordingly to fit which one is more likely, depending on evidence swaying either side.

Religion requires faith, faith is trust in something that cannot be explained or proven to you. The whole great mystery of God thing... You two seem really religious, you know that already. :P

Evolution doesn't fit as a religion as you cannot say you have faith in it. You believe the facts, which are based on evidence. Faith isn't.

Edit: About the mutation things. Genes change because the proteins weren't copied correctly and instead influence a trait in a different way. Micro turning into macro is plausible. Changing an existing species into another existing species would require great luck into getting the correct random mutations to fit the other species, very implausible but nonetheless possible if you have some million years. Of course there's selective breeding or just manipulation, but that would be cheating, wouldn't it? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Dinosaurs most likely did coexist with birds, on some level. It's a mistake to consider a species as a single, indivisible entity. Evolution doesn't work on species, it works on individual animals. With asexually reproducing animals, species is meaningless since every animal is a distinct, completely autonomous individual. With sexual reproduction all the animals of a species are a bit more intertwined with each other, but the forces of evolution, mutation and natural selection, still act only on individual animals, even if the intermixing of DNA would tend to cause a population to evolve more or less in unison.

Because of that, it's possible that species can fork, one branch evolving one way, another a different way. It's thought that all the variation in the world's animals is a result of this forking.

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.

"Punctuated equilibrium" I believe is the name for what you're referring to, at least that's what I remember from biology. The idea that long periods of evolutionary stagnation were intermixed with short periods of rapid evolution.

I'll admit, the idea doesn't really sit well with me either, but there's no other credible explanation I've come across. Intelligent Design fails the test of Occam's Razor terribly. Though Occam's Razor isn't rigorously scientific, it's principle does have sense to it. Creationism is not credible in the least bit, having no scientific evidence and based almost entirely an ancient, largely unverifiable book.

And please give examples of the "distortions of truth" you claim that science has made over the years. This isn't witty or snark, it's a genuine question. I suspect that these distortions come not from science, but from people that claim to be scientists. It's important to remember that scientists are still human, and are vulnerable to the very same sins and pitfalls that other people are vulnerable to. Just because a statement is made by a scientist, doesn't make is a scientific statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, most everything I'm thinking of is in a book called "The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Towards God" by Lee Strobel.

When I have the time, I'll pull out specific examples, since I doubt many of you will take the time to read it anyways.

Finals week is this coming Wednesday-Friday, so after that I'll take the time out to get you the examples you want. :] 90% of my attention is towards reviewing...need to finish off this vocabulary guide for American Literature... Plus, I need to reread the book anyway...along with some others that I've started the first 30-or-so pages and never got around to finishing. Ugh, laziness.

Ah, but I'm getting off track, I'll get back to you on that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm. I feel rather unqualified to debate about this right now. I need to brush up on my knowledge of evolution.

I feel like we might just need to agree to disagree at some point. Even if we somehow get enough evidence either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hm. I feel rather unqualified to debate about this right now. I need to brush up on my knowledge of evolution.

I feel like we might just need to agree to disagree at some point. Even if we somehow get enough evidence either way.

I'm glad I'm not the only one beginning to feel this way, to be honest. I haven't taken a Biology course in almost three years and probably won't yet for another year or two. Evidence is constantly changing around us, like the colors of a tree's leaves with the seasons...

The fact is, this is just one of those debates that are endless, because NO ONE human knows the full truth. =/ *sigh*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm glad I'm not the only one beginning to feel this way, to be honest. I haven't taken a Biology course in almost three years and probably won't yet for another year or two. Evidence is constantly changing around us, like the colors of a tree's leaves with the seasons...

The fact is, this is just one of those debates that are endless, because NO ONE human knows the full truth. =/ *sigh*

And of course, humans are constantly trying to at least prove part of a whole truth. If evolution is true, like I believe it is, we may never be able to make a whole tree of life, but we may be able to figure out a few branches.

Either way, thinking evolution is true isn't interfering with my religious beliefs, so I'm fine if it's "fully proven" or not.

My schools never went in depth with evolution or genetics. So I'm still a newb at this. Hoping to take a course in genetics soon though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My highschool biology teacher tried to force us to believe that we came from fish. The whole ape-theory of evolution came later in the course...

Yeah, he sort of solidified my already-at-that-point-in-time growing dislike of evolution. =/

Not that I'm close-minded on the subject, I'm always willing to learn, but geez. He was an extremist, and obviously very messed up in his own personal beliefs on the issue (he constantly contradicted himself) and so on. He's a nice man, now that I know him outside of being my teacher, just confused. It's sad to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that too, Wraith. textbook images, especially that of Biology, are generally distorted, like I said. They try to make a theory pure fact, but it can't be fact, because it is a theory. Going in circles.

Now don't get me wrong, I love Biology, I love Biology because it corresponds so well to Psychology, getting in depth to anatomy and the mind, the brain. That's the kind of thing I have a passion for and love.

Yes, exactly. There is a world of difference between macro- and mircoevolution. Obviously species evolve, you can see that just by looking at a dog or a cat...there are so many inner species of both, from Great Dane to Terriers and Teacups and whatever else!

Macro- takes as much faith to believe in as any sort of religion. Meaning people can have their reasons and nothing is there to stop them. If you believe in something with all your heart and have reasons to do so to back you up, good for you. It doesn't always mean you're going to get someone to agree with you, just because you know in your heart what is right.

Time is, in and of itself, a god. No two ways around it.

The only difference between macro- and micro- evolution is scale, a difference that is easily solved by time.

Time is NOT a deity. Evolution is a process of change that happens over time. It stand to reason then, that more time equals potentially more change, and that huge amounts of time have the potential for huge amounts of change.

It might be necessary to suspend your disbelief to believe in macro-evolution, but that is not the same as faith. Quantum mechanics requires a massive, enormous amount f suspension of disbelief, but if you tried to argue against it just based on that alone you'd lose terribly since quantum mechanics has more than enough supporting evidence to justify the huge suspension of disbelief necessary to understand it.

You're giving me a laundry list. Give me SPECIFIC examples on HOW these prove evolution. If it's based on baseless assumptions, I can't buy into it. Sorry :shrugs:

I'm not an expert in those fields, but I'll do my best to relate what I've read on the issue.

Fossils can tell us what kind of skeletal structure, skin, muscles, brain, teeth, and probably a few other things I don't know about that animals had in the past. Similarities among those characteristics can be used to deduce if two different species had a common ancestor, or if the species was the cmmon ancestor of other, future species.

Most of the animals on Earth have an enormous portion of DNA in common with each other. Most of that shared DNA seems useless, because it's never been seen used. One explanation for that is that the DNA is a remnant of evolution.

Bacteria and fruit flies are researched for evolution because the reproduce and grow very quickly, letting people see the results of mutations and selection quickly.

Are you sure? What exactly would paleontology, archeology, and geology prove? My biggest beef against modern science is that they FIX the FACTS to match their THEORY rather than do the logical: fix the THEORY to match the FACTS. If you could show me specific examples, I'd be glad to oblige.
It really is. There's also time's mother, nature, who does the selecting. I guess we have two deities working through evolution. What exactly did they observe? Has anyone seen a pine tree become a dog or something? We need observations: it's not exactly working out.

Neither of them are deities.

Asking for a pine tree to become a dog is ridiculous, and betrays your misunderstanding of how evolution works. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the patience to correct it, and probably don't have the ability to either.

Mutation is taking away genes or substituting an existing gene for another. There is no addition in mutation so it's not going to work. You won't change a fruitfly into a hummingbird no matter how much genes your goddess Nature and your god Time will do.

Down's Syndrome begs to differ. Addition of genes is possible.

And again, asking for a fly to change into a hummingbird is ridiculous.

Oh yes, Water is H2O, right? Why is it that two Hydrogens and one Oxygen only results in mixture but not exactly water? Something's missing here, don't you think? Some stuff in science you can't prove.

What's needed is to overcome the energy hump. A certain amount of energy is necessary, then the chemical reaction will occur, the gases will burn, and water will be formed.

Dolphins have sex for pleasure? How do you know? People give me this explanation: "because they do it for a long time". So? What if they needed longer time to procreate? It's not going to explain the level of pleasure at all! More baseless assumptions really.

The average time necessary to have sex in order to procreate is something that is in principle measurable, so that is a reasonable statement to make if it's observed that dolphins fornicate on average longer than necessary to procreate.

However, it makes more sense to say that all animals have sex for pleasure, since the pleasure is what causes them to have sex. Since sex is necessary for a species to survive, it makes sense that animals in which sex is pleasurable activity would procreate far more than animals where it was either a neutral activity or a painful one. Animals where sex is pleasurable would procreate more, causing pleasurable sex to be more widespread.

Yes, science MUST try to falsify their own ideas... but this evolution thing is being taught as FACT when it is NOT. That disturbs me... it's this ONE thing they won't let go! When will these people give it up?

The reason scientists cling so tightly to evolution is because it is so under attack by religious people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My highschool biology teacher tried to force us to believe that we came from fish. The whole ape-theory of evolution came later in the course...

Yeah, he sort of solidified my already-at-that-point-in-time growing dislike of evolution. =/

Not that I'm close-minded on the subject, I'm always willing to learn, but geez. He was an extremist, and obviously very messed up in his own personal beliefs on the issue (he constantly contradicted himself) and so on. He's a nice man, now that I know him outside of being my teacher, just confused. It's sad to see.

Well. The general theory is we eventually got fish. Some fish turned into land animals, some land animals turned into apes, and some apes turned into humans. So yeah, we came from fish.

He might've just been pushy because it's a subject that's required to learn? I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It always became a fight in that class, because people knew I was 'religious' (ARGH, no, I am SPIRITUAL) and so I would constantly get dragged into the middle of things, and then mocked when I didn't have the answers. At that point I was still developing my new-found faith and didn't really know anything =/

I've always been annoyed at the fact that if we can learn about evolution, then why not intelligent design as well? It's almost like they're trying to brainwash teenagers, who have enough life issues at that point! At least, that's how it felt for me. But I wanted to know more than what the 12-year-old textbook had to offer, I just wish they would have given me that more.

I had to study for some time, and still am when I have the time...searching for truth. Always searching. If we had the answers, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Now, I know enough to make my argument and make it correctly, however, that fear of being mocked has been installed within me...so I choose just to say what I believe and leave it at that. Because otherwise it tears me apart. I'm a bit unstable emotionally in that sense. That's why my beliefs are still stated as such in my original post here :] I have spiritual intimacy, that's all I really need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
us, 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?

Why does this matter? And religion hasn't done the same?

Now, I know enough to make my argument and make it correctly, however, that fear of being mocked has been installed within me...so I choose just to say what I believe and leave it at that.

Than your not debating with any of us.

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.

And your the most cocky one of all, no one in this thread has been more vocal or angry sounding than you. I don't even see the "cockiness" in other peoples post, they are using facts and evidence to the best of your knowledge and giving what ARE fairly objective arguments, but your answering them back as if you have no respect for their beliefs, while self justifying your own.

Yes, just like Venomfang X on youtube you think the idea of TIME PASSING is such an odd concept. Science believes that time is the only universal constant, but wait... SCIENCE??!! Yea thats right, we're talking about science and your talking to us. From a totally objective point of view, your not even talking about the same thing. Using italics or bolded words here and there, and maybe saying "millions and billions of years " in a high pitched mocking voice somehow unproves the stability of time for you, but science ( I guess we haha ) are somehow inclined to think otherwise.

I'm gonna stick with my last post.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you're not debating with any of us.

Okami will be honest in saying that she is not an artist of the technique of debating, Enkidu. :] She also understands that religion, too, stretches the truth to make it plausible--reason standing of why she does not follow religion, only her Jesus. ;)

Besides, debates like this are only circular, there is no end in sight for it, so I'm only trying to have a little fun while I can! (Like the third-person up there ^^^ Okami does that sometimes)

Your grammatical errors were also itching to be fixed, sorry hon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your the most cocky one of all, no one in this thread has been more vocal or angry sounding than you. I don't even see the "cockiness" in other peoples post, they are using facts and evidence to the best of your knowledge and giving what ARE fairly objective arguments, but your answering them back as if you have no respect for their beliefs, while self justifying your own.

Erm, you sound just as cocky as anyone else. And our beliefs are at polar opposites, so of course I'd have to go on the polemic side. Sue me, but at many times, you sound much more cocky than anyone else here.

You're mocking me by saying that I don't know science? Oh, believe me, I study science, but evolution is no science. Your modern science is filled with faulty assumptions and is going on a dangerous path. There is NO basis for evolution. So if you have many things that have the same DNA or whatnot, you'd say "oh they're related!" But it can also suggest the case for a common creator. *gasp* You mean... God? Yes, an absolute! What's the matter? Can't face the fact an absolute being exists?

Honestly, I can't stand all the hostility against my belief. It's not that I have no respect for what others believe, but if they keep playing offensive on me, I'm inclined to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It always became a fight in that class, because people knew I was 'religious' (ARGH, no, I am SPIRITUAL) and so I would constantly get dragged into the middle of things, and then mocked when I didn't have the answers. At that point I was still developing my new-found faith and didn't really know anything =/

I've always been annoyed at the fact that if we can learn about evolution, then why not intelligent design as well? It's almost like they're trying to brainwash teenagers, who have enough life issues at that point! At least, that's how it felt for me. But I wanted to know more than what the 12-year-old textbook had to offer, I just wish they would have given me that more.

I had to study for some time, and still am when I have the time...searching for truth. Always searching. If we had the answers, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Now, I know enough to make my argument and make it correctly, however, that fear of being mocked has been installed within me...so I choose just to say what I believe and leave it at that. Because otherwise it tears me apart. I'm a bit unstable emotionally in that sense. That's why my beliefs are still stated as such in my original post here :] I have spiritual intimacy, that's all I really need.

Thing is, evolution has pretty much been accepted as fact, and it's nonreligious, so it's taught in public schools. You can't teach religion in a public school (Brain washing the kids with the wrong religion, or ANY religion at all for Atheists.) I go to a Catholic school, so I also have classes dealing with Religion. Religion can't be put in science textbooks because it's just not considered science. Religion requires faith, belief in things without proof, and science is all about using proof to understand the world. I think if they DID mention intelligent design, it'd have to be pretty much a one paragraph mention of it at most...

"Other people who follow various religions believe in a system called Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design dictates that a omnipotent being, God, or Gods, created life on Earth. Many of these religions make no direct mention of evolution, but some followers believe that evolution does not take place."

And you can't directly teach one version of Intelligent Design or another... What about all the other religions, you know?

Not teaching it is used to avoid brain washing, actually, and to make life simpler.

I made a reference to the FSM earlier, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

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

It explains a lot.

"The first public exposure of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (CoFSM) can be dated to January 2005, when Bobby Henderson, describing himself as a concerned citizen, sent an open letter regarding the FSM to the Kansas State Board of Education. The letter was sent prior to the Kansas evolution hearings as an argument against the teaching of intelligent design in biology classes. Intelligent design was thought of as a way to teach creationism in the public school system without mentioning the word "God". Henderson stated that both his theory and intelligent design had equal validity, saying

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

Henderson explained, "I don't have a problem with religion. What I have a problem with is religion posing as science. If there is a god and he's intelligent, then I would guess he has a sense of humor.""

@ Wraith: "So if you have many things that have the same DNA or whatnot, you'd say "oh they're related!" But it can also suggest the case for a common creator. *gasp* You mean... God? Yes, an absolute! What's the matter? Can't face the fact an absolute being exists?"

Um dude, calm down.

Everyone accepts that similar DNA signifies the two organisms being related, yes? Like how siblings have similar DNA... And how Chimps share over 90% of DNA with us.

I don't see how DNA having an over 90% match has anything to do with them being created by the same God. God could chose to make them have similar DNA or very different, there's no reason for either. You can't use that as evidence for being created by the same God, unless maybe we live in a Polytheistic world where creatures are created by different gods, and each of them using signature DNA, making us rely on DNA to see who created what.

Believing in an absolute being is not relevant to DNA being shared between related species. I can believe God caused evolution just as easily as choosing only one or the other.

Edit: I think finding some evidence against evolution and other things you two mentioned would help a lot... Without you giving us something to dispute, this isn't gonna go anywhere, just in circles. Okami said she'd bring some for us later but... Hm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're mocking me by saying that I don't know science? Oh, believe me, I study science, but evolution is no science. Your modern science is filled with faulty assumptions and is going on a dangerous path. There is NO basis for evolution. So if you have many things that have the same DNA or whatnot, you'd say "oh they're related!" But it can also suggest the case for a common creator. *gasp* You mean... God? Yes, an absolute! What's the matter? Can't face the fact an absolute being exists?

Honestly, I can't stand all the hostility against my belief. It's not that I have no respect for what others believe, but if they keep playing offensive on me, I'm inclined to do the same.

I'm not mocking you at all, this is exactly what I was talking about your so cocky in yourself that you make false assumptions about what we believe, and go from attacking science to attacking us as individuals. You seem to put putting what other people said, hand in hand with what we are saying and responding from their. I'm not reading some of Kent Hovind's crap and then coming here and replying to you, don't do the same.

There is NO basis for evolution. So if you have many things that have the same DNA or whatnot, you'd say "oh they're related!" But it can also suggest the case for a common creator. *gasp* You mean... God? Yes, an absolute! What's the matter? Can't face the fact an absolute being exists?

First off, there is a HUGE basis for evolution YOU may not want to see it but it is as clear as day. Not to mention, when the fuck did anyone say that science disproves god? This is what I was talking about, your taking a mutually exclusive past debate/argument/ideology and applying it to us, before we even say anything. Religion does NOT disprove science and science does NOT disprove religion, but you seem to think that they do.

Honestly, I can't stand all the hostility against my belief. It's not that I have no respect for what others believe, but if they keep playing offensive on me, I'm inclined to do the same.

What?! Do you not see what you just said? Hostility against your belief?! Not agreeing with you is NOT hostility, if you can't see that you have no place in a debate.

You're mocking me by saying that I don't know science? Oh, believe me, I study science, but evolution is no science. Your modern science is filled with faulty assumptions and is going on a dangerous path.

Faulty assumptions? There is so much of the science world that doesn't make any sense without evolution being even mildly valid,resulting other things make more sense and have allowed science to progress in real applicable directions. If evolution was entirely fictitious and as terrible as you make it sound, we would not have many of the important things we do today.

Thanks to the theory of evolution we can now cultivate our own insulin, saving millions of lives around the world every year. If evolution had no real world application, your right it would be nothing more than hearsay and an near useless hypothesis, but it's done so much for the scientific world that unless substantial proof arises to contradict it, it is going to remain a "truth" . Not to mention than it would invalidate KNOWN methods of x, y and z that were only brought about in relation to the theory of evolution. Meaning what, we deluded ourselves into thinking medicine worked?

There is also a difference between being slightly cocky and attacking other people from a self justified position of higher moral and social authority.

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

I like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're mocking me by saying that I don't know science? Oh, believe me, I study science, but evolution is no science. Your modern science is filled with faulty assumptions and is going on a dangerous path. There is NO basis for evolution. So if you have many things that have the same DNA or whatnot, you'd say "oh they're related!" But it can also suggest the case for a common creator. *gasp* You mean... God? Yes, an absolute! What's the matter? Can't face the fact an absolute being exists?

What the hell does this even mean? It should be noted that science does not exist to mindlessly support its theories, but to observe and draw conclusions about said observations. If there is something found tomorrow that actually disproves evolution, I will not hesitate to start to base my beliefs around that. To make this post justifiable, lets just list off some stuff that supports evolution:

  • fossil records show that species have indeed slowly changed over time
  • you can literally SEE evolution happening in some bacteria.
  • DNA and RNA are similar in different organisms that appear to be similar, and your argument that states that they could have a common creator makes no sense at all. It defies all of the research that has been put into biology for the last 100 years.

Not to mention that most cancer treatment (most notably breast cancer) is based upon the mutations in your genes (evolution!!!), AND IS ENTIRELY BASED UPON THE CONCEPTS THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DEBUNK!!! guess what! These treatments work! I live in Portland, and know some of the people at OHSU (which has one of the leading cancer programs in the world) who do this research, so trust me, I know what I'm talking about. No offense, (I actually don't mean that, I'm not to worried about offending you) but you seem to be WAY in over your head here.

Oh and look, I can use dumb formatting for extra emphasis too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resisting the urge to troll really hard here.

But I just have to.

SUMMARY OF THREAD SO FAR!

wraith - "God is absolute, and therefore evolution is false! You can't show me evidence that proves it! Even if you do, I am going to ignore all evidence presented to me anyways and repeat the same thing over and over, so don't even try!"

Okami - "Well, I'm Spiritual, but I see no reason to be like ^."

Everyone Else - "We respect your beliefs. However, we disagree. This is why... *evidence, examples, and logic* "

So now that we all understand, we can move on to actual debate, yes? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a super long post written out, but I'm going to burn it down to a few small paragraphs that really show my point.

Wraith, since you seem to be the main advocate for God and the bible that hasn't basically said, "I believe in God because its easier just to believe in God and conform," or hasn't posted some totally irrational form of logic, this post is mainly directed at you.

In one of your posts, you stated that it was impossible to breed a horse with a donkey. I agree. Can you breed a turtle with a snake? No. This we can agree on.

However, could you consider that at one point you could? The embryos of turtles and snakes are remarkably similar. I wonder why this is. Furthermore, if God did indeed plan out everything, then did he really plan for the embryos of all phylum chordata to have extremely similar features, however when in adult stage they are completely different and obviously cannot breed?

Could it possibly be that at one point in time, there was just ONE chordata. Then a group of this hypothetical chordata species moved to a different location. Suddenly one of them had a small genetic mutation that allowed him to survive better. Since it was a small genetic mutation, he could still breed with the other chordata species and he did. Then he passed it down to his kids, and they passed it down, and eventually another small genetic mutation happenned, and over time these small genetic mutations in many different environments produced extreme results.

And if you must tie this into religion, christianity, and God, then you can! Thats the great thing. Maybe God really did create everything. Maybe he is a transcendent omniscient being that is behind everything in science, humanity, and the world. What if he did create the big bang, what if he is behind evolution, what if he is behind science? If the viewpoint of the church followed a belief that had a little more reasonable logic in my point of view, then I would be religions; however as it is, I have never seen a good argument as to why the bible should be seen as fact.

On the other hand, that is a misinterpretation in itself; from my limited knowledge of religion, I was under the impression that the Bible is a guide to living a good life. In that, I must agree. If people interpret the parables in the bible in an intended way that enables them to live a peaceful, prosperous life, then I am all for it. Maybe though, just maybe, it goes a little overboard; in my opinion, the bible wasn't meant to be fact, and it never was; a guide to living your life in parables should never be associated with fact.

Science is not fact either. Science is the art of attempting to find fact.

Then again, you know all of this. So why aren't you using that knowledge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you must tie this into religion, christianity, and God, then you can! Thats the great thing. Maybe God really did create everything. Maybe he is a transcendent omniscient being that is behind everything in science, humanity, and the world. What if he did create the big bang, what if he is behind evolution, what if he is behind science? If the viewpoint of the church followed a belief that had a little more reasonable logic in my point of view, then I would be religions; however as it is, I have never seen a good argument as to why the bible should be seen as fact.

You summed up my last 3 or 4 posts! :D But seriously, I agree with this and it's my starting point for a debate. As it

A: Sets a respectful environment for a debate

B: Provides you with my basic knowledge of the topics at hand

C: Brings up relevant questions that CAN be debated

But every time I say it, someone goes on another tangent or repeats something not useful. I'm pretty sure almost ignoring my post entirely.

Then again, you know all of this. So why aren't you using that knowledge?

Nothing to actually debate over, just childish y/n arguments so far. A few people simply stating what they believe and for the most part responding with, its my belief you can't shake my conviction blah blah blah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, evolution has pretty much been accepted as fact, and it's nonreligious, so it's taught in public schools.

If that were the case, hon, we wouldn't be sitting here, having this debate.

Like I said, I'll give my examples when I have the time to do so. Handwriting pages upon pages of Psychology notes because your printer is out of ink takes some time, you know. Ugh, finals week will be the very death of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that were the case, hon, we wouldn't be sitting here, having this debate.

Like I said, I'll give my examples when I have the time to do so. Handwriting pages upon pages of Psychology notes because your printer is out of ink takes some time, you know. Ugh, finals week will be the very death of me.

I'm pretty sure that the majority of people against evolution are against it because of a religion and that the majority of the scientific community accepts it as fact.

Either way, you know what I meant...xD

Buy more ink? Or type up the notes, put it on a portable hard drive, and print it out at a library.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buy more ink? Or type up the notes, put it on a portable hard drive, and print it out at a library.

You couldn't have said that two weeks ago when I actually needed that idea?

Okami: Just because a debate is happening, doesn't prevent it from being widely accepted.

Look at global warming. Massive, massive debates at one point in time yet it was widely accepted as fact. (don't get me into that one)

Evolution is like an infinite jigsaw puzzle. There are billions of pieces to the puzzle. Each piece is a different species. When its fully put together, you can see a record of exactly where every single species in the world at that point in time evolved from. We are not even close to completing that jigsaw puzzle, and while we have extra clues like when a certain species was living based on radioactive and carbon dating, we have yet to find a fossil thats completely out of place and doesnt fit into anything. And when we do find one, there will most likely be another explanation. As far as I can tell, the Bible has no evidence whatsoever to support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...