Poll: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Poll Options
View poll results: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Creationism
656 16%
Evolutionism
2531 62%
Rawr! Dinosaurs!
900 22%
Voters: 4087.
Page 3 of 351
#81
Quote by Blind In 1 Ear
yea and that is fu*king stupid sorry to say. when you do that, you are just picking and choosing what you think is best. its not about actual evidence anymore. its just personal opinions and dont really mean anything when finding answers. if you think god guided evolution, your belief isnt backed up by any side. its illogical to believe in this. the two as is dont mix and when you try to mix them, its useless because it isnt backed by anything.


You don't know anything about religion, do you? It doesn't need to be proven 100%. There are still large parts of evolution still unexplained by science, and people use faith in God and the bible to fill in the blanks. It's no different than using faith in evolution to fill in the unproven parts in it. All 3 theories take a certain amounts of faith to believe in because none have been proven without reasonable doubt...
#82
Quote by Mutant Corn
Pseudo-science...like when soil samples from several parts of the world showed evidence of the flood in a time period corresponding to the one mentioned in genesis? Or maybe when one of king Solomon's stables was found by archaeologists that corresponded to the size the kingdom was supposed to be? Or when the story of Jesus was predicted over 800 years before his birth? Or when astronomers found that the "star" over Jesus's birth was actually there near the time when he was supposed to be born?

...I could go on with this all day...


They're historical details not scientific details. And dubious historical details at that.


There have been thousands of floods in the history of the world. The problem there is saying that it must be the flood mentioned in genesis. There's no real evidence to say that it is that flood, people simply assume that because the bible says there was a flood, and they found evidence of floods in places across the world along time ago, they must some how be interelated.


As for the star part, there are literally countless stars. I'm sure there were stars above where jesus was supposedly born at some point in history.
Last edited by rizo299 at Dec 16, 2007,
#83
Quote by blues-guitarist
It says in the book of Genesis, referring to the creation of animal life that God created first the fish of the sea, followed by the birds of the air, followed by the beasts of the earth, after which finally came man.

Here is my theory as to how, exactly, this fits into historical context. From the beginning, it has been my belief that the seven days described in genesis are, in fact, seven eras or indeterminate lengths of time.

As is recognized scientific fact, the first animals were sea-dwellers. Fish and the like. There’s your “fish of the sea”.

Followed by them were the famed prehistoric beasts, the dinosaurs. Now, of course, most dinosaurs were land dwellers, but it is very important to note that this is when the first animals capable of flight appeared. Furthermore, several well-known dinosaur species are, in fact the ancestors of birds. The T-rex, for example,
unceremoniously evolving into the humble chicken. There’s your “birds of the air”.

Then, of course, the dinosaurs died out, and in came the ice age. It was at this point a new manner of creatures came about, entirely land-dwelling: mammals. No fliers here. Just earth-dwelling, fur-covered mammals. There’s your “beasts of the earth”.

And, towards the end of the ice age came none other than us. Man. And then, the Lord our God rested. It’s funny how just those few verses actually (fairly accurately) cover several billion years of pre-human existence.

And that's my theory on creation and evolution
bump
"There's Jimmy Page, the greatest thief of American black music who ever walked the earth."
-Homer Simpson
#84
Quote by Mutant Corn
Pseudo-science...like when soil samples from several parts of the world showed evidence of the flood in a time period corresponding to the one mentioned in genesis? Or maybe when one of king Solomon's stables was found by archaeologists that corresponded to the size the kingdom was supposed to be? Or when the story of Jesus was predicted over 800 years before his birth? Or when astronomers found that the "star" over Jesus's birth was actually there near the time when he was supposed to be born?

...I could go on with this all day...

please do. two of those things arent impressive. the ark stuff is laughable. the flood as described in the bible couldnt have happened and is embaressing to believe in. besides, you dont think different parts of the world could have had a flood around the same time? around the same era? thats not even evidence of noah's ark or any of that story. thats just evidence of flooding. it happens all the time. but there isnt any evidence of a global flood and the very notion of one isnt supported by any science. there isnt enough water in the first place.
#85
Quote by rizo299
They're historical details not scientific details. And dubious historical details at that.


There have been thousands of floods in the history of the world. The problem there is saying that it must be the flood mentioned in genesis. There's no real evidence to say that it is that flood, people simply assume that because the bible says there was a flood, and they found evidece of floods in places across the world along time ago, they must some how be interelated.



Umm, no. Almost every major culture in the world records such an event, and the soil samples I mentioned indicate an immensely massive flood, in all of those places, at the same time.

And how was Jesus's story dubious? There were over 300 prophecies pertaining to him, written by several different people, many living in separate centuries from one another, and he matched them all. The odds against some random person person being able to do that are millions to 1, which by scientific definition means it can't happen.
Nope, no sig here.
Last edited by Mutant Corn at Dec 16, 2007,
#86
Quote by bequickorbedead
You don't know anything about religion, do you? It doesn't need to be proven 100%. There are still large parts of evolution still unexplained by science, and people use faith in God and the bible to fill in the blanks. It's no different than using faith in evolution to fill in the unproven parts in it. All 3 theories take a certain amounts of faith to believe in because none have been proven without reasonable doubt...


please explain in your own words the large parts of evolution that are unexplained.

evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt actually. its not up for debate. ive already explained that its a proven event. i suggest you reasearch evolution and science for that matter.

faith is described as believing in something without logical proof or material evidence. science and evolution have these things. therefor, there is no faith required. meanwhile, there is no evidence of god, there is no evidence that god used evolution....in fact, its illogical to believe in god.

when you believe in god, you either have to accept that he wasnt created. he was the first cause. but seeing as no one knows if he even exists, its illogical to believe the universe needed a creator. if you accept that god doesnt need one, you accept that somethings just dont need to be planned or created. and occams razor tells us to deal with what is known first. god doesnt fit in there. we know the universe is here. so logically, until there is evidence of god there is no point of working him in in any theory.

so there you have it. you need faith because there isnt any logical proof or material evidence. but there is for science. if there are unknown parts, no right thinking scientist would say they know the answer if they cant back it up. but they use evidence and logic to try and explain these parts.
#87
Quote by Joshrocker48
I didn't elaborate. What I said was that I am a creationist which means belief in a creator (intelligent design). I am by no means saying evolution is non-existent. Because there is proof of it. Organisms do change from generation to generation. But also proof of evolution does not mean that there was no intelligent design. Saying that would also be a logical fallacy.
Nevermind, then.
#88
Quote by Mutant Corn
Umm, no. Almost every major culture in the world records such an event, and the soil samples I mentioned indicate an immensely massive flood, in all of those places, at the same time.

And how was Jesus's story dubious? There were over 300 prophecies pertaining to him, and he matched them all. The odds against some random person person being able to do that are millions to 1, which by scientific definition means it can't happen.



I sure there have been plenty of floods int he history of the world. And I'm sure that most cultures have been affected by one at least once. And its quite possable that at some point a number of floods happened in a relatively short space of time. How that is proof of the biblical flood however, is something you should explain to me. Because, frankly, thats not exacty something that would be accepted in court. Soil samples, believe it or not, don't come with exact dates on them. I doubt even the best scientists with the best equipment in the world could say that all those floods happened on march 3rd 3000 BC. Even the most accurate testing would only be able to date those floods within 100 years or so of each other.

As for the prophecies. You don't believe your horoscope do you? Vague, broad descriptions of something that is almost certainly going to apply to some event eventually.

Millions to 1? Hardly.
Last edited by rizo299 at Dec 16, 2007,
#89
Quote by Mutant Corn
Umm, no. Almost every major culture in the world records such an event, and the soil samples I mentioned indicate an immensely massive flood, in all of those places, at the same time.

And how was Jesus's story dubious? There were over 300 prophecies pertaining to him, written by several different people, many living in separate centuries from one another, and he matched them all. The odds against some random person person being able to do that are millions to 1, which by scientific definition means it can't happen.


there were actually many people around that time claiming to be the messiah. they even performed miracles and fulfilled prophecies.

as for the flood, id like to see a source of these soil samples because ive never heard of anything that indicates a massive flood. as for a record, no its not uncommon for a flood story. but really, thats not evidence of one. many similar stories are recycled in almost every religion.
#90
Quote by rizo299
I sure there have been plenty of floods int he history of the world. And I'm sure that most cultures have been affected by one at least once. And its quite possable that at some point a number of floods happened in a relatively short space of time. How that is proof of the biblical flood however, is something you should explain to me. Because, frankly, thats not exacty something that would be accepted in court. Soil samples, believe it or not, don't come with exact dates on them. I doubt even the best scientists with the best equipment in the world could say that all those floods happened on march 3rd 3000 BC. Even the most accurate testing would only be able to date those floods within 100 years or so of each other.

As for the prophecies. You don't believe your horoscope do you? Vague, broad descriptions of something that is almost certainly going to apply to some event eventually.



Vague...like when it was predicted that a virgin would give birth? Doesn't sound too vague to me. Plus, all 300 something didn't just apply to some random guy someday...they all applied to the same guy within 30 years.
Nope, no sig here.
Last edited by Mutant Corn at Dec 16, 2007,
#91
Quote by The Madcap
Nevermind, then.



I should have elaborated. I didn't phrase my first post well.
#93
Quote by garden of grey
I don't have time for a big argument right now, but I would like to throw out an observation:

I find it interesting that you can rely on ancient cultures recording techniques to conclude that a world wide flood happened all at once. It would be hard to tell if some of these big floods were months apart, let alone decades or centuries.

HOWEVER, you can't trust carbon dating. Even though it is extremely accurate, you are able to ignore that it can predict as far back as 60,000 years. You won't trust a scientific procedure that is very accurate even in it's broadest terms but you can make sense of an impossible worldwide flood out of vague references that are hard to date.

and im pretty sure these soil samples need to be dated.
#95
Quote by Blind In 1 Ear
what evidence is there that that story even happened? what evidence is there that she was even a virgin?


Well for one thing, claiming that she was carryin the child of God was not the easy way out. She risked death from more than one person by doing that.


I don't trust carbon dating because the last time I checked on it, the process had determined that a dead cat, recently deceased, was over 2000 years old.
Nope, no sig here.
Last edited by Mutant Corn at Dec 16, 2007,
#96
Quote by Mutant Corn
Umm, no. Almost every major culture in the world records such an event, and the soil samples I mentioned indicate an immensely massive flood, in all of those places, at the same time.

And how was Jesus's story dubious? There were over 300 prophecies pertaining to him, written by several different people, many living in separate centuries from one another, and he matched them all. The odds against some random person person being able to do that are millions to 1, which by scientific definition means it can't happen.


LOL WUT?

I think probability is math, not science. Furthermore, it has odds, which means it's possible.

A problem with the "flood evidence": In your lifetime, how many floods have there been? Several. In different parts of the world. No dating method is exact, which means that there is a significant timespan in which the floods you mention could have happened.

Also: links please. Not to Christian websites, but legit scientific journals.

One more thing: I'm a devout Catholic, I'm just informed enough to know that the Bible is not fact.
A wise man is not wise because of his wiseness, but because of his manness.

Quote by floppypick
Penis.. do digimon have them?
#100
Quote by Darth_Queso
LOL WUT?

I think probability is math, not science. Furthermore, it has odds, which means it's possible.

A problem with the "flood evidence": In your lifetime, how many floods have there been? Several. In different parts of the world. No dating method is exact, which means that there is a significant timespan in which the floods you mention could have happened.

Also: links please. Not to Christian websites, but legit scientific journals.

One more thing: I'm a devout Catholic, I'm just informed enough to know that the Bible is not fact.


I don't believe in the whole not possible thing...just stating modern science's definition.
Nope, no sig here.
#102
Quote by Mutant Corn
Vague...like when it was predicted that a virgin would give birth? Doesn't sound too vague to me. Plus, all 300 something didn't just apply to some random guy someday...they all applied to the same guy within 30 years.

And they probably applied to hundreds of other people who history has forgotten.


Also, there's no evidence that mary was a virgin. It vaguely mentions it in the bible. But thats hardly evidence is it. If she was pregnant before she was married to joseph she probably would have been stoned to death (hence the idea brought up in the second century that she had sex with a roman soldier and married joseph after to save her life, not exactly scientific but its a possable situation if you take ot roman soldier and replace it with "unnamed man") and if she suddenly became pregnant magically when she was with joseph, she probably would have been stoned to death for being unfaithful.


EDIT: trying to catch up.

Carbon dating's margin of error doesn't go against sciences use of it. No scientist would ever try to use carbon dating to tell you an exact date, only an era.

The cat being dated as 6000 years old is infact quite accurate when taken relatively to the age of the earth. Seeing as the earth is around 4.54 billion years old, I'd say 6000 years is pretty close to the mark.
Last edited by rizo299 at Dec 16, 2007,
#104
For all of you who say Evolutionism, I have studied this for years. I used to believe in this theory. However, YOU CANNOT SUPPORT THIS THEORY and EXPLAIN DNA! I am sorry. Even if you don't believe in any religion (which is fine, I dont and I believe in creation) You cannot explain the origin of DNA through slow evolution. It is impossible. However evolution exists of course, natural selection is apart of life and is undeniable.

But Evolution CANNOT give us the answer to the origin of DNA (the building blocks of life)

Its a very weak argument, believe me I have studied and produced numerous papers being a former believer.
#105
Quote by ooblah
For all of you who say Evolutionism, I have studied this for years. I used to believe in this theory. However, YOU CANNOT SUPPORT THIS THEORY and EXPLAIN DNA! I am sorry. Even if you don't believe in any religion (which is fine, I dont and I believe in creation) You cannot explain the origin of DNA through slow evolution. It is impossible. However evolution exists of course, natural selection is apart of life and is undeniable.

But Evolution CANNOT give us the answer to the origin of DNA (the building blocks of life)

Its a very weak argument, believe me I have studied and produced numerous papers being a former believer.

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

DNA is a naturally occuring chemical, consisting of neucleotides attached to a "back bone" made of sugars and phosphate groups
Last edited by rizo299 at Dec 16, 2007,
#106
Quote by ooblah
For all of you who say Evolutionism, I have studied this for years. I used to believe in this theory. However, YOU CANNOT SUPPORT THIS THEORY and EXPLAIN DNA! I am sorry. Even if you don't believe in any religion (which is fine, I dont and I believe in creation) You cannot explain the origin of DNA through slow evolution. It is impossible. However evolution exists of course, natural selection is apart of life and is undeniable.

But Evolution CANNOT give us the answer to the origin of DNA (the building blocks of life)

Its a very weak argument, believe me I have studied and produced numerous papers being a former believer.

We don't know how to explain the development of DNA, therefore a bearded guy in the sky created us?

Real scientific of you.
#107
Quote by ooblah
For all of you who say Evolutionism, I have studied this for years. I used to believe in this theory. However, YOU CANNOT SUPPORT THIS THEORY and EXPLAIN DNA! I am sorry. Even if you don't believe in any religion (which is fine, I dont and I believe in creation) You cannot explain the origin of DNA through slow evolution. It is impossible. However evolution exists of course, natural selection is apart of life and is undeniable.

But Evolution CANNOT give us the answer to the origin of DNA (the building blocks of life)

Its a very weak argument, believe me I have studied and produced numerous papers being a former believer.


How is it impossible? You go through a paragraph and a sentence saying it's impossible, but fail to explain why.
#109
Quote by Mutant Corn
Vague...like when it was predicted that a virgin would give birth? Doesn't sound too vague to me. Plus, all 300 something didn't just apply to some random guy someday...they all applied to the same guy within 30 years.



Virgins don't give birth.

Prophecies aren't exactly hard to claim as fulfiled after the time, especially when they are vauge.

I predict that man will set foot on another planets. Not a particularly amazing eh?

But if I'd said that on Januray 5th 2022 a man called Harry will step on Mars, and I was right, you'd be impressed!
Quote by HunterRiggs10
Your post completes me.

Quote by mrwaffles
I think you've won this thread.

Quote by freedoms_stain
darthteet just scored big on the win scale.
#111
Quote by ooblah
For all of you who say Evolutionism, I have studied this for years. I used to believe in this theory. However, YOU CANNOT SUPPORT THIS THEORY and EXPLAIN DNA! I am sorry. Even if you don't believe in any religion (which is fine, I dont and I believe in creation) You cannot explain the origin of DNA through slow evolution. It is impossible. However evolution exists of course, natural selection is apart of life and is undeniable.

But Evolution CANNOT give us the answer to the origin of DNA (the building blocks of life)

Its a very weak argument, believe me I have studied and produced numerous papers being a former believer.

thats because evolution doesnt deal with the origins of life. like i said, 99% of people who deny evolution dont even know what it is.
#113
Quote by -Blue-
Evolution was intelligently designed & created by God.

I think that about solves everything.

Except now you have to find some shred of evidence for that statement.

Good luck with that.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#114
Quote by Mutant Corn
Here's the link that was asked for.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html

(I don't know the site at all, btw. Sorry if it's deemed as a "Christian site")

I suggest reading the guy's bio on the main page

Psuedo-science.
#115
Quote by even_flow
We don't know how to explain the development of DNA, therefore a bearded guy in the sky created us?

Real scientific of you.


exactly. you cant just jump to another unknown. you follow evidence and test and re-test until you find an answer. we know DNA exists. we dont know if god exists. occams razor tells us to deal with what is known first and not to have too many assumptions. that leaves god out.
#116
Quote by -Blue-
Evolution was intelligently designed & created by God.

I think that about solves everything.


And who created god. Creationists say that the Big Bang is impossible beacause "Nothing" can't explode. Then where did god come from?
¯|(°_o)/¯
#117
Quote by rizo299
Psuedo-science.


again with the pseudi-science...what do you call macroevolution?

Did you even read more than the first page?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview.html


Quote by Zox
And who created god. Creationists say that the Big Bang is impossible beacause "Nothing" can't explode. Then where did god come from?

It's quite hard to comprehend, or even understand, but for lack of a better explanation god exists outside of time. There was no beginning to him.
Nope, no sig here.
Last edited by Mutant Corn at Dec 16, 2007,
#118
Quote by Mutant Corn
I don't trust carbon dating because the last time I checked on it, the process had determined that a dead cat, recently deceased, was over 2000 years old.


The last time I checked, anyone could make up bullshit little stories to discredit things/people. Like the fact that YOU touch kiddies at night.

Quote by ooblah
For all of you who say Evolutionism, I have studied this for years. I used to believe in this theory. However, YOU CANNOT SUPPORT THIS THEORY and EXPLAIN DNA! I am sorry. Even if you don't believe in any religion (which is fine, I dont and I believe in creation) You cannot explain the origin of DNA through slow evolution. It is impossible. However evolution exists of course, natural selection is apart of life and is undeniable.


For someone who's supposedly studied it for years you're surprisingly ignorant. Evolution has never and will never be used to explain DNA. That's abiogenesis. Connected but not the same.

Quote by ooblah
But Evolution CANNOT give us the answer to the origin of DNA (the building blocks of life)


Good. Theories that answer things they're not meant to are a bit strange. I don't expect Gravity to give me the answer on the origin of DNA either.

Quote by ooblah
Its a very weak argument, believe me I have studied and produced numerous papers being a former believer.


I don't believe you because you've shown yourself to be a jackass.

Quote by rizo299
Quote by Mutant Corn
Here's the link that was asked for.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html

(I don't know the site at all, btw. Sorry if it's deemed as a "Christian site")

I suggest reading the guy's bio on the main page



Psuedo-science.


Calling it pseudo-science is far too flattering. It's more bullshit than that.
#120
Quote by Mutant Corn
again with the pseudi-science...what do you call macroevolution?

Did you even read more than the first page?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview.html


Macroevolution: A flawed understanding of evolution, followed primarily by creationists who invent fallacial distinctions in an attempt to seem slightly less stupid by admitting the blindingly obvious while still denying the slightly-less-blindingly obvious.

There is no "macroevoltion" or "microevolution". There is just evolution.