Debate creationism or evolution

I my self believe in evolution. I cannot see how man was created by God. I believe in science and hard evidence. I dont mean to be rude but the bible isnt true in my opinion. I think 5 guys got drunk one night decided to write a f*$#ed up story about how man came to be and see if anyone would believe it, and you know what...it worked! I mean how many people believe it? Alot of people. It doesn't matter if others try to show them the holes and errors in the bible and the proof in science they are just so involved and dependent on everything that is in it that they have put a brick wall around their brains to keep the science out. How can Adem and Eve have been the first man and woman to walk the earth when there is proof of evolution. No humans did not evolve from apes. we evolved from a species that through thousands of years came to be chromagnums. No we did not evovle from the neandratha they died of shortly after the chromagnums appeared.

 

I personally choose evolution, simply because I know some people out there who justify it fully. :anime: Okay, the real reason I choose evolution is that there is substantial scientific proof towards it. Not much of an argument at the moment, but we'll see where it leads.

 

Hey, I'm an evolution guy and I don't believe in the Bible either, but your entire post and that snippet in particular is incredibly disrespectful to the many Christians on this board and the billions of Christians worldwide. Most Christians do not have "a brick wall around their brains to keep the science out." They simply have believe in a different set of ideas about the world and they have something you and I don't - faith. It's great to have a firm belief like you do, but don't overgeneralize with garbage like that.

 

tsk tsk

temper temper, i just said what was in my mind at the time and everyones opinion is different so i think you shouldnt judge, alot people are like that believe me i have dicussed this topic in many and i mean many churches and and community groups, and i do have a faith it is called Wicca :catgirl:

 

or imagination... please someone explain to me the fundamental difference between believing in santa clause, and believing in God.

if you look at it closely.. you'll see there isn't one.
and this kind of debate is quite pointless, it has been done to death here, the evolutionary advocates don't know enough science to conclusively prove their points and the creationist .. well I'll call them "people" i suppose, do nothing but quote the bible and call everyone else sinners.

it never ends

 

If you believe that the Bible was written by a bunch of drunkards then who is to say that the story of Christopher Columbus wasn't written by a bunch of drunkards? Who's to say that everything our history books isn't a bunch of lies written by a bunch of drunkards? Who's to say that the story of Christopher Columbus wasn't changed by the government and people over time? Does this mean that Christopher Columbus never existed?

I'm a Christian and I believe in some aspects of evolution(so don't generalize gitarooqueen..). Actually it's pretty obvious that animals and plants adapt to fit their environment. And the animals who carry the traits that allow them to survive long enough reproduce! But who started this? It's highly improbable that the Universe just poofed out of nowhere and all these intricate details just happened for no reason and was all just chance.. although I suppose it is also improbable that God created it.. It all comes down to reasons to believe that God exists and created the Universe, not proofs

 

aaah... a commonn christian argument, seems to answer the question but.. it just doesn't

well, let's look at this first. the story of the bible, and that of christopher columbus are different in a few (few, but important) ways
- christopher columbus never claimed to be the saviour of all mankind
- christopher columbus never claimed to be the son of god
- christopher columbus lived in a much more recent era than J.C., and as such the historical records pertaining to his life and existence are more numerous, better written, it is *NOT* neccesary to translate them from an archaic language (you will find, Many,Many.. Many translation 'issues' with thye bible.. just one is the issue of "thou shalt not kill', certain christians take this to mean 'thous shalt not murder', thus they use this to justify the death penalty.. handy eh?)
- there is no *book* of christopher columbus, documenting his travels and works, all coincidentally written by his 12 closest comrades
- christopher columbus sailed to america, Jesus didn't *unless you believe the mormons*

also, there is no 'story' of columbus.. there is simply historical fact. there are historical facts relating to jesus christ also, such as a man with that name existed around the time the son of god was supposed to, suffice to say it is clear there *was* a man Jesus, that is all.
there is, sadly little historical records of jesus's miracles *other* than the bible, so until more accurate and scientifically documented materials come to light, we'll have to go on erm.. faith?

see christopher columbus

well of course, it was. christopher columbus was (and still is in alot of the world) a revered figure and little attention is paid to the fact that he practically pioneered the slavery industry

(for a nice lil bio on chrissie, http://www.hartford-hwp.com/Taino/docs/columbus.html)

no, of course it also does not mean that christopher columbus was the son of god, but .. I have faith.

 

Who knows? Maybe there is a god, he or she may have decided ,"heh, I let them grow up by themselves, I'll just create the slime that starts it all, I'll call it evolution."

Maybe thats what happened and evolution is just part of God's plan.

 

maybe mr hankie the christmas poo is real, and matt parker and trey stone pay him royalties every time they use him in an episode of south park

 

Here are some of the "proofs" of God's existence, not saying that I agree with all of them but I'm throwing them out for all of you:

First of all, according to Descartes, he has a certain idea of perfection but he does not know where this idea could have come from. Since he is not perfect, because he doubts and is uncertain about a great many things he certainly is not perfect. Therefore, he could clearly and distinctly know that God exists since there must be a perfect being which his idea of "perfection" is based off of. Now the problem with this argument is a circular pattern in his reasoning - for whatever he knows clearly and distinctly to be true he must first know that God exists and is no deceiver: but to know that God exists and is no deceiver he must first know that whatever he perceives clearly and distinctly is true.

Another argument is the teleological view.. Everything is so detailed that only a supreme being could have created it all and who guides everything. An argument against this is that you can simply mix sugar and water together and let it dry out and the outcome will be an intricately patterned crystal.

Then there's the cosmological perspective, there must have something to start the Universe. Anything cannot come from nothing.. Mordeth you sort of skimmed over this point, maybe you can share your view on this one.
(these are just a few of St. Aquinas' and Descartes out of the million attempts to proove God's existence)

Now, St. Anselm began by defining God as "that [being] than which nothing greater can be conceived." If God existed only in the mind, He then would not be the greatest conceivable being, for we could imagine another being that is greater because it would exist both in the mind and in reality, and that being would then be God. Therefore, to imagine God as existing only in the mind but not in reality leads to a logical contradiction; this proves the existence of God both in the mind and in reality.


Now "proof" against God(argument from evil):

• If God exists, then God is all good, all powerful, and all knowing.
• If such a being exists, then such a being would want to prevent unnecessary suffering, would have the power to do it, and would know how to do it.
• However, unnecessary suffering does exist.
• Therefore, a being that is all good, all powerful, and all knowing (i.e. God) does not exist.

An argument against this is that God(or the supreme being) has a plan and maybe everything, including when and how disasters occur are a part of God's almighty plan. Some believe(actually I think it was Kant) that we would be foolish to try to understand a supreme being or God's plan because our reason is too limited to know anything beyond human experience.


Edit: whoever gave this post negative karma, just because you don't agree means does not mean it's a bad post @_@ ****...

 

The typical argument I usually make against this (I actually tend to not believe in God, but it sure is fun to be Devil's Advocate) is that perhaps God created existence and decided to let us deal with ourselves. As in, he/she sort of turns a blind eye towards us. This would explain somewhat how bad thing happen to good people. Because he/she isn't responsible for it. Poor reasoning, it could be torn to shreds, but that is what I'm all about.

 

But if something cannot come from nothing, where did God come from? You can say "God always existed", but how does that work? You could say "God created himself", but something cannot come from nothing. You could say "God existed outside of time", but there was still nothing at some point, but if God is essentially omnipresent in the timeline, where did he come from at all? He had to have been "born" at some point, after all.

Y'know, I'm not sure if it's the wording or what, but I just can't see what you're trying to say here.

No, this is the argument against Gods supposed perfection. Fundies claim God is all perfect and all loving all the time, but we see in the Old Testament that not only does God murder, but he also apologizes for his sins. A perfect God would not do this. Indeed, why would a perfect God create anything at all? That implies that there is a need that must be fulfilled.

Ultimately speculation. We could easily postulate that God is also an incredibly advanced, evil, mad scientist, toying with his creation by giving them hope and then taking it away, and sometimes sparking wars. (I don't believe he is; however, it is another possibility one must admit.)


Getting back on topic, I'm a staunch supporter of evolution.

Oh, and Mordeth, the slave trade existed well before ol' Christopher discovered the Americas.

 

I believe neither creationism nor evolution. Until I find the reasoning to believe ethier I shall continue to stagnate upon both neither refuting it as impossible nor accepting it as truth.

 

Heh...Good point, I mean, it'd be a good point if you took into view that there werre tons of whitnesses, and that it was more recent. And then there was all that complicated crap about the royals paying for the trip. Then you have a whole kingdom that knows about it (unless the royals were a bunch of Idiots and didn't tell anyone [What, you expect to pay that much attentiuon in history class?), then that would be a different story. And then theres even the argument that the world was flat. Some how that would be proof by connection too.

**Sigh** Anyway. I would side about 45% on evolution. Because I'm not one to believe that there was just one man (high being, whatever) That created us or it **you know what I mean**, no matter how mighty he/she is. ^^ Yeah. Though, there is some reasonable agruments as well. Like the nothing can come from nothing. I myslef am...I think my friend called it eclyptic. I have my own beliefes so I dont think anyone would really share my insight. But you all get what I mean.

 

And why, praytell, do you not believe in evolution?

 

may be its that people believe that there is not enough evidence about evolution. All they have to do is find info, its there :catgirl:

 

Zelgadis, I recommend you read this before continuing thinking that evolution somehow doesn't have a solid base to stand on.

 

Quite personally, I believe in evolution; I don't see any real reason not to besides my grandparents throwing "The Book" on me and telling me to believe in God.

Of course, reading back on this all just kinda made me think of something... if something cannot be made of nothing... then where did God come from? I mean, REALLY, was he "just there"? And, if so, why couldn't, technically, the world/universe have been?

I dunno.

 

Good question.. maybe this should be left for another debate though. But if anything cannot come from nothing then how is it that anything can exist since something in the past must have arisen from nothing. There is also the belief that God has always been there, maybe God exists in another dimension where our laws of "beginning and end" do not exist. Therefore, God is eternal and has always been there. Just a random thought ^^;

I don't see why you can't believe in creation and evolutionism at the same time either. According to the Creation account humans came from dust, and maybe the dust could have been a little one celled organism which over possibly millions of years became a human as God shaped it that way. But then again if God is almighty then God could just make it look like we evolved just to throw us off and make the task of faith even harder XD

Creation and Evolutionism are only a couple of the many accounts, there's most likely hundreds of them from around the world coming from people who wish to know just how the Universe was created. Can we really determine which one is correct? It could be a small Madagascar village's account for all we know.

 

Frankly The answers to all your questions will be answered in Either "when you become Clinically insane" or "when you die"

Cause you can debate this until your blue in the face. But in the end there is always your view his view and the Truth. What the truth is.. Who realy can say.

KaMe