Debate creationism or evolution

the reason that dust could not have been a single celled organism is because dust is not a living organism. true it has minerals and all but it does not have a life of its own.

 

Then who says the universe (in essence) isn't eternal? You said it yourself, something can't come from nothing. So where did God come from then? He -had- to have had some "beginning" in one way or another.

First and foremost, there is always the theory that God simply couldn't explain evolution to primitive man and hence had to use stories and analogies. That is of course assuming God truly did bother humanity with his "explanations" on some form of semi-regular basis.

Second, intelligent design is bunk. All it is is idle speculation with no proof, while evolution has a lot of evidence. Furthermore, it complicates things by adding in another factor.

I mean, I could say "actually, continental drift isn't exactly right. You see, there are really gigantic gyroscopic machines built by gnomes 40 kilometers beneath the surface of the earth which move the continents." Well, you can't disprove it, since we can't get that deep. However, I've done jack diddly when it comes to proving it.

Given that we've observed evolution in the modern world, I doubt that. Also, why would he bother making belief in Him any harder?

"Durrrrr, I think I'll give humans very, very good reasons to doubt that I created them, and then punish them for trying to be rational."

Pretty sick if you ask me. It's like leaving a cookie jar open, posting a big sign reading "HEY KIDS! HAVE SOME FREE COOKIES!", putting cookies into the jar, and then slapping them when they go have a cookie!

If a friend lied to you about something to see if you would stay loyal to him, would you really consider him a friend? To me, that pretty much indicates a childish ego that needs to be filled.

Albiet evolution has plenty of evidence to back itself up, and if evidence came out tomorrow that irrefutably proved it wrong, the people who believed in it would -accept- this.

Evolution is not a theory on how the universe was created. C'mon, you know better than that.

Except that evolution has evidence to back up what it postulates.

 

We harped our Catholic religion instructor for a clearer view on this one. (Bear with me) He said that asking what came before God was an impossible question. When the universe was created, time begain as well. Thus, it is impossible to ask what came before God because he preceeded the universe and at that point... there was no time :glazed: .

This made sense to me and the rest of the class. This is a faith-only response. There is no answer that we will know of in this lifetime.

I do not take sides with creationism or evolution. God creates things through evolution; what he wills in the heavens, evolves here on earth. This also makes sense to me.

 

Prove it. It may make sense to you, but why? How do you know God didn't just create the universe, and then let it go from there, letting natural mechanics determine what happened?

 

I think That Guy was trying to imply that by "dust", God really meant one-celled organisms. However given the limited scientific knowledge of primitive man, trying to explain one-celled organisms would have been futile, and hence he used a metaphor.

 

How do you know he didn't? There is no proof for or against what I said. All that I can say is "I take some comfort in believing this" and thats all. Until I die, i'll never know what the truth is.

 

Using that logic, there really ARE gigantic gyroscopic machines built by gnomes moving the continents because I cannot disprove it.

However, in debate, the onus falls on YOU to prove YOUR position.

 

There IS a way to believe in both creationism and evolution, and that's because it doesn't emphasize either. The theory is called deism, and for those of you who don't know what that is, it's the theory that "God" or some supernatural being somehow created the universe and then abandoned it, leaving everything and everyone to fend for themselves naturally. The analogy most often used is a watchmaker who built everything and set it in motion, but has no control over the gears themselves. He only watches.

What do you guys think of that notion, that something supernatural created everything but since then it's all scientific? A LOT of prominent philosophers follow this theory, such as Aristotle, Rene Descartes, David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant. It also was the religion of choice for the bulk of America's founding fathers like Washington, Jefferson and Franklin.

Thoughts, anyone?

 

the simple fact of the matter is, we do not know how the universe came into being. we do not know when the universe came into being. we do not know even IF the universe came into being (stew on that one for a while).

you can say "god did it" all you want, but just so long as you realise that you are making it up. there is no basis in fact, there is no proof. it is a story, a fairy tale.


and as to that thing with god living in another dimension.. so god is just another alien? perhaps god in the old testament was the equivelant of a 10 year old boy wity his first pet dog. then he leaves and goes off to college, so he gets a new pet for the dog to play with (jesus) while he is away, however the old pet kills the new pet (crucifiction) and god never returned to us again, because he's too busy doing drugs and skipping classes.

prove me wrong
you can't

I can#t prove you wrong
for exactly the same reason


think about it

 

Creationism specifically states that God handmade all things, and that the Genesis accounts are true.

Furthermore, evolution is, for the last ****ing time, NOT a theory on how the universe began or even a theory on how life exactly began.

 

I mean, come on. The whole basis of God is that you have to believe in something blindly. That opens up for this to be the biggest fake ever. I mean, someone could have just made this stuff up. Who really knows if anything about creationism is real. I don't really have follow either of them. I don't have enough information, and I really don't care. I'm here, and that's all that matters to me.

 

I already read it, if I absolutely must lean in ethier direction it would be with evolution it seems more plausible, yet I will not discount creationism as impossible although I think religion should not be taken literally, I think religion has it's purpose but that purpose is not to explain how our world works as it does.

 

So despite evidence to the contrary, you're willing to say "this fairy tale may have actually happened despite a lack of evidence and self-contradictory portions of the story"?

Maybe I should ask another question. What, in evolution, do you find that causes you to shy away from siding with it for sure?

 

There is nothing to shy me away expect the possibility of creationism however improbable that is. As much as I know evolution is more realistic and plausible than creationism. So you can say creationism is the cause of the rift in my thoughts. Sure creationism is improbable but not impossible. For a long time we believed that rocks fell to the earth in order to regain their natural position, it was not until later that was proven wrong. Same could be said in ethier case of creationism or evolution. The point of it is that no matter how seemingly true it seems, it does not mean it is the truth.

 

So I shouldn't believe that I have two ears because there might be a magical, invisible third one inside my stomach?

 

That wasn't Descartes' idea, but Aquinas'. Read his summa theologica about it. OK, since I haven't posted here (IF posted) in a long time, i'll scan for further posts to answer ^^

 

Apes 'R' not us

Checkout this issue on envoy magazine, a catholic apologetic magazine

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story1.html

Here we see matters regarding interpretation of the Bible, creationism, evolution, etc. etc.

(I like this magazine, its covers are somewhat fun (even a bit how would I say... directed at "the masses", like curiosity magazines - but its articles are really neat).

Anyway, please comment your opinion on the article.

 

I'm willing to give it a lookie...

Misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. It's hardly "random".

So? How does this discount evolution?

Given the timescale involved, we couldn't outright show a fish evolving into a frog. However, we have seen new speciations arise.

I love the lack of source here. That could simply mean "we've gone from 6 to 7 people who don't agree with it."

Right here was when I began to discount the article as uneducated clap trap. Every ancient version of a modern animal is a transitional form between an even more primitive form and the later, more modern form. Maybe these people have been watching The Fly and think a transitional form is some freakish hybrid.

As far as fossil abundance goes, when you go into a forest, do you see thousands upon thousands of squirrel skeletons? Obviously, no, because usually "intact fossilization is extremely rare, so you obviously won't find billions of any kind of intact fossil. Most dead animals become food for other animals, limestone, or fossil fuels. That's why it's so difficult to reconstruct the fossil record, and that's why we will never have a complete picture. But the occasional imperfection does not disprove a pattern; if you see the number sequence: 1 2 3 4 5 6 _ 8 9, would you dismiss the idea of a recognizable pattern?" (quote from www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Quickies.shtml)

Finally, for the final nail in that coffin... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Source?

They're still going on about transitional forms? These things were slow, gradual, subtle changes, not sudden leaps (most of the time. However, modern theory accomadates both gradual and drastic changes).

Obviously because that particular form is well suited to its environment. And that ability to slightly alter to adapt to its environment IS evolution.

What?! Did they miss all the primitive pre-humans?!

How do we know that the free will isn't just an illusion though? How do we know animals don't have free will? As far as consciences go, how do we know those aren't due to living in societies with some form of moral standards (in other words, learned behavior)? Cart before the horse fallacy.

Those came gradually. We did not just suddenly start with them. As far as languages go, haven't we observed primitive languages in dolphins, whales, and some chimps? We've taught chimps sign language, haven't we?

Maybe not a concept as complex as democrats and republicans; however we have observed chimps grasping other social concepts, including fair pay.

Furthermore, you can't run modern software on a 15 year old computer. It may simply be a matter of mental capacity.

They were probably wiped out by smarter versions of man later on. Whats so hard to grasp about that?

Another creationist argument which has been refuted so many times I have completely lost faith in the author.

Why?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_2.html

How recent is this article? I refuse to believe this guy could have written this recently.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html

"durrr, yup, yup, yup, lets not bother putting up a quote, I'm sure people will sheepishly believe it."

Bullshit. People acknowledge evolution because it fits the facts. I could care less what religion you preach unless it's holding back science and/or other freedoms.

Once again, evolution is not random at all.

Yeah, what with all the wonderful jihads, crusades and inquisitions...

Nazism was based on "divine right", you idiot. I'm sorry, but at this point you simply do not deserve respect. Not only are you poorly educated on scientific issues, your history knowledge is sorely lacking. Besides, the first edition of Mein Kampf indicates that Hitler was a young earth creationist at the time of its writing.

Genocide and racism existed well before the theory of evolution.

Also, please read this...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006.html

So, if I have two video experts who disagree on whether Sony or Panasonic is better, I should disregard TV as a whole?

Says who? The Bible? Why is that a supreme source? I can say God said a lot of things, doesn't mean it's true.

*at this point, I am at my character limit. More in the next post.*

 

*continued from prior post*

We've become taller over time, and have less body hair.

Can you blame them for being hostile when religion held science back for centuries and continues to do so?

So when your Pope discared the traditional view of Hell and essentially stated that people of any faith would be saved if they followed their beliefs and moral compass, you counted those as victories? To me, that's more like "Ok, ok, I admit, we bullshitted for a while."

I'm sending an email regarding this to the publication, including a link to the article. Here's hoping I get a reply!