Debate creationism or evolution

Man, this argument has definitely gotten heated. I guess I'll step in with a piece of "fresh" evidence. This evidence comes from a life form discovered in 1989, I believe. Sometime in the '80s, anyway. Since its discovery, you can hardly walk down the block without seeing someone who hasn't had an encounter with it at one time or another. Whole countries are plagued by it, and no one can come up with an answer for how to get rid of it.

This life form is the Advanced Immuno-Deficiency Virus, more commonly known as AIDS. Why can't we seem to find a way to get rid of it? Because every time we find something that seems to work, it "changes" so as not to be affected. Sure, every once in a while there'll be one or two individual viruses that posess that same quality the previous ones had that allowed us to be rid of them, but they are (gasp) gotten rid of the same way, so they don't last long. This is the very basis of natural selection. These "changes" that seem to come from every new generation of this virus are what cause evolution.

Feel free to rip that apart, I'm just slightly tired at the moment and thusly probably not making much sense. This is the biggest piece of evidence for me at the moment, however.

 

I think the article tried to state that the original Darwinian theory of "random mutations" doesn't work.

The document wasn't written to DISPROVE evolution (if you thought it was, well... heh). But rather to disprove the erred idea that if evolution is true, the bible is wrong. It is a christian apologetics site (directed at catholics), showing how religion and science do not necessarily contradict each other.

Of course, if you're more likely an anti-religious person, i doubt the document will have any use.

See, I think the creationism/evolution debate starts with this premise:

"The account of Genesis MUST be interpreted literally". And what if it must not? The book of genesis was written by some ancient scribes, and it was more to rebuke the pagan ideas that the sun or the moon were gods.

The Bible wasn't meant to be written as a scientific book, but as a religious book.

So, "do we come from monkeys OR God" is a false question. Because it implies even/or, instead of both/and. Like...

What if our bodies were modelled after evolution, and God gave the first "true human" a soul?

That's the point. Frankly, I think "creation science" is just a ridiculous claim, pseudoscience to make the gullible believe that the book of Genesis is scientifically accurate.

And this has a backlash effect: People who believe in real science would tend to classify all christians as creationist biggots.

Nice help, creationism.

In any case, a catholic doesn't need to believe that "creation science" crap. For a catholic, faith and science do not contradict each other, since they are both a gift from God.

 

Darwin advocated natural selection, not truly random mutation. Furthermore, everybody knows that evolutionary theory has had to have some retooling over its lifespan. Nobody denies this.

Besides, if I can refute points, I should.

With all the cookie cutter creationist arguments, it certainly seemed that way.

Speaking from a scientific point, the Bible IS wrong when it comes to creation. There ARE those who insist the Bible is to be taken literally.

Thats the stance of creationists.

If someone willingly admits that the Bible is NOT a valid scientific source, then there is no conflict.

Nobody refutes this except for Creationists (aka fundamentalists) who insist that the Bible is literal truth.

Why the differentation? How do we know humans start with souls to begin with, or that animals do not have souls? Indeed, perhaps God dispenses souls due to certain acts/behavioural patterns, or even when certain combinations of materials are made.

Good.

Wrong. Myself and Mike Wong (of stardestroyer.net) and millions of others do not jump the gun and label all christians as creationist bigots.

Well, anyone stupid enough to believe in creationism isn't likely to help anyones cause.

 

how can you believe in a soul but not creationism? i also believe that you shouln't take the bible litteraly(spelled it wrong i think). but just like book has its creator, s must the world. and whoever created the world created man.

 

Why does it have to have a creator? There are no signs that point to a creator on the landscape of the world.
Just like the mold growing in that old cup of tea on my desk, it just happened because the right conditions were there.
Is that so hard to understand?
And you can't compare a book to the planet earth.

 

Religious beliefs are not always creationist in nature. Perhaps I have a different concept of a soul than you. How you could not realise this on your own, I have no idea.

THATS WHAT CREATIONISM DOES. Creationism is the belief that the Biblical accounts of creation are 100% literally correct; that God did it in 7 days and the Earth is only thousands of years old. Clearly you assume that being against creationism means that I am against all religions, which is wrong and a bigoted assumption on your part.

Then who created that creator? If you say "He was always there", then why is it hard to believe that somehow the Universe always was too?