FLYGUY
Topic Author
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue May 25, 1999 3:12 pm

Creation Vs. Evolution

Thu Jan 04, 2001 9:21 am

Hi Everyone!

I need help with an upcoming debate I'm having in school. The topic is Creation vs. Evolution and I am on the Creation side; so it would be great if you gave me some facts to support creation and that would knock down evolution.

Thanks in advance,
FLYGUY
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Thu Jan 04, 2001 9:26 am

Do you have even the remotest clue what you are getting yourself into by posting such a question in an overwhelmingly Darwinian secular forum such as this?????
All I can say is, stand by!!! 

Anyway, without getting into a long winded dissertaion, let me just ask two questions:


1: If you were to take a full size dictionary and run it through a paper shredder until it was chopped up into 4,638,489,791 pieces, and then threw them all into the air on a windy day, what are the chances that the pieces will all fall back to earth to re-create that original dictionary?

According to most secularistic (sp?) people, the odds are overwhelmingly high. After all, it's the same basis for their conclusion on evolution

2. How can something come out of nothing, unless something or someONE put it there?

Well?????
 
Guest

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Thu Jan 04, 2001 11:13 am

You won't find any credible proof for creation. Give up the battle before you've lost, okay?
 
Purdue Arrow
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue May 25, 1999 1:49 pm

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Thu Jan 04, 2001 11:18 am

One of the laws of thermodynamic (I believe it is the second) introduces us to the concept of entropy. Entropy is a measure of the level of disorder in a system (i.e. greater entropy equates to less order). According to this to this law of thermodynamics, a closed system will, without intervention, evolve to a state of maximum entropy; that is to say, nature does not naturally become more orderly - it takes an outside force for that happen. Thus, a closed system would not support evolution, but would require an outside force.

Secondly, the theory of evolution states that changes occur very slowly, and that beneficial changes thrive, while derogatory changes evolve out. Well, how did birds get wings? As useful as arms are to begin with, and as useful as wings are in the end, the hybrid wing-arm stumps that would have come to be in the interim would have been completely useless and gone away.

Third, there is absolutely no fossil record to support evolution. The fossil record we have, rather, supports creationism - it shows the abrupt appearance of "evolved" species, rather than many interim lifeforms between "evolved" species.

Finally, I think that it is important to differentiate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution describes the "evolution" with in a species, without the species changing. For example, if a basset hound and a doberman breed, you will have a dog that, while still a dog, is neither a basset hound nor a doberman. Macro-evolution, however, is the false evolution that would, if yrue, allow one species to evolve completely into another.
 
Greeneyes53787
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 10:34 am

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Thu Jan 04, 2001 11:47 am

Think about what you are saying.

Evolution is a word meaning "change" of a sort- a biomorphosis. Creation is a word meaning "to make" or the result of making.

Today people use "creation" to speak about the existing world: "We are living within God's creation." But we also use this word depicting an act of God, the necessary being that created the world.

Having said these things I'd challenge the idea that evolutions could ever exist outside a realm of a created order. But this is not to say that evolution is invalid. For evolution certainly exists within its bounds- probably given by a necessary being.

To put this another way: Animals, including human ones, must adapt to their environments. And probably through time subspecies are developed through the natural responses to the environments themselves. White people until recently all lived in the extreme north or south regions where little sun shines. The further north the whiter the skin and the lighter the eye color. In the very hot environs the skin developed protection from severe direct sun. So did eyes. Through ages the geograpy of Earth has given rise to these subspecies.

But does this indicate an evolution absolutely from one duck or one person? This is a question worth asking in the debate. I'd say that even if all ducks came from one pair of them- and all people came from one pair of them, that this premise in no certain terms divulges a truth of ultimate evolution instead of creation.

I think the ultimate test of a creator could be the ability to make something that multiplies and improves, the very attributes of the world that sway scientists toward evolutionary theories. For this movement from one bone shape to another seems to point to evolution for sure and to possibly creation too.

Without dwelling much more here let us consider beginnings. Can anyone really understand anything having no start? Whether all organic and inorganic material began as one green rock or something still posses the exact same question that one might come to if considering creation as a fact. "Who or what started it all?" If a scientist believes in a noncreator beginning he still must wrestle with the origins of the motion of evolution.

Evolution just logically cannot exist without a theory of beginning. And either can the theory of creation. Some thing or someone must have had eternal existence to begin either reality, whether they fit in a scientific rubrick or otherwise.

Therefore a necessary being with or without personality is a given. If the scientists reject a creation theory they must accept a piece of matter that began it all as existing beyond any matter we know of today- one that can make itself and start a chain of mathmatical world-building existence. All other explanations are poor. This material must have given rise to spacial and temporal order.

However, the theory that God made all that we behold today in a week of 24 hours minus one day is probably not a good basis for truth. But take heart! A six time period creation probably did exist- and many scientists believe they are a witness to this by means of carbon dating and other scientific methods of showing the age of the universe, such as heleospectrographs.

Greeneyes

Ps-Stay away from trying too hard to prove your point of view. This is the one subject that almost proves itself. But the harder you try to show this the more people are drawn to the less logical point of view.
 
chris28_17
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2000 4:26 am

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Thu Jan 04, 2001 12:52 pm

this is a true analogy.

Okay, your walking along a beach and in the sand, you spot a shiny new rolex watch. you pick it up, and notice its working, and even the correct time.

What if i came along, and told you that the watch you were holding just happend there. No, it didnt wash out of the ocean, it didnt even fall out of the sky, it just happend.

NAhhh, you think, someone HAD to have made this watch!

Funny thing is, the chances of that perfectly orderly rolex just "happening" in perfect working order, with all gears made from nothing and in perfect harmony with each other, from absolute nothingness, is literally Billions of times more likely, than the basic fundemental theories of what we today consider "scientific" evolution.

-------------------

But what is "scientific"?? The theory of evolution is not very old, a couple hundred years. And yet it is deemed undescructable Fact. The idea of creation has been around forever, and NEVER has it been "scientifically" disproved. (go ahead, lets discuss carbon dating, guess what? its not factual)

Remember when people thought the earth was flat??!! funny huh? Whats funnier is this theory (flat earth) was "scientific fact" for OVER 1000 years!!!

Makes you think


thats all, i got plenty more, but i'll save it  


CHRIS

 
Guest

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Thu Jan 04, 2001 1:42 pm

Two words: Genesis One

hehe...that should get the evolutionists all riled up.

I'll dig into this a bit tonight and try to contribute to your argument...
 
Guest

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Thu Jan 04, 2001 3:41 pm

Well, Purdue Arrow is quite correct about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; it states "the entropy of an isolated system may increase but can never decrease. When a system interacts with its surroundings, the total entropy change of system and surroundings can never decrease." Entropy is a quantitative measure of disorder. Hence an isolated system cannot become more ordered, but can only become more disordered.

As for the Big Bang theory: the theory of relativity put forward by Einstein - accepted as a law of science beyond the atomic realm - predicts its own downfall at the big bang singularity. This proposed beginning of the universe is considered to be infinitely small, infinitely heavy, infinitely dense and timeless point. This scenario without a Creator appears to be irrational as time is required for anything to happen and it fails to answer the question of how the universe came to be in this state, and where this singularity came from. The beginning of the universe implies a Creator.
---------------

I do think, though, that people try too hard to prove something they fundamentally believe....oh well.
 
virgin744
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 1999 5:51 pm

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Thu Jan 04, 2001 5:01 pm

I was only saying this morning that I haven't heard MattD causing an argument, and then he pops up! I do love reading people argue but just feel I have to get in on this one.

Please explain; If monkeys/apes became men, then why aren't they becoming men ALL the time?
In addition to this, I've seen the clips on t.v showing what apes can do and IF you think they became man, then why is it that they only know 1/1000,000,000,000th of what man knows...Surely being on the planet this long, they would have learned a lot more by now, IF they are to 'evolve' into a human being?

EVERYTHING is created. They just evolve 'within' the state they were created.

 
Guest

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Thu Jan 04, 2001 7:23 pm

The theory of creation was never disproved simply because it's too ridiculous to begin with. Scietists deal with evidene, not fairy tales. Why would God create galaxies, black holes, pulsars?. They serve no purpose or affect the earth in any way and cannot be even seen with out telescopes. If god just wanted a zoo of humans to make him happy and worship him,wouldan't he just create an enviroment that was only required to sustain life? The book of genesis never discuses the universe outside earth, except the sun which brings light.

As for the theory of evolution, the fossils do contain evidence of physical change. A very good example are all the pre-human species that went from being ape-like to looking more and more human and having a larger brain as time went on.

Make no mistake people, I was raised in a christain family, I was baptised and tought everything about God. There is nothing wrong in beliving in an after life, creator etc, but the scientific evidence needs to be considered too. I do think there is an entity greater than us, but things did not go as is said in the old testament. The earth is not 5000 years old and people did not co-exist with dinosaurs, which is what the bible states.
 
PerthGloryFan
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Thu Jan 04, 2001 8:45 pm

I was about to sit this one out until I read Virgin744's tired old rubbish. Evolutionists have never stated, to my knowledge, that apes evolve into humans - the theory is that apes and humans had a common, now extinct, ancestor.
The problem with this "debate" is that it's not one - a debate that cannot change set ideas and faith is not worth having.
Prior to Virgin744's useless contribution the arguments put by the creationists were fairly rational, the only exceptions being the "true analogy" which is term I'm not familar with; carbon dating is not a fact (actually it is a fact but is subject to flaws in intepretation); and the "scientific law" that the earth was flat - were there ever any scientific publications stating this.
Interestingly the creation story of nearly all peoples regardless of religon is a 'big bang", "first there was light", "from nothing come forth the world/universe", type of thing. Of course the big question is - what/who(?) preceded or caused this?
It's a big wonderous cosmos out there and we know very little about it.
Good luck FlyGuy but I can't say I support your position.
PGF
 
Guest

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Thu Jan 04, 2001 8:45 pm

I think future pilot needs to do a little more research...

Darwin's theory of evolution was based on the fact that sometime in the future sufficient evidence would be found to back his theory. Unfortunately this is NOT the case, the missing link still remains... (and a quite a big link it is).

There is no proof as to how old the earth is. Scientists, who do their best to be exact, have always tripped when it came to dating the earth, some have said 100 million years, others have said 50 million years, who is right ? Are they not all learned men, yet how can they differ so much ? Why is it so difficult for people to believe that the earth may very well be 5,000 years old ?

The one thing that has crossed the eyes of all evolutionists is the mosquito. We have apparently found fossilised mosquitoes and they have been dated to be over 1 million years old, yet it is no different to the mosquito today.... in what part does the mosquito play in evolution ? Is it exempt ?

I am a microbiologist and one thing I am studying is a remedy to the common mosquito bite, one question that seems to perplex most medical researchers is, if the mosquito has been around for so long (from the before the dawn of man) then why has man not developed an immunity to the "mosquito irritation" ? The only answer we have at the moment is man and mosquito have not been around together all that long....

My prof at Uni when asked whether he believed in evolution or creation answered very simply - look at yourself in the mirror, can you honestly say that is by chance that you are here, that you can see with your eyes and that you can think with your mind ?
 
PerthGloryFan
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Thu Jan 04, 2001 9:06 pm

But mosquitos are evolving - many are now immune to pesticides are they not? Natural selection has seen the pesticide vulnerable ones "leave the gene pool". Prior to humans' meddling attempts to control the environment in this way mosquitos had very little reason to evolve significantly -they had perfectly adapted to the environment.
Also I don't understand what "a remedy to the common mosquito bite" means - are you talking about preventing them from biting us, or fighting the nasties they leave behind in our blood?
None of this of course precludes belief in a god or whatever.
PGF
 
Guest

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Thu Jan 04, 2001 9:18 pm

PGF,

Have you read the theory of evolution ? It was Darwin himself that stated man originated from the ape. The missing link is what ties man TO the ape, that is, the mising link is what is BETWEEN ape and man and not what is BEFORE ape and man. We are not looking for a common ancestor, we are looking the process that makes an ape become a man.

 
Guest

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Thu Jan 04, 2001 9:30 pm

Good point (whether this precludes a belief in God or not). I don't think that was the original question though, the issue is creation vs evolution (I am taking to understand that evolution is referred to as what is taught in schools, based on the theory originated by Charles Darwin).

Mosquito's are not (yet, that is not to say that they will not in the future) immune to pesticides, for example, here in Australia the ingredients to the can of Aerogarde (mosquito repelent) has not changed since its inception. The remedies I was talking about was the "nasties they leave behind". Most of us have the similiar "itching" effect, but there is a lot more behind that for others.
 
Guest

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Fri Jan 05, 2001 7:36 am

From what I learned in biology, the reason the mosquito did not evolve very much is because it didn't have too. It was well adapted to its surroundings.

As for the reason why men has not evololved an imunity to the "mosquito irritation", is because humans have only been around for about 30 000 years while mosquitos have been around since the dinsours(225 million years ago). And yes, through carbon dating and isotope decays scientists can fairly accuretly judge the age of rocks which puts the age of the earth in the billons of years.

However I do find it hard to belive that humas and everything else did originate from a puddle of animo acids. I have a theory that life was planted on earth by alien species, or even ourselves from the future........who knows?
 
Guest

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Fri Jan 05, 2001 7:41 am

>. I have a theory that life was planted on earth by alien species, or even ourselves from the future........who knows?

If you can have a theory that we could have been planted here by aliens, why do you detest the theory that we were placed here by a Creator?

Why would Aliens create galaxies, black holes, pulsars?. They serve no purpose or affect the earth in any way and cannot be even seen with out telescopes.
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Fri Jan 05, 2001 7:42 am

I might...just might briefly entertain the idea of us having come from another world. But that idea of us from the future planting ourselves is, with all due respect a ludicrous notion. That ranks right up there with the "kiiling your grandfather" paradox associated with time travel......
If you travel back in time and kill your grandfather before your father (and you) were born, then that means your father wouldn't have been born to father you. That means you wouldn't have been able to kill your grandfather and so your father and you are born which means you can go back and kill him and so on....
usually such pondering over such ideas ultimately leads to the couch of the closest pshychiatrist.

In other words if we came from the future to plant ourselves in the past, that means our future descendents had to come from the past, but they couldn't have gotten there unless the people from the future brought them there....
 
Guest

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Fri Jan 05, 2001 7:46 am

no no no, aliens did not create the universe-that was done by the big bang. By creator I meant the one that most people belive in, which is god and the whole concept of religion.
 
sn330
Posts: 606
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:01 pm

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Fri Jan 05, 2001 7:57 am

Creation can't be proven scientifically because for it to be proven so, you would need a control. One with G-d, and the same experiment without G-d. So, basically it would be a useless experiment because there is no proof that G-d exists, but there isn't any proof that says that G-d does not exist. Basically, it is a catch-22.
Remember, Religion asks why, while Science asks how.
They are too different things, so comparing Creation vs. Evolution is like comparing Apples vs. Oranges. They are both fruits, yet different fruits at that, so it all comes down to personal opinion, and that is not science at all. Science is based on fact and proof, not opinions and feelings.

BTW- I am not making this stuff up. My biology teacher told us this.
 
sn330
Posts: 606
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:01 pm

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Fri Jan 05, 2001 7:59 am

I just realized in my above post I made an error. It should read "They are two different things", not "They are too different things".
 
Greeneyes53787
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 10:34 am

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Fri Jan 05, 2001 8:47 am

I think we fail in this analysis when we project classical theories into the mix.

The greater the human mind the more it understands the necessity for a cause that is the first cause. And the less great the mind the more common mistakes are made in this argument. The basic mistake is that a creator could not exist but an original cause could. This problem is based on word usage almost entirely. For any original cause must ultimately be God, whether the form of God one wants or not.

Consider the idea that 2-cells sat in a pool of plasma, this being the beginning. OK, time and space have already been established or the cells have no place to reside and sitting cannot occur.

Consider a big bang that just happened. Now you really cannot consider this one alone unless you are one of the lesser human brains indicated above. This theory can exist with the help of a causer.

And one by one every one of the theories that deny God's handywork is laid waste. But take note that the Baptists that are believing in a 6-day creation leave themselves open to ridicule even by those lesser brains I keep mentioning. For God certainly was not and is not shown to make the existence we know of today, in scripture, by the observance of humans. This is to say that God cetainly wouldn't and probably didn't make our Earth is 6-time periods that we see as days- even before the days themselves existed.

Do we Christians actually believe this?
I think the time is here for confession. Christians that hold to the idea that God made the heavens and the earth in a week (today's week) are afraid of thinking something more usefull to the world- and hense more realistic. The Bible doesn't say that God made the heavens and the earth in 144 hours, does it?

So this debate needs to take a professional approach, not one of people afraid to see a new meaning to the Bible. The Bible has meanings to various people. Much of its messages are clouded by religious people's ver batim approach to the Bible. We know that Jesus Himself identified the mustard seed as the smallest of all seeds. But He was talking to people that considered that truth. Ther are much smaller ones. And when He spoke of destroying the temple and rebuilding it in 3-days He wasn't actually talking about brick and morter was He? So why are Christians so afraid to hear other than the literal from the first book of the Bible?

My Bible tells me that there was an act of creation which took the form of 6-days, whatever that means. Day 1, light; Day 2, a firmament; Day 3, Earth and seas; Day 4, sun, moon and stars; Day 5, water creatures & birds; Day 6, land creatures and man.

The book of Genesis is laid out in 4-parts:
I. The Creation.
II. The Curse.
III. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (history)
IV. Joseph

And although I see the book as a living one that I personally base my life upon, the meaning contained therein is vastly greater than only the single layer of the literal meaning of God creating the cosmos in 6-days. I don't limit God to my finite sense of time. But I am too smart to ignore Him and His existence.

But with all this said I take a hard look at Genesis and decide to learn instead of taking those words at simple face value.

I suppose there are those on this forum that express the opinion that God doesn't and never did exist but say that an explosive act in nothingness that became something is how it all came to being. I also suppose there are those on this forum that express the opinion that God used 6-days of our common 24 hours to create the universe including all life there, and that is how it all came to being.

If these are our only choices I'll go back to watching Laugh-In on TV. It has about as much meaning. So hopefully in this debate the ideas can be less specific lending themselves to incorporation of ideas of both camps rather than pointing to two weak hypotheses.

Greeneyes
 
Guest

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Fri Jan 05, 2001 8:59 am

I haven't read all of the responses, so this may have already been brought up, but don't viruses evolve every day? That is why we are always having to come out with newer, stronger antibiotics... because the germs EVOLVE to match their environment!
 
PerthGloryFan
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Fri Jan 05, 2001 9:17 am

Well put Greeneyes.

As I said earlier this, and similar topics, can't really be "debated", we can only make statements affirming particular faiths or beliefs in the hope that others will know what we think.

I've worked essentially as a technocrat across a number of disciplines and over time developed a number of personal ideas and hypotheses about "the meaning of life", "the origins of the cosmos" and all that stuff, but as I've no intention of starting my own religion or sect based on my beliefs I'm not going to evangelise and try to force anyone to believe me.

And anyway, when it all gets too much I just step back, look at the big picture and marvel at the wonder of it all and really don't worry about how it actually came to be. Perhaps those who get into rabid tub thumping over this would be advised to do the same.

PGF
The more we know the less we understand.
 
Guest

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Fri Jan 05, 2001 9:25 am

"rabid tub thumping"?

Well, I've never heard it called that before 
 
PerthGloryFan
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Fri Jan 05, 2001 9:33 am

It's just me applying my literary license  
You know - those foaming at the mouth, spittal launching, arm waving, jumping around, bullying, threatening evangelist types - just like my old english teacher berating me over my paragraph long prepostion ending sentences or something.
PGF
Sorry, this is getting off topic isn't it.
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: Future_Pilot

Sat Jan 06, 2001 2:39 am

Even after the fights we've had, I was very impressed with your post. Keep it up.
 
Greeneyes53787
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 10:34 am

RE: We're Nuts

Sat Jan 06, 2001 1:29 pm

Viruses cannot be changed or affected by antibiotics. That would be the wrong approach. Steroids and other things can help living organisms fight a virus, but antibiotics don't help.

G
 
PerthGloryFan
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Sat Jan 06, 2001 5:51 pm

Antibiotics are used against bacteria though - and some nasty ones such as "Golden Staph" are now resistant to all but one or two super-antibiotics which doctors are reluctant to use because if Golden Staph evolves into strains resistant to these anti-biotics the most dangerous place to be if you are suffering any infection will be a hospital - not what anyone really wants!
PGF
 
Guest

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Sun Jan 07, 2001 12:29 am

Yeah, I know. I just called it the wrong thing. It's so hard to keep those straight  Well at least my thinking was right.

Sorry 'bout that!
 
chris28_17
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2000 4:26 am

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Sun Jan 07, 2001 12:44 am

but don't viruses evolve every day? That is why we are always having to come out with newer, stronger antibiotics... because the germs EVOLVE to match their environment!

Bacteria, viruses... etc... they can become resistant to certain things but the simple fact is, ITS STILL A VIRUS!! (or bacteria, whatever)

Just because it changes form to an extent, DOES NOT make it anything BUT a virus.

Just like dogs. there are "akitas", "elkhounds", "golden retreiver", "labrodor"...... etc, BUT THEY ARE ALL DOGS.


CHRIS
 
Guest

CPDC10-30

Sun Jan 07, 2001 2:21 am

Im glad you liked my post, which was your favorite part?
 
Guest

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Sun Jan 07, 2001 6:04 am

And if a frog grows a third eye, IT'S STILL A FROG!!!

The bacteria evolve to combat their environment. Proof.
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: CPDC10-30

Sun Jan 07, 2001 9:08 am

I espescially liked the first paragraph of your first post where you logically explained the organization of the universe and how it is not central to earth as creationists suggest it is.
 
Guest

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Tue Jan 09, 2001 7:16 am

Creation theory is bollocks. Evolution is the way things came to be. As for the origin of the universe itself..who gives a fuck.
 
Greeneyes53787
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 10:34 am

RE: Surf

Wed Jan 10, 2001 4:33 am

Once again you have given us on this forum a lot to think about. Did you study medicine or did you come across your wonderful ability to wax on with such fluid logical technical language just on your own?

Greeneyes
 
N863DA
Posts: 1140
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 6:36 am

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Wed Jan 10, 2001 4:48 am

OK I am religious person, but I am also a scientist. (Pilot, Scientist... b'ah! All the same really...  )

Anyway, as I was saying I am religious person... yet I find it very hard (tho not impossible) to believe that science didn't happen, and that it was all done by the 'hand of God'.

I mean - come on people - let us be realistic - you can't prove that he created the earth anymore than we can prove that it was pure accident.

Another thing that ponders in my mind is this; there are literally billions of galaxies out there. If just one in a million of these had a solar system reminiscent of ours, and if just one in a million of those had planets on which could sustain life, then literally zillions of planets would have life on.

With a one in a billion chance, there is a strong chance that on at least one of them in a million would have had all the cards fall in the right order facing the right way to allow life. Why is this so hard to believe? For some, the idea of some God who doesn't seem to any longer appear, or even acknoledge his own presence, is just as far fetched and ludicrous.

Personally, the idea of 'creation' for me lacks credibility as I often need 'proof' for things - this being one of those occasions. I believe that evolution has more credible credentials. But hey, I'm just one of six billion with an opinion.

FLY DELTA JETS and sail UNITED STATES LINES



N 8 6 3 D A
 
Guest

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Greeneyes:

Shut up freak. Go "cleanse" yourself yada yada yada.....
 
Guest

Greeneyes;Surf

Wed Jan 10, 2001 8:54 am

Oh how posts like yours don't help. I thought I left Kindergarten for good.
 
Guest

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Wed Jan 10, 2001 11:23 am

Is it not far healthier to think outside the square?

As far as I am concerned people are welcome to worship whatever false deity they like. For some it is a way of controlling their lives with a simple set of rules. For others it is cultural.

All of the so-called bibles are nothing more than creative stories written as a way to control people as far as I am concerned, but to others they are the meaning of their existence.

In a modern world the "Theory of Evolution" holds more credence than what the Christians preach at us, simply because it set parameters made logical by modern science. But it's still just a theory.

Remeber what I said about thinking outside the square? The nutter in the street with an aluminium foil hat to shield the aliens control rays "theory" has as much credence as others. And you know what, he's probably right!

Cheers, thanks a lot.

mb
 
Guest

Mx5_boy

Wed Jan 10, 2001 11:52 am

I actually think all of the religions of the world were created on one simple human emotion: fear. The fear of controlling your own existence. The fear that death is final. The fear of free-will rather than fate. It's just a theory though.
 
anzff
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri May 05, 2000 5:45 pm

Debate Advice

Wed Jan 10, 2001 12:12 pm

Don't limit your arguments to a pure version of creationism - lots of people (like all of my science teachers at my old (church run) school) reconcile the differences by viewing the 7 days of creation as a metaphor and the process of evolution as the means by which the world was created. Use that school of thought to take prrof advanced by your opposition in favour of evolution and say EVEN IF the evolutionists are right in some areas, creation theory is still relevant and valid because... and use evolution theory to construct a model of creation.
As long as your adjudicator is half-way decent not only will this give you more matter to argue but any "even if" argument should get you lots of points for matter and method (debating technique).

But isn't this whole discussion of creation vs evolution pointless anyway? No one can prove either case in such a way to satisfy the other side (ie evolution believers won't accept 'proof' that is not 'scientific', and creation believers won't accept 'scientific' proof if they disagree with the scientific approach, or will not accept any arguments that undermine their own faith) so no-one can "win" the argument, and almost any time it is discussed it degenerates into a slanging match (witness some of the posts in this section).

So why not just accept that you disagree with each other and:-
- if you are a creationist realise that evolutionists like things laid out and 'proven' in a 'scientific' manner and that religion cannot provide this: that's why you have 'faith' because you are willing to take a 'leap of faith' and accept that you cannot 'prove' what you believe. Accept also that there are a hell of a lot people out there who will not accept your beliefs as 'true' - this does not necessarily mean that they are wrong.
-if you are an evolutionist realise that creationists are willing to take this 'leap of faith' and accept what they cannot 'prove' to a 'scientific' standard what they believe and becuase they have taken that leap you will not be able to change their minds with 'scientific proof' - but this does not mean that they are in some way thick.
 
User avatar
fanoftristars
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2000 9:03 am

RE: Creation Vs. Evolution

Wed Jan 10, 2001 12:29 pm

Well I didn't have time to read everyone's thoughts, so I don't expect any of you to read mine. I feel that evolution is the best scientific way humans can expain how we came to be, but I also feel the theory evolution is just the tip of the iceberg. I do believe in god, and I know that he didn't create the world in seven literal days. We don't know how he did it exactly, I think evolution is the best we can do to describe his creation.

In other words, I feel god set up the physical laws of the universe, and that is how he created it. That may sound kind of messed up. I read a good book about the subject by Dr. Paul J. Bybee, a Doctor of paleentology (sp?) and Geology. He is a religious man, but also teaches some of the theories of evolution. Some of the key points he makes in his text are things like, "The bible gives us direction in life and is not meant to be a biology or geology text." I agree! He says that our salvation is not based on weather or not we believe in evolution, so it doesn't really matter if we study the greatest works on the subject, because science is continually moving daily towards a better understanding of god.

To realize where our theory of evolution stands today and how correct it is, just think 200 years ago what understanding of science we had, and where we will be 200 years from now. I go back to my original thought: Organic Evolution is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the understanding of the creation of the universe.
"FLY DELTA JETS"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DarkSnowyNight, jpetekyxmd80 and 7 guests