1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

Evolution VS. Creation

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by evolutionrex, Sep 7, 2010.


Which do you believe in?

  1. The Theory Of Evolution

    130 vote(s)
  2. Creationism

    46 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. J.T.

    J.T. ಠ_ಠ

    Bit of devil's advocate, then? Cool.

    False. This one's shorter and in simpler terms.
  2. Murky_Night

    Murky_Night Jirafa

    well, sometime before land-animals arrived, but after the time when only single-celled life existed.

    I don't know, what is a bacterium tail? lol, sorry im stumped.
  3. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    As long as the debate contains evolution or creation, it is on-topic. That includes debating whether a compromise can exist or if one is stalling the other (or heck, science in general).

    You don't need a completely new topic to talk about science in a general light to creation.
  4. glacialcat

    glacialcat Well-Known Member

    Alright, this is a theoretical model by which circulatory systems could evolve. I do not know if there's any better actual models, I haven't researched that. I'm simply giving a plausible path.

    1) Sponge-like ancestors utilized sea water and cilia as a mechanism of transport in a mostly hollow interior.

    2) A primitive pump evolves and speeds up the circulation

    3) The hollow interior shrinks in coevolution with the heart, greater pumping allows a smaller hole to carry the transport liquid. Blood diffuses throughout soft tissue like in an open circulatory system.

    4) Smaller tubes that allow more direct transport of blood evolve, extending directly into the tissue they supply blood to, creating the closed circulatory system of today.

    As for the complexity of blood, blood clotting can be performed utilizing long polymers that are already there, for example. This is called exaptation, when evolution jury rigs a new function out of old materials. This is similar to how feathers likely started off as mechanisms to trap heat, not as mechanisms for flight.

    Bacteria flagellum? That's an easy one. First proposed by Michael Behe, its received a lot of attention. Mostly because of how wrong it is. As J.T. points out, some bacteria flagellum indeed are simpler than the proposed model.

    But a more important thing to point out is that even if a flagellum, or a circulatory system, or blood clotting, or anything else is irreducibly complex (from here on defined as: Any system where the removal of one part removes any possible use of the system), that does not mean it couldn't have evolved. Indeed we expect irreducible complexity to evolve. Muller called it interlocking complexity. A good example of how interlocking/irreducible complexity could evolve comes from the game of Jenga.

    If you've ever played Jenga, you'll be familiar with the basic idea. You create a stack of blocks, laying them three at a time, then laying three more on top of those three. The objective is to remove a block without causing the entire structure to fall. If you remove the center block of a middle row, the structure becomes irreducibly complex. Removing the left or right block after the center block will cause the entire structure to plummet. But that does not mean that the structure was built without that center block. Structures can become irreducibly complex by removing a part that is no longer needed to maintain function.

    After many many turns of Jenga, you may look at the tower and go "Wow, there's no way that could have evolved. Removing even a single part causes the entire thing to collapse!" But obviously it has evolved. It started as a large tower with no gaps, and then unneeded parts are removed.
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2010
  5. ebilly99

    ebilly99 Americanreigon champ

    I give up. I really tried to fight from a creationist point of view but can not without saying lies. Sorry guys you need to find a better debater :(
  6. Eloi

    Eloi Well-Known Member

    As Straw Creationist: Well, like, if God is God why wouldn't he make the world really young and have no evolution, and just make it look like it was older and evolution took place just to test our faith? I mean, if hes God, why couldn't he use his noodle appendage - I mean divine intervention- to confound us?
  7. glacialcat

    glacialcat Well-Known Member

    He could create the world with the appearance of age. But there's a couple arguments against that.

    1) From a theological viewpoint, this makes God a deceiver. He could only have done this in order to trick people, and such a god may be unfit for worship. This argument obviously depends upon what you believe constitutes deception and what qualities are required to be worthy of worship (and by extension, if this sort of deception can be allowed by an omnibenevolent God)

    2) The same argument can be applied to something called Last Thursdayism. The belief that the entire universe was created last Thursday with the appearance of age, memories included. This brings into question any history, including the history of whatever religion we're talking about (Bible, Koran, Vedas, whatever). There is no reason to believe that it was created 6000 years ago with the appearance of age instead of a week ago.

    3) A more practical view point. If everything in the world is young but with the appearance of age, and it all acts with the appearance of age, what is the point in calling it young? There is no mechanical difference, there is no benefit to the belief that it is young, there is nothing to learn or gain by this belief.
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2010
  8. Eloi

    Eloi Well-Known Member

    1 and 2) He only 'tricks' those who believed in this so called "Science"! If we have faith (and use certain interpretations of text in the Bible as opposed to doing my own research) in every single thing the Bible says, it says it was made 6000 years ago so it was.

    3) You gain life! And truth! And justice! For God is God and thus God does mysterious Godly things. Because He is God.
  9. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    I have no idea what's going on right now.
  10. evolutionrex

    evolutionrex The Awesome Atheist

    same here.

    Whatever you're all blabbering about, it's off topic. (sorry for back-seat modding)
  11. glacialcat

    glacialcat Well-Known Member

    The subject was taking a creationist view point, acting as devil's advocate. First we were very much on topic, discussing irreducibly complex systems and showing how that is not evidence against evolution.

    Then Eloi adopted the creationist view point (for argument's sake) that the world was created with appearance of age. I don't really see how that's off topic. That's a very common argument against non-creationist view points, evolution included.
  12. Eloi

    Eloi Well-Known Member

    Glacialcat hit the nail on the head here.
  13. natie

    natie Mr. F

    So, basically, the last 5 pages of this topic are people roleplaying as one another?

    That's pretty lame.
  14. Eloi

    Eloi Well-Known Member

    I wouldn't say its the last five pages, and I really don't think we have any actual Creationists role-playing Biologists, so "as one another" is inaccurate as well.
  15. ebilly99

    ebilly99 Americanreigon champ

    Actually a good debater can take either side of a debate... Alas I am not a good debater.
  16. Megaton666

    Megaton666 Swampert Trainer

    nooo... a good debater NEEDS to take a side. but he also needs an open mind, otherwise debating is pointless.
  17. ebilly99

    ebilly99 Americanreigon champ

    You have never been in a debate club. Sometimes you are forced to take a side you do not agree on.
    Another question should we teach creation in school. I say yes, please comment.
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2010
  18. 7 tyranitars

    7 tyranitars Well-Known Member

    yes but it should stay out of the science class because it is not science and atleast teach both theories considering that is more fair because if you teach only one of them the information becomes one sided and you can't make your own choice what to believe
  19. Yeah, even though I am a proud advocate of the theory of evolution, I think it would be best for schools to avoid teaching it in any mandatory classes. No, this doesn't mean I want them to teach creationism either; I think that both of them should be taught in school, but only in elective courses that students choose to take.
    Because, basically, if you are a creationist, shut up; you're not going to convert me and I'm not going to convert you, so we'd be much better off dropping the subject and finding something to agree upon.
  20. J.T.

    J.T. ಠ_ಠ

    I thought God was a loving god. How is making it more difficult for non-believers to believe and get saved "loving" in any way?

    No. Evolution is incredibly important to biology. Not teaching evolution in biology is like... I dunno, not teaching gravity in physics. Removing it from a scientific curriculum because some people don't believe in it is ridiculous. By that logic, we shouldn't teach about the Holocaust in social classes, because some people don't believe it ever happened.

    As for the "should creationism be taught in schools" question: As soon as you get some actual scientific backing behind creationism, you can teach it in schools. Until then, keep it out of science classrooms and put it in elective theology/religious classes where it belongs.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page