• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Evolution VS. Creation

Which do you believe in?

  • The Theory Of Evolution

    Votes: 130 73.9%
  • Creationism

    Votes: 46 26.1%

  • Total voters
    176
Status
Not open for further replies.

ShinySandshrew

†God Follower†
My blood boiled when I saw this.
Why? Because it makes you look bad? Becuase it's true and you don't want to admit it? Or maybe because you have some personal investment in the theory of evolution?

ShinySandshrew, you need to stop taking the easy way out when it comes to research. When you are in a debate that involves in-depth topics, you can't just go to a dictionary or user edited sources and claim ****.
If I can take the easy way and still disprove your claim, then I most certainly will take it. Even though you hate it so much, let me grab what Wikipedia (lol) says about dictionaries.

"A dictionary, also referred to as a lexicon, wordbook, or vocabulary, is a collection of words in one or more specific languages, often listed alphabetically, with usage information, definitions, etymologies, phonetics, pronunciations, and other information;...."

Do I make my point clear?

Now I seen where you can edit stuff on Wikipedia, but if you look at their content standards, I think you'll see that they have a commitment to accuracy.


That would be incorrect, considering only 39% of the nation believe in Evolution (and ironically, belief in Evolution correlates with education).
And where do you get your figures?

I didn't say that everyone believed in creation or that everyone believes in evolution. How in the world did you go from "according to most Creationists" to talking about how many people believe in evolution?

Then find these planets. If you can't, and simply blame it on 'sin' then prove that life USED to be different before sin.
Did I say that these planets exist? No. I said it was feasible, i.e. theoretically possible. And I never said anything about sin, either.
 

evolutionrex

The Awesome Atheist
I have to agree with GhostAnime. You can't just use the dictionary to prove things. the meanings of words change often in the modern day, so just becuase some one uses a word incorrectly doesn't mean that person's over all point is wrong.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
TheFightingPIkachu said:
This quote appeared right above where your link led! Did you catch what they said about the Wikipedia Big Bang page? Just pay more attention GhostAnime. Seriously!
I don't think I follow you.. ? We don't know what the wikipedia page said at the time of the written article.

They apparently haven't kept up with expert astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, who wrote in his book, A Brief History of Time,
“When most people believed in an essentially static and unchanging universe, the question of whether or not it had a beginning was really one of metaphysics or theology. One could account for what was observed equally well on the theory that the universe had existed forever or on the theory that it was set in motion at some finite time in such a manner as to look as though it had existed forever. But in 1929, Edwin Hubble made the landmark observation that wherever you look, distant galaxies are moving rapidly away from us. In other words, the universe is expanding. This means that at earlier times objects would have been closer together. In fact, it seemed that there was a time, about ten or twenty thousand million years ago, when they were all at exactly the same place and when, therefore, the density of the universe was infinite. This discovery finally brought the question of the beginning of the universe into the realm of science.”
(From page 8, emphasis added)

And again,
“Hubble’s observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down.”
(From page 8)

And finally,
“All of the Friedmann solutions have the feature that some time in the past (between ten and twenty thousand million years ago) the distance between neighboring galaxies must have been zero. At the time, which we call the big bang, the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have been infinite. Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers, this means that the general theory of relativity (on which Friedmann’s solutions are based) predicts that there is a point in the universe where the theory itself breaks down. Such a point is an example of what mathematicians call a singularity.”
(From page 46)
That depends on what they actually mean by 'point-like'. I really, really doubt you can discredit an entire source for something this ambiguous. You can even look at the above sentence to see what they could possibly be referring to:

In most popularized science sources, BBT is often described with something like "The universe came into being due to the explosion of a point in which all matter was concentrated." Not surprisingly, this is probably the standard impression which most people have of the theory. Occasionally, one even hears "In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."

Point-like could mean time frame.. or space frame. Who the hell knows. It's either poor word choice, or they just aren't using 'point' in the same manner and you are taking it out of context.

I didn't say that everyone believed in creation or that everyone believes in evolution. How in the world did you go from "according to most Creationists" to talking about how many people believe in evolution?

recent gallup poll

"according to most" = more than 50%'. Also, adding along after that creationist part: 'God did not create life exactly as we know it.' I assume you mean animal life, right? If you mean animal life, and if you believe that animals are not exactly the same as we know it, then you are either a person that believes in a completely different theory on why animals have changed over time, or you don't believe animals changed over time.

Although it's still pretty clear at least 60% of the citizens disbelieve and probably think animals were always the same.

Did I say that these planets exist? No. I said it was feasible, i.e. theoretically possible. And I never said anything about sin, either.
I guess it's possible if that's what you mean, but that doesn't really answer Tim's claim about there being little 'imagination' in our animal life. There's also a possibility that they were made the same, closely related way.

Aren't there implications of Earth being the center of life in the universe in the Bible anyway? You'd think he wouldn't treat us like we were the only ones...

Also the sin thing I'm referring to is:

ShinySandshrew said:
First off, according to most Creationists, God did not create life exactly as we know it. The entire world and it's inhabitants have been twisted by sin. Roses now have thorns, weeds grows, Animals eat meet, etc. But why would God make the world and the life therein? A very simple answer. For His glory.
 
Last edited:

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
Assuming something is absolutely true because it says so in the dictionary is just as stupid as believing that everything you read in the Bible actually happened.

Wait...

The beauty about the theory of evolution (and all science, for that matter) is that you don't have to take anyone's word for it. You can see and measure for yourself. Don't believe that you can gradually add a whole kilogram of sugar to a pint-glass of water and it won't overflow? Well, you can do an experiment for yourself and see.

We don't have the same luxury with 'gods'. We are just told what to believe and are brainwashed to accept it as truth.

So I'll take evolution and the stacks of evidence it has as proof over a book that whose alleged authors may never have existed.
 

J.T.

ಠ_ಠ

Because it's goddamn ridiculous to pull out sources like Wikipedia and whatever dictionary you happen to have on hand when we have slightly more reputable ones like TalkOrigins, Scientific American, etc. It's like yanking out a first-grade phonics book when you're discussing whether indentured slavery counts as slavery (it does, by the way). Okay, cool, you can find a site that is widely considered unreliable and it contradicts what GA said. Super. Now, how about you look at further sources than just one ****ing site that anyone can edit? Like, oh, I dunno, a scientific source?

Because it makes you look bad? Becuase it's true and you don't want to admit it? Or maybe because you have some personal investment in the theory of evolution?

My blood boiled when I read this.

If you'd read anywhere past that, you could probably gather what he was referring to, but ignoring that, where the hell do you get off saying **** like that? Are you telling me any time you don't like one of my sources I can tell you "SEE HAHA YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT LOLOLOL", or is it only okay when you do it? You and TFP both get incredibly arrogant during these kinds of debates, and quite frankly, I think everyone here's sick of hearing you guys basically saying "YOU'RE MAD THAT MEANS I WIN".

If I can take the easy way and still disprove your claim, then I most certainly will take it.

You didn't look at the TalkOrigins link for even a second, did you.

Even though you hate it so much, let me grab what Wikipedia (lol) says about dictionaries.

That's funny. You're a funny guy.

"A dictionary, also referred to as a lexicon, wordbook, or vocabulary, is a collection of words in one or more specific languages, often listed alphabetically, with usage information, definitions, etymologies, phonetics, pronunciations, and other information;...."

Do I make my point clear?

That's ****ing brilliant, dude. Except... usage information on the Big Bang? Seriously? And definition? I don't know if you've noticed this, but dictionary definitions aren't usually very long. It's not exactly easy to use a quick sentence to perfectly describe the Big Bang.

Now I seen where you can edit stuff on Wikipedia, but if you look at their content standards, I think you'll see that they have a commitment to accuracy.

You know the people who review the articles every once in a while to make sure they're completely accurate? Get this: They're people. They're not on that job on every page 24/7. They make mistakes. It happens.
 

superluis5

Paraguayan Trainer
as i study Antrhopology at school, i learn that we all derive from some sort of hominid.. not exactly monkeys.

on the otehr hand i am Catholic.. so my world is split in two and its really hard to decide. but up to this point the only one with evidence is Evolution so i voted for it.
 
originally posted GhostAnime

at least 60% of the citizens disbelieve and probably think animals were always the same.

Why do you believe 60% believe animals were always the same? i think the 36% don't actually understand evolution or just don't care about. You are acting like everybody has a exact position on this subject.
 
Last edited:
i have some new pokemon black and white pics (not fake it's true)

i think you have the wrong thread....
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
Murky Night said:
Why do you believe 60% believe animals were always the same? i think the 36% don't actually understand evolution or just don't care about. You are acting like everybody has a exact position on this subject.
I think this is a response to me.

I guess you could say those people who have no opinion either way could believe in alternate theories.. but what theory could it be?

Also, note how church frequency correlates with disbelief. I think it'd be hard to say the majority of creationists believe animals weren't always the same when not even 40% of the country does itself.
 
Ghost Anime-sorry i though i read it from ShinySandshrew's post, sorry i will fix it.
 
If there was no God then there would be no order and it would be chaos...

this isn't about whether there is a god or not, it is whether you believe in Evolution or Creationism
 

Auraninja

Eh, ragazzo!
First, I would like to note what a theory really is.

A theory is basically a thesis supported by facts.

When people argue that Evolution is just a theory, they are really undermining what scientists consider a theory.

Theories have one twist. They tend to be altered slightly in light of new information. That is all. They don't automatically decide that religion is right and overhaul the theories. At least the more reputable scientists don't.

That being said, Evolution is indeed a theory, which is supported by cold hard facts. In the hierarchy of taxonomy, evolution can be seen as how animals diverge. In the example I gave, vertebrates and echinoderms are both deuterostomes which means the anus develops before the mouth instead of vice verse. Then I made the joke that it was especially true of humans for their tendency to put their anus where their mouth is. Ha ha. More to the point, this is a characteristic within many that we see divergence and common ancestry.

I am not saying that religion is necessarily wrong. I myself think that a force has created the Big Bang since things make more sense when it begins instantaneously rather than taking six days to do. Can either of these hypotheses be proven? No they cannot. Religion is a faith based initiative. It cannot be proven!

Also, you can't add the word science to something and have it become a science. Science does not use the explanation of the supernatural to explain a phenomenon. Therefore, creation science technically does not exist. It only lingers as an idea in some people's minds.

That is part of the reason I am an Evolutionist.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
I like how you personally believe in a deity but know the difference between science and faith.
 

??????

That guy.
This question is like The Lakers vs. The Dallas Cowboys.

The Lakers are obviously better because Richard Dawkins/Atheist Jesus coached them.

i think you have the wrong thread....
There is never a wrong place for Pokeymans

My light fixture has a 145 Sp. Atk stat
 
Last edited:
Big Bang

That depends on what they actually mean by 'point-like'. I really, really doubt you can discredit an entire source for something this ambiguous. You can even look at the above sentence to see what they could possibly be referring to:

In most popularized science sources, BBT is often described with something like "The universe came into being due to the explosion of a point in which all matter was concentrated." Not surprisingly, this is probably the standard impression which most people have of the theory. Occasionally, one even hears "In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."

Point-like could mean time frame.. or space frame. Who the hell knows. It's either poor word choice, or they just aren't using 'point' in the same manner and you are taking it out of context.

So GhostAnime, because you didn't seem to understand what Hawking was saying in A Brief History of Time, here they are again with important parts underlined to highlight what his statements mean:
“When most people believed in an essentially static and unchanging universe, the question of whether or not it had a beginning was really one of metaphysics or theology. One could account for what was observed equally well on the theory that the universe had existed forever or on the theory that it was set in motion at some finite time in such a manner as to look as though it had existed forever. But in 1929, Edwin Hubble made the landmark observation that wherever you look, distant galaxies are moving rapidly away from us. In other words, the universe is expanding. This means that at earlier times objects would have been closer together. In fact, it seemed that there was a time, about ten or twenty thousand million years ago, when they were all at exactly the same place and when, therefore, the density of the universe was infinite. This discovery finally brought the question of the beginning of the universe into the realm of science.”
(From page 8, emphasis added)

And again,
“Hubble’s observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down.”
(From page 8, emphasis added)

And finally,
“All of the Friedmann solutions have the feature that some time in the past (between ten and twenty thousand million years ago) the distance between neighboring galaxies must have been zero. At the time, which we call the big bang, the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have been infinite. Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers, this means that the general theory of relativity (on which Friedmann’s solutions are based) predicts that there is a point in the universe where the theory itself breaks down. Such a point is an example of what mathematicians call a singularity.”[/COLOR]
(From page 46)

These statements are fully in-context, and make it unmistakably clear that Hawking considers the Big Bang, not only an infinitesimal point of space and matter, but he also describes the Big Bang as a time!

When Talkorigins claimed that
•BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
They simply made an inaccurate statement. The Big Bang in fact IS a time when the universe was point-like--in multiple ways!
 

PartyPokemon

L or Kira?
Evolution portrays Creation as an ongoing process, and it's also a scientific fact so, as a Christian, I like it.
 

Saurior

Solar Powered
It's funny how absolutely NOBODY is on topic here.

The big bang theory doesn't have anything to do with the theory of evolution.

?????? is actually most on topic, though the question is not really about which team you support. It's a question of a theory that attempts to explain observations on the development of species versus an explanation of the development of species that is derived from a Holy Book.

To me, that's like asking to choose between believing my eyes or what I WANT TO see.

I WANT TO see my friend happy. But if I SEE a sad face, then my conclusion that he is happy must be wrong.

And that's what a scientific theory is. It attempts to explain OBSERVED DATA. And if the theory doesn't explain ALL that data, then the theory must either be revised, or it must be wrong altogether. And up until now, there is no observed data that goes against the theory of evolution.

Ah dang, now I'm off topic as well xD
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top