Evolution Vs Creationism

[GhostAnime]

You got me there. I thought that was a serious post. I actually responded to every single point as false.

 

[Tim the turtle]

Dammit, same here. You're a very, very bad man XD

 

[salamence_747]

to be honest: i have no idea if God exists or not. im a agnost in that extent, but what i do know is that there are quite a few people who abuse their religion to get away with horrible crimes, saying it was God's will :/. it makes sense then that people are gona hate religion and become atheists. thus, even though i'll never say that God does or doesn't exist because i don't know and have no proof he doesn't or does, i definately would never go to a church because i DO doubt people acting like they know it all while all they come with are books and stories which were told to them as children or at school.

Some people abuse it, but usually because they don't believe it. There will always be people who don't believe.

So are the 'God is real because his word is in the Bible and he loves us' lines.

Unlike the Bible, the theory of evolution can be backed up by valid scientific observations. Creationists have nothing but faith.

You're telling me that evolutionists don't need faith to believe that outlandish story. Ha.

Your story:
In the beginning there was nothing, then suddenly there was a very small, very dense kernel of mass and energy. We don't know where it came from, but we're sure it did. Then this kernel exploded, and somehow the density of it wasn't enough to suck all the debris back in. After a while, a long while, the debris started to form clumps. One of these clumps, a hot molten blob at the time, is of particular interest to us. After this blob cooled for a while, somehow a cell was formed, we don't know how it happened, but it happened. Anyway, this cell multiplied until there were lots of cells, lucky thing that cell randomly happened to have a way to reproduce. Now we have a lot of cells swimming around in the ocean, well one is born mutated, but not a bad mutation it was a good mutation, lucky us. Now, after a huge series of good mutations, which are extremely rare, lucky us. We're here, lucky us.

Btw, which evolved first, lungs, heart, or kidneys? None of them work without the other two. Lucky us that we had a vestigial organ in these animals that lasted long enough, without being naturally selected out, that we could evolve the other two things you need to use the first organ.

Read some more:
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Does this sound like it doesn't require faith??!? IMO, you have more faith than I do.

Here's your logic.

If A exists, then B is true. If B is true then A must exist. Therefore, because B exists, A is true. God is A, the Bible is B. But you can clearly see your conclusion is totally illogical. Its like if I say "if Botswana has won a World Cup, then what I've written on this paper is true."Your logic implies that because I have written on the piece of paper, Botswana has most definitely won the World Cup. In fact there is actually absolutely no correlation between the existence of a Bible and the existence of God.

I asked you to prove logic, not use it. In fact I told you not to use it. (Not that you did) There are four names for what you did:

-Introduction of irrelevant theses
-Introducing a red herring
-Avoiding the question
-Changing the subject

Now, I wanted you to prove logic without using circular reasoning or arbitrariness. If you can do that I will accept your claim that all circular arguments are bad.

Whoaaaa, that's a very risky thing to say. Did you mean to say based on the "perception"? Because white people are/were most definitely NOT more evolved than coloured people. Gosh, what are you, part of the Ku Klux Klan?

No, I'm not in the KKK. XD
Did you notice the quotes around "fact", and "more evolved"? That meant I didn't mean what was in the quotes, but some people did.

White supremecy was indeed based on that false perception - but society and its standards, like all things in the universe, evolved and has liberated into the one we see today. Unfortunately there remains people who insist upon the old ways and morals...

So are you saying there's only one race the human race? That's what true Christians have been saying all along. *points to Bible* It's in there too. Btw, don't start refuting this, it's not an argument. XD

If we we're "Liberated" (<--In quotes, meaning by your definition) there would be anarchy. Maybe you never thought about it that way, but if there were no laws(Every last law is going to offend someone. So they should be repealed, right?), it would be anarchy. If I misrepresented your meaning of liberated, let me know. I'll be glad to help you out with that too.

Anyone who is scared by a transvestite is either closed-minded, immature, or both.

I probably should have used the word startled, but you get the idea. I saw one once, and my reaction was a perplexed one.

Besides, what kind of silly rule is that? How does God decide which clothes are for which gender? Trousers were invented for men to wear but women wear them all the time these days, are they all holding the middle finger up to God? Maybe this rule should be extended to all clothing because we are covering up the body parts that God made for us to show to the world. If we are ashamed of them then we are ashamed of God's work.

Hear that everyone? Wearing clothing is a sin, as is wearing make-up! And don't even think about painting that house of yours, do you think God made brick/concrete/wood/stone the colour it was just so you could paint it?

Hooray for you and your slippery slope fallacy.

God actually made clothes for Adam and Eve after they sinned, and were kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Stop playing dumb on which clothes are who's, you know full well exactly what I'm talking about.

Now this is just absurd. Are you trolling or something? There is no choice involved in whether or not you're straight or gay.

You mean to say you have no choice how you are tempted, that is true.

I for one know of a young boy in the neighbourhood, and he is showing very homosexual tendencies, that is, he plays only with dolls, likes to dress in pink and claims he wants to be a girl. He grew up in the same household, and ate the same food, had access to the same toys, and interacted with the same people as his straight siblings. And of course, he is too young to know what sexual attraction is, or even what homosexuality is. So how could he have made that choice?

If he is homosexual, then I suppose he was tempted in that way, and gave in. I don't know why he gave in so don't ask, but he did.

Besides, if being gay is a choice then straight people should be able to choose their orientation any time they want. So go on, prove me wrong. For the next 2 hours, I want you to be physically, mentally and sexually attracted to the same sex. Think about them the same way as you would the opposite gender now. And be sure not to have a glimmer of a thought about a girl (presuming you are male) until the 2 hours are up. If you do think about girls, think of them as you do males now.

If you can do that, then I will concede homosexuality is solely a person's choice.

Well, fortunately for me, that kind of temptation is easy for me to resist. I have my own difficult temptations to deal with. Besides, I said a gay person could go straight, not the other way around(not that it's impossible). If someone is tempted, they can resist it, but that doesn't mean they will.

1 Corintinthians 10:13:
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

=| Are you for real?

You're essentially saying that a girl who is raped but doesn't get heard over the sound of city life must be punished. What if no one is around, or there is loud traffic? Should we pelt her face with rocks until she dies for her sin anyway?

I've never heard something so outrageous in my life...

Woah, I just looked up the verse again, it actually says if she doesn't cry out. It doesn't say anything about how loudly. And that only applies to the city. It says regardless of whether she cries out, if it happened in the country only the guy gets stoned.

In what way is a donkey any more or less clean than an ox? =S
And there was no analogy, the verse quite literally states don't yoke an ox and a donkey together.

Things were different back then, dogs were wild animals that roamed the streets at night, not house pets. So is it possible that one of those animals was a little different (Behaviorally) in a bad way.

So? You said, trust me, God isn't like Kim Jong Il, even though there are plentiful amounts of rubbish rules in the Old Testament that he demanded from his playthings. So I challenged your faith in God. What makes you so sure God isn't a dictator? North Koreans (as opposed to 'oriental people' -_-') are free to do whatever they want, as long as it's within the rules that ol' Kimmy sets for them. And if he decides they've broken the rules, he punishes them. He also forces their schools to teach the children about his greatness.

He's scarily not unlike God. Besides, you have the same evidence as anyone that God is real and loves us, how are you so sure?

Off topic: What kind of sick person makes things just so that they will love you back anyway? God should get a girlfriend...

XD He'd have to make His girlfriend in that case. It's not that kind of love, in fact IIRC the Bible says you can't know this kind of love without god.

That's not fact. It's a belief.



Hey, I'm all for scaring close-minded people once in a while. Maybe it'll knock some sense into them, make them realize "wait, this isn't that bad, I mean my eyes aren't melting or anything..."



If God was perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, wouldn't He have made the transgendered person the gender He knew they'd be more comfortable as? Because trapping a person in a body they're uncomfortable with and punishing them for trying to make it better kinda sounds like a jackass move.



Hurr hurr yes people totally choose to be trapped in a body they don't like.



Congratulations, you have found one of my berserk buttons.

Are you ****ing kidding me? If the guy is holding a gun to her head and saying "scream and you're dead", or someone just doesn't hear her, for example because the city's too loud or they're too far away for anyone to hear, are you saying we should just go "tough ****" and kill her for something that came about through no fault of her own? Disgusting. ****ing disgusting.

And I don't have time to post anything else, besides, chuboy covered it.

See above.

It would seem you a beyond rational though. The law can not be perfect if it does not apply to all. But again you are missing the point. Either one or the other or both is/are a lie. I'm inclined to think the latter.

It applied to all, but not all accepted it.

Congratulations you are probably in the top 100 worst people in the world (with however many billion people we have this figure says a lot about you) as well as the dumbest. Though the two do go hand in hand.

See what I said to chuboy.

Forgive the intrusion, but I'm curious to see how much the people on this forum actually know about the theory of evolution. Just to see whether this debate has a chance of actually going anywhere.

Basically, I have thought of ten basic statements regarding the theory of evolution and Charles Darwin. They're listed below. They can be answered by simply stating that the statement made is 'true' or 'false'. You don't have to post your answers, or tell how many you answered correctly. So try to be honest with yourself.

All but the last spoiler below are mine.

Here goes:

1. The theory of evolution was first formulated by Charles Darwin.

Spoiler: Salamence_747's Expanded Answer

Nope, he just popularized it a lot more than it was.

2. According to the ToE, humans descended from the apes.

Spoiler: Salamence_747's Expanded Answer

The ToE never said that per se, but later things did.

3. Darwin was an atheist, who repented on his deathbed and became a Christian just before he died.

Spoiler: Salamence_747's Expanded Answer

Actually, IIRC he went to seminary before he came up with the ToE. He wanted to be famous, that was his motive for this. I don't think he ever believed his own story, but I don't think he was a Christian either.

4. According to the ToE, people are the final result of evolution.

Spoiler: Salamence_747's Expanded Answer

XD, No. Supposedly we're still evolving. (Micro, sure. Macro, didn't happen in the first place.)

5. Darwin described the evolutionary line of mankind in his groundbreaking book, 'The Origin of Species'.

Spoiler: Salamence_747's Expanded Answer

No, that was later drawn by some dude.

6. Darwin himself has admitted that evolution and natural selection could never explain the forming of organs as complex as the human eye, since an eye would not work if one of its parts was taken.

Spoiler: Salamence_747's Expanded Answer

He never admitted that, but in the "Origin of the Species..." he wrote that the fossils didn't support his theory, but he was sure they would in about ten years. XD His ten years are long up, and I don't see any transitional forms. They should have a full evolution line between two things by now.

7. Gaps in the fossil record (missing transitionary fossils) undermine the ToE to this day.

Spoiler: Salamence_747's Expanded Answer

Depends what you mean by undermine, I'd say the fact most people don't think about it is why it doesn't inhibit Evolution's popularity.

8. 'Survival of the fittest' is a term Darwin thought of to describe the basic force behind natural selection and the ToE.

Spoiler: Salamence_747's Expanded Answer

This was the title of the book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. That oughta tell you how he termed.

9. The ToE states that evolution, and in fact the way mankind came into existence, is purely based on chance.

Spoiler: Salamence_747's Expanded Answer

They also claim natural selection helped.

10. The fact that the theory of Evolution is still called a theory means that there is still doubt and that it is not proven, else it would probably be called the law of evolution.

Spoiler: Salamence_747's Expanded Answer

The less informed people have no doubt, and the more informed people just deny it.

There. That wasn't so bad, now wasn't it?

And now for the answers. I don't have time to elaborate on them right now, but I will give you enough information to see how well you did on this test;

Spoiler: The answers

Every statement made above is, in fact, false. That's right, not a single statement is true.

How did you do?

 

[Inconspicuosaurus]

He never admitted that, but in the "Origin of the Species..." he wrote that the fossils didn't support his theory, but he was sure they would in about ten years. XD His ten years are long up, and I don't see any transitional forms. They should have a full evolution line between two things by now.

I do wish people would read everyone's posts and actually click on links to supplied evidence once in a while. Darwin was quite right to predict that there would shortly be enough fossil evidence to support his theory - there are many 'transitional forms' that have been discovered (see my last post for the link to Icthyostega, one of many 'transitional' species between what we now know as fish and amphibians). And as for a 'complete' evolutionary sequence, that would require at least one member of each generation in a direct line between two classified species, which is practically impossible because of the rarity of fossils in the first place. And anyway, in terms of getting a series of distinctly different enough species that can still be recognised as one evolving from the one before and so on; we're actually getting pretty close to that now that other large countries such as Russia and China are setting up there own palaeontological societies.

 

[GhostAnime]

In the beginning there was nothing, then suddenly there was a very small, very dense kernel of mass and energy.

This is NOT what Evolution says. Why do people keep stating this?

XD, No. Supposedly we're still evolving. (Micro, sure. Macro, didn't happen in the first place.)

Yeah Macro never happened; but a whale is NOT a mammal and a bat isn't a rat with wings.

 

[J.T.]

Some people abuse it, but usually because they don't believe it. There will always be people who don't believe.

Okay, so if they don't worship and believe the way you do, they're not of your religion?

You're telling me that evolutionists don't need faith to believe that outlandish story. Ha.

Pretty much. We have evidence to fall back on.

Your story:
In the beginning there was nothing, then suddenly there was a very small, very dense kernel of mass and energy.

Instant fail. Evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of the universe, only how different species came about. This proves you know very little about evolution.

We don't know where it came from, but we're sure it did.

Let's reword this, but replace "kernel" with God. We don't know where it came from, but we're sure it did.

Then this kernel exploded,

Different theory altogether.

Btw, which evolved first, lungs, heart, or kidneys? None of them work without the other two. Lucky us that we had a vestigial organ in these animals that lasted long enough, without being naturally selected out, that we could evolve the other two things you need to use the first organ.

Read some more:
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Does this sound like it doesn't require faith??!? IMO, you have more faith than I do.

When we have evidence, we pretty much automatically use less faith than you.

No, I'm not in the KKK. XD
Did you notice the quotes around "fact", and "more evolved"? That meant I didn't mean what was in the quotes, but some people did.

These people taking something as fact does not make it so, and does not excuse what they do.

Even if it were true and black people were less evolved than white people, it wouldn't matter. Let's assume blacks are less evolved. So? What part of that tells white people to kill black people? How the hell does it discount evolution if someone can take it entirely the wrong way?

If we we're "Liberated" (<--In quotes, meaning by your definition) there would be anarchy. Maybe you never thought about it that way, but if there were no laws(Every last law is going to offend someone. So they should be repealed, right?)

What? How do laws like "don't kill people" or "don't steal from others" offend people?

I probably should have used the word startled, but you get the idea. I saw one once, and my reaction was a perplexed one.

Good for you.

Hooray for you and your slippery slope fallacy.

God actually made clothes for Adam and Eve after they sinned, and were kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Stop playing dumb on which clothes are who's, you know full well exactly what I'm talking about.

But why does it matter?

You mean to say you have no choice how you are tempted, that is true.

... Really?

If he is homosexual, then I suppose he was tempted in that way, and gave in. I don't know why he gave in so don't ask, but he did.

Well, excuse him for being himself.

Seriously, what the hell? Do you want gays to just stay in the closet for their whole life? How the hell do you deny

Well, fortunately for me, that kind of temptation is easy for me to resist. I have my own difficult temptations to deal with. Besides, I said a gay person could go straight, not the other way around(not that it's impossible).

********. They can pretend to be straight, but if they could honestly go straight, I doubt they could without seriously lasting psychological problems.

Also, well, that's convenient. "Gays can choose to be straight, but straights can't choose to be gay, therefore I don't have to prove my view that has been pretty much refuted by oh I dunno everyone."

Furthermore, do tell how exactly gays can choose to be straight. I'm sure all those gay Middle Easterners who get tortured and executed by the government for being gay, and all those gay people persecuted, beaten, and killed for the way they are would love to know ending it all is as easy as choosing to be straight.
No, seriously, do you think gays choose to go through all this crap?

Woah, I just looked up the verse again, it actually says if she doesn't cry out. It doesn't say anything about how loudly. And that only applies to the city. It says regardless of whether she cries out, if it happened in the country only the guy gets stoned.

Which leaves cases where the victim:
- is mute
- is too traumatized to cry out
- has a gun to her head or a knife to her throat

I guess she's just ****ed, then!

Things were different back then, dogs were wild animals that roamed the streets at night, not house pets. So is it possible that one of those animals was a little different (Behaviorally) in a bad way.

So why did the book have to say "don't yoke them together"? If they were wild animals prone to attacking humans, I'd think it'd be pretty obvious to keep away from those "dangerous" animals.

XD He'd have to make His girlfriend in that case. It's not that kind of love, in fact IIRC the Bible says you can't know this kind of love without god.

Which doesn't answer anything about his question. Why does God make us suffer eternally just because we're not mindless cheerleaders for him?

Also you dodged chuboy's major point like Bush dodges shoes.

The ToE never said that per se, but later things did.

Once again, you prove you know nothing about evolution. Humans did not come from apes or monkeys. We and apes share a common ancestor.

Actually, IIRC he went to seminary before he came up with the ToE. He wanted to be famous, that was his motive for this. I don't think he ever believed his own story

[citation needed]

He never admitted that, but in the "Origin of the Species..." he wrote that the fossils didn't support his theory, but he was sure they would in about ten years. XD His ten years are long up, and I don't see any transitional forms. They should have a full evolution line between two things by now.

Let's say we have fossils A and B, which go together like this in terms of the evolutionary line:

A ----------- B

Now let's say we find fossil C, which goes somewhere between these two on the evolutionary line:

A ---- C ---- B

Holy crap! All we've done is create two more gaps in the fossil record. Conveniently, I doubt you'll let those go. Or the additional gaps that come about due to future fossils.

The less informed people have no doubt, and the more informed people just deny it.

You are really arrogant, you know that? This is basically saying "well you KNOW you're wrong, you're just denying it". Apparently you know more about our thoughts than we do. Brilliant.

 

[Ethan]

Does anyone mind if I close this? Creationist debates are sooooo boring. I preferr really vague and broad God debates where members can choose which topic they want to go toward.

A more clear reason as to this threads closure given during a PM conversation.

A more specific reason for the threads closure was because the topic itself doesn't really go anywhere. As a previous poster had mentioned, it mainly consists of the "enlightened atheists" refuting the "Psuedo scientific creationists." which obviously brings the topic around in circles. Hence why I generally find it boring. In fact, the only time where the topic really went anywhere is when people had brought up the wrath of the old testament God to somehow question Gods nature, and others said that the New testament refuted the old testament. Ironically that line of the debate was completely off topic as it had nothing to do with creationism.

You're most likely wondering why I didn't type up this full reply in the thread itself and the honest answer to that is laziness.