Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Which is more probable Creation or Evolution?

ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 2:00:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Many feel today that evolution has grasp the upper hand in determining what is facts or not.This is rightfully so as many Thiest refuse or deny any claims otherwise and become ignorant in discussion.But also Thiest hold weight as God has lasted through ages of time without being disproved.This is a position that evolutionist claim that time has made thier claims facts.In this point Thiest have seniority.But the physical evidence is overwhelming against physical evidence for God.The only signifiant physical proof would be fulfilled prophecy.

My conclusion to this question is:
I believe in God not because I can actually prove him but because I exsperience him.
Life coming to form from a act of randomness is unlogical to me.
Also the complexities of not only man and animal life seems to suggest more than randomness.
Also man having the ability to reason and dream dreams leaves science at a halt.
The supernatural is aspect not discussed because it is random in itself and unable to be properly evaluated.
Super natural occurance is the diffent between the lines approach in true evaluating creation against evolution.
TheAsylum
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 7:35:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It seems you have a false dichotomy:

It's either Evolution
or
It's God.

A third choice, that God created the universe, which enables early life forms to evolve is strangely left of the table.

Why?

Also, it's illogical, not unlogical.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 7:46:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 2:00:08 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Many feel today that evolution has grasp the upper hand in determining what is facts or not.This is rightfully so as many Thiest refuse or deny any claims otherwise and become ignorant in discussion.But also Thiest hold weight as God has lasted through ages of time without being disproved.

You can't disprove something if there is no possible evidence that can disprove it. No one has disproved that we don't all live in the matrix...........so the matrix people hold weight right ?

This is a position that evolutionist claim that time has made thier claims facts.In this point Thiest have seniority.But the physical evidence is overwhelming against physical evidence for God.The only signifiant physical proof would be fulfilled prophecy.

My conclusion to this question is:
I believe in God not because I can actually prove him but because I exsperience him.
Life coming to form from a act of randomness is unlogical to me.

How about life coming too form as an acts of non randomness ?

Also the complexities of not only man and animal life seems to suggest more than randomness.
Also man having the ability to reason and dream dreams leaves science at a halt.
The supernatural is aspect not discussed because it is random in itself and unable to be properly evaluated.
Super natural occurance is the diffent between the lines approach in true evaluating creation against evolution.

Uh huh. Well back into the matrix you go.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 7:48:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 7:35:42 AM, Meatros wrote:
It seems you have a false dichotomy:How is it false?

It's either Evolution
or
It's God.I agree either or

A third choice, that God created the universe, which enables early life forms to evolve is strangely left of the table.

Why? Sadly it is improbable Biblically

Also, it's illogical, not unlogical.Thank you for the error correction.
TheAsylum
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 7:53:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 7:46:01 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/10/2012 2:00:08 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Many feel today that evolution has grasp the upper hand in determining what is facts or not.This is rightfully so as many Thiest refuse or deny any claims otherwise and become ignorant in discussion.But also Thiest hold weight as God has lasted through ages of time without being disproved.

You can't disprove something if there is no possible evidence that can disprove it. No one has disproved that we don't all live in the matrix...........so the matrix people hold weight right ?


This is a position that evolutionist claim that time has made thier claims facts.In this point Thiest have seniority.But the physical evidence is overwhelming against physical evidence for God.The only signifiant physical proof would be fulfilled prophecy.

My conclusion to this question is:
I believe in God not because I can actually prove him but because I exsperience him.
Life coming to form from a act of randomness is unlogical to me.

How about life coming too form as an acts of non randomness ?

Also the complexities of not only man and animal life seems to suggest more than randomness.
Also man having the ability to reason and dream dreams leaves science at a halt.
The supernatural is aspect not discussed because it is random in itself and unable to be properly evaluated.
Super natural occurance is the diffent between the lines approach in true evaluating creation against evolution.

Uh huh. Well back into the matrix you go.

What species has became from acts of randomness?
There quite a few species that do not and have not been consistant with evolution.
TheAsylum
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 9:09:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 7:48:32 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
How is it false?

I provided a third option, hence it's false.

At 5/10/2012 7:48:32 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Sadly it is improbable Biblically

You mean, according to you, right?

So why should every theist not only be a Christian theist, but your particular brand of theism?
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 9:10:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 7:53:57 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
What species has became from acts of randomness?
There quite a few species that do not and have not been consistant with evolution.

According to the theory of evolution all (or at least most) species came about non-randomly.

What species are you referring to?
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 9:24:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is no fossil records for many and many animals and one for certain would be the giraffe.there is no fossil evidence for any ancestor for the giraffe.The bombardier beetle also has no ancestor.On top of that the beetle has unique features that defy evolution.All these mutation imply that a animal develops things over a period of time.If these animals and any for that matter has certain attributes that must of been a mutation process because thier previous ancestors did not have theses triats and the traits are various and in need for the species to live and function then thats not evolution.Meaning:If a giraffe doesnt have ancestors to show were its neck came from and it needs all the muscles and parts in its neck to just move up and down then that isnt evolution becuase that neck would have took a long process to form.It would have many ancestors before the giraffe and there are none.saying that the giraffe evolved from a animal that had no neck is a error.the neck is so important that it could not of just happened it must be graduial.
TheAsylum
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 9:29:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 9:09:35 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 5/10/2012 7:48:32 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
How is it false?

I provided a third option, hence it's false.

At 5/10/2012 7:48:32 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Sadly it is improbable Biblically

You mean, according to you, right? No according to the Bibleand Jesus Christ

So why should every theist not only be a Christian theist, but your particular brand of theism?
Why not Christian?And i do not have brand Im strictly Biblically.
TheAsylum
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 9:41:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 9:24:56 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
There is no fossil records for many and many animals and one for certain would be the giraffe.there is no fossil evidence for any ancestor for the giraffe.

I have no idea about the fossilization of giraffe ancestors. That said, with how improbable it is that any particular organism gets fossilized that doesn't surprise me. Do you know what the conditions have to be like in order for an organism to fossilize?

At 5/10/2012 9:24:56 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
The bombardier beetle also has no ancestor.On top of that the beetle has unique features that defy evolution.All these mutation imply that a animal develops things over a period of time.

I'm going to be charitable and assume you mean that we haven't found any fossilized bombardier beetle ancestors as what you've written is simply absurd - unless you are trying to put forth the idea that all bombardier beetles magically pop into existence?

Here's some info on the beetle:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

At 5/10/2012 9:24:56 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
If these animals and any for that matter has certain attributes that must of been a mutation process because thier previous ancestors did not have theses triats and the traits are various and in need for the species to live and function then thats not evolution.Meaning:If a giraffe doesnt have ancestors to show were its neck came from and it needs all the muscles and parts in its neck to just move up and down then that isnt evolution becuase that neck would have took a long process to form.It would have many ancestors before the giraffe and there are none.

This is incoherent - you said we didn't have a trace of their previous ancestors and now you are saying that their previous ancestors didn't have these traits??

In any event, a brief search of TO reveals: http://www.talkorigins.org...

Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org...

If I can find this after a cursory search, it suggests to me that you are simply parroting creationist material and you haven't done any actual research into this yourself.

At 5/10/2012 9:24:56 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
saying that the giraffe evolved from a animal that had no neck is a error.the neck is so important that it could not of just happened it must be graduial.

I'm not even sure what to make of this.

The giraffe can be used as an example of jury-rigging, which supports common descent: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is such that it travels from the brain to the larynx by looping around the aortic arch. This same configuration holds true for many animals; in the case of the giraffe, this results in about twenty feet of extra nerve.

http://scienceblogs.com...

The purpose of doing this exercise is to show that there is no so-called "intelligent designer" because the pathway of this nerve is completely illogical -- unless, of course, you accept that evolution is the reason for this nerve's convoluted pathway through the body.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 9:43:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 9:29:04 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Why not Christian?And i do not have brand Im strictly Biblically.

?

What does 'strictly Biblical' mean? Old Testament? New Testament? Gnostic? Do you accept the Infancy Gospel of Thomas? Gospel of Mary?
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 10:13:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If they are as cast as alternatives (which I don't they are), then evolution is undoubtedly more probable.

In fact, for all intents and purposes, biblical creationism has been refuted for well over a hundred years at least, and no amount of "problems" with evolution (the vast majority of which are completely manufactured).

Things like common descent are so well testified that even folks like Michael Behe have accepted it as true.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 2:45:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Evolution is not real.The fossil record is nothing more than previous species that died and was wiped out.It doesnt mean they were millions of years old.Come on now!For years Bible pushers have been forcing religion done peoples thraots for years without much evidence to back it.Then people jump on board with facts that have alot of fantasy and people think it is so much more than God.Fact is no man who ever lived knows if what he is dating is fact.No man ever knows about millions of years ago(not to mention billions).Im supose to throw away the Bible and God because evolution is the truth.Because some guy created a system that he says can date billions of years.Shows it works only problem he has nothing for certain that was billions of years old then all things are measured by this test and POW* we are billions of years old.I mean really now that seems like a stretch of faith to me and Im a faithful person.You know it is not in best interest for alot of wealthy controlling people for evolution to be wrong right?
My dad was biologist for years and still is and he says randomly that sometimes he just does know if it real or not.He says many things are correct then they come accross things that refute things but it is ignored.You do know scientist work for people right?I know many scientist.Almost all I know are honest.Though Ill believe what my heart and dad tells me, Gods real,If a biologist will tell his son that regardless what science finds and says, Something did create things on this earth, like man,ill take his word for it, it far out weighs you.
BTW any person who says they believe the Biblical God and the Bible then say they believe we all evolved is not a man of God and his Word.Id get more upset at them than a creationist.Atleast a creationist doesnt know better and thats all he has to fall on.
TheAsylum
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 3:02:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 2:45:35 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Evolution is not real.The fossil record is nothing more than previous species that died and was wiped out.It doesnt mean they were millions of years old.Come on now!

Youre right. That alone doesnt make them million of years old. What makes them millions of years old, is the radiometric dating of the sediment around the dinosaurs.

For years Bible pushers have been forcing religion done peoples thraots for years without much evidence to back it.

Amen.

Then people jump on board with facts that have alot of fantasy and people think it is so much more than God.Fact is no man who ever lived knows if what he is dating is fact.No man ever knows about millions of years ago(not to mention billions).

No man alive today knows about 1000 years ago, either. How is this argument valid.

Im supose to throw away the Bible and God because evolution is the truth.Because some guy created a system that he says can date billions of years.

No, who said you have to throw the bible and God out because evolution is true?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Miller, who is Roman Catholic, is particularly known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design (ID) movement."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Dobzhansky himself spoke of God as creating through evolution, and considered himself a communicant of the Eastern Orthodox Church"

"Dobzhansky, Th. 1973. "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" The American Biology Teacher 35: (March): 125-129."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects Young Earth creationism and intelligent design. His own belief system is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation which he prefers to term BioLogos."

Shows it works only problem he has nothing for certain that was billions of years old then all things are measured by this test and POW* we are billions of years old.I mean really now that seems like a stretch of faith to me and Im a faithful person.

Sure. Just like we have nothing for certain that Abraham Lincoln existed. No one alive was there to witness his existance, either.

You know it is not in best interest for alot of wealthy controlling people for evolution to be wrong right?

Actually, most of the wealthy who control people wouldnt care if they were to control people through belief of evolution, of belief of creationism.

Furthermore, what about the wealthy religious people who want evolution to be wrong?

My dad was biologist for years and still is and he says randomly that sometimes he just does know if it real or not.He says many things are correct then they come accross things that refute things but it is ignored.You do know scientist work for people right?I know many scientist.Almost all I know are honest.Though Ill believe what my heart and dad tells me, Gods real,If a biologist will tell his son that regardless what science finds and says, Something did create things on this earth, like man,ill take his word for it, it far out weighs you.

Again, belief in God and evolution arent mutually exclusive.

Do you want me to copy-paste the small list of people who believe in God and Evolution again?

BTW any person who says they believe the Biblical God and the Bible then say they believe we all evolved is not a man of God and his Word.Id get more upset at them than a creationist.Atleast a creationist doesnt know better and thats all he has to fall on.

You appear to be a creationist. So are you saying that you dont know better and thats all you have to fall on?
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 3:59:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hello, and thank you for writing this up. It is an opinion few have the courage to put forth anymore.

I think that evolution is logical, but evolution is not scientific. It's logical because the indirect evidence is pretty consistent. It's not scientific because there are no experiments that show that evolution on large time scales can produce large changes, how it does so, what selection processes can be used, and the rate of said changes.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 4:11:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 4:02:10 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
http://www.stangrist.com...
http://www.snopes.com...
http://realscifi.fotopages.com...

Why do you keep posting this?

"They Might Be Giants
Claim: The skeleton of a giant human was uncovered during gas exploration in Saudi Arabia.
FALSE"
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 5:37:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 2:00:08 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Many feel today that evolution has grasp the upper hand in determining what is facts or not.This is rightfully so as many Thiest refuse or deny any claims otherwise and become ignorant in discussion.But also Thiest hold weight as God has lasted through ages of time without being disproved.This is a position that evolutionist claim that time has made thier claims facts.In this point Thiest have seniority.

Just because you don't disprove an idea does not mean it is somehow plausible. I cannot disprove the easter bunny but that does not mean we should all believe in him.

Also, time has not made evolutionist's claims fact, the evidence has.

But the physical evidence is overwhelming against physical evidence for God.The only signifiant physical proof would be fulfilled prophecy.

Right.

My conclusion to this question is:
I believe in God not because I can actually prove him but because I exsperience him.

What? In what way?

Life coming to form from a act of randomness is unlogical to me.

Evolution works through natural selection, which is not a random process.

Also the complexities of not only man and animal life seems to suggest more than randomness.

Right. That is why natural selection is such a great explanation.

Also man having the ability to reason and dream dreams leaves science at a halt.

Science used to not be able to explain how thunder works. Does that make it supernatural?

Just because science cannot explain something today does not mean we can assume goddidit.

The supernatural is aspect not discussed because it is random in itself and unable to be properly evaluated.
Super natural occurance is the diffent between the lines approach in true evaluating creation against evolution.

I don't know what points you are trying to make here.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 10:39:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 2:00:08 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Many feel today that evolution has grasp the upper hand in determining what is facts or not.This is rightfully so as many Thiest refuse or deny any claims otherwise and become ignorant in discussion.But also Thiest hold weight as God has lasted through ages of time without being disproved.This is a position that evolutionist claim that time has made thier claims facts.In this point Thiest have seniority.But the physical evidence is overwhelming against physical evidence for God.The only signifiant physical proof would be fulfilled prophecy.

My conclusion to this question is:
I believe in God not because I can actually prove him but because I exsperience him.
Life coming to form from a act of randomness is unlogical to me.
Also the complexities of not only man and animal life seems to suggest more than randomness.
Also man having the ability to reason and dream dreams leaves science at a halt.
The supernatural is aspect not discussed because it is random in itself and unable to be properly evaluated.
Super natural occurance is the diffent between the lines approach in true evaluating creation against evolution.

Your false false dichotomy is illogical, are implying there are only two options:

(i) Intelligence
(ii) 100% randomness

However, we know of many non-intelligent, non-random, pattern demonstrating causation in the universe which produces order. The chemical reactions in the clouds produce snowflakes with many intricate patterns for example. Also, Natural Selection isn't 100% random at all, and this process which species engage in requires no supernatural explanation. Gravity is non-intelligent, but it's not going to cause matter to fly in zig-zag patterns randomly, it's going to clump matter together in an orderly fashion.

So to claim that to not believe that intelligence created what we see, is to admit that everything came here due to 100% randomness, is false.