Total Posts:188|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Creationism V. Evolution

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 1:50:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am Agnostic, for reasons I will explain later, they are backed with some fact, not much, but mainly they are just philosophically based.

I will spark this debate by telling you all that I am more Evolutionist than Creationist, I believe Creationism is on a much more divided front, most creationists are closed minded, and claim if you don't worship their god, you will not go to their heaven. Evolution is on a more united front, and is not contradictory, like Creationism (when one religion contradicts another).

I am also Evolutionist due to the bible and it's many flaws, I think a lot of people who are religious get tricked from bare assertion fallacies made by their parents and local religious leaders, I believe a large majority of Creationists are only Creationist due to their fear for their gods, which is illogical, it is like claiming it is logical to due a ritual of reversing your pajama pants and dancing in your underpants to keep the ghosts away at night.

I am fine with like minded Evolutionists who want to help me argue my side, by I would appreciate getting a few of the site's more prominent creationists to argue their case and justify why they believe in Creationism, and then further go on to claim why they think their certain form of creationism (religion) is superior to the others.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 3:02:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Great idea for a thread, the subject hardly ever comes up around here so this should be interesting.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 3:14:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 3:02:23 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Great idea for a thread, the subject hardly ever comes up around here so this should be interesting.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 3:14:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
When debating Evolution vs Creation, or any topic for that matter it's important to keep a narrow focus on what is actually being debated. Don't try and bite off more than you can chew, so to speak. Therefore if the intent is to argue the validity of Evolution, stick to just the facts regarding Evolution, don't venture to claims regarding religion or religious doctrine. You may end up alienating a sympathetic audience, and you don't want to do that. Similarly Creationists should avoid arguing against atheism, when discussing the facts relating to Evolution.

It's never a good idea in debate to attempt to refute something by arguing against some other indirectly related concept. Stick to the topic of discussion. This is my advise.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 3:52:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would point out that if you want a rational and well thought out debate about creationism vs evolution, aside from a couple of exceptions, you will not get it here. The key requirements, logic, rationality and objective reasoning is normally missing.

However, with that in mind, Like Polaris suggests, stay on topic and don't get bogged down at their level.

Creationist arguments are very good at sucking you in to continually restating and explaining why they're wrong. What you find, is that they put in a lot of text, and make a very limited number of points that completely misunderstand, mis present or otherwise lie about what evolution says, but don't actually justify their position with respect to what evolution actually is.

If you can actually challenge them to justify their own position, they normally end up being conspicuously absent from the proceeding conversation....

If you want a logical and well thought debate on creationism, Id be happy to argue from the creationist position. It would be funny to turn the tables for a change.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 4:05:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 1:50:48 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I am Agnostic, for reasons I will explain later, they are backed with some fact, not much, but mainly they are just philosophically based.

I will spark this debate by telling you all that I am more Evolutionist than Creationist, I believe Creationism is on a much more divided front, most creationists are closed minded, and claim if you don't worship their god, you will not go to their heaven. Evolution is on a more united front, and is not contradictory, like Creationism (when one religion contradicts another).

I am also Evolutionist due to the bible and it's many flaws, I think a lot of people who are religious get tricked from bare assertion fallacies made by their parents and local religious leaders, I believe a large majority of Creationists are only Creationist due to their fear for their gods, which is illogical, it is like claiming it is logical to due a ritual of reversing your pajama pants and dancing in your underpants to keep the ghosts away at night.

I am fine with like minded Evolutionists who want to help me argue my side, by I would appreciate getting a few of the site's more prominent creationists to argue their case and justify why they believe in Creationism, and then further go on to claim why they think their certain form of creationism (religion) is superior to the others.

What philosophical basis is there to Evolutionary Theory does not apply to any other theory under methodological naturalism? General Relativity, Big Bang, the existence of quasars millions of lightyears from earth as an explanation for observed red shift, etc.

If there is none, are you agnostic for all such theories?
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 4:14:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I suppose I'll start

Argument against Creationism via Incongruity with the Fossil Record:

According to the creation account all land animals were created within the same day. What does the fossil record show? The oldest reptile fossils known are about 300 million years old, first appearing in the carboniferous period. The oldest mammal fossil is about 160 million years old first appearing in the middle Jurassic period. More interestingly, according to the Creation account Birds were created before any of the land animals. In the fossil record we find precisely the opposite, the oldest bird fossil being about 155 million years old, appearing within the Late Jurassic. So not only is the order incorrect, the time-span is completely incorrect. Not only could these fauna not have been created in the same day, they couldn't have been created in the same millennium, or epoch even.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 4:21:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 4:05:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/2/2013 1:50:48 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I am Agnostic, for reasons I will explain later, they are backed with some fact, not much, but mainly they are just philosophically based.

I will spark this debate by telling you all that I am more Evolutionist than Creationist, I believe Creationism is on a much more divided front, most creationists are closed minded, and claim if you don't worship their god, you will not go to their heaven. Evolution is on a more united front, and is not contradictory, like Creationism (when one religion contradicts another).

I am also Evolutionist due to the bible and it's many flaws, I think a lot of people who are religious get tricked from bare assertion fallacies made by their parents and local religious leaders, I believe a large majority of Creationists are only Creationist due to their fear for their gods, which is illogical, it is like claiming it is logical to due a ritual of reversing your pajama pants and dancing in your underpants to keep the ghosts away at night.

I am fine with like minded Evolutionists who want to help me argue my side, by I would appreciate getting a few of the site's more prominent creationists to argue their case and justify why they believe in Creationism, and then further go on to claim why they think their certain form of creationism (religion) is superior to the others.

What philosophical basis is there to Evolutionary Theory does not apply to any other theory under methodological naturalism? General Relativity, Big Bang, the existence of quasars millions of lightyears from earth as an explanation for observed red shift, etc.

If there is none, are you agnostic for all such theories?

I'm pretty sure he meant he was agnostic with respect to whether God exists, not that he was agnostic towards evolution.
falconduler
Posts: 228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 4:27:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 3:02:23 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Great idea for a thread, the subject hardly ever comes up around here so this should be interesting.

God simply used the natural process of evolution to create something in his own image ,not something that resembles half-man ,half-ape.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 5:27:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 3:02:23 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Great idea for a thread, the subject hardly ever comes up around here so this should be interesting.

lol
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 5:32:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 3:52:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I would point out that if you want a rational and well thought out debate about creationism vs evolution, aside from a couple of exceptions, you will not get it here. The key requirements, logic, rationality and objective reasoning is normally missing.

However, with that in mind, Like Polaris suggests, stay on topic and don't get bogged down at their level.

Creationist arguments are very good at sucking you in to continually restating and explaining why they're wrong. What you find, is that they put in a lot of text, and make a very limited number of points that completely misunderstand, mis present or otherwise lie about what evolution says, but don't actually justify their position with respect to what evolution actually is.

If you can actually challenge them to justify their own position, they normally end up being conspicuously absent from the proceeding conversation....


If you want a logical and well thought debate on creationism, Id be happy to argue from the creationist position. It would be funny to turn the tables for a change.

HAHA!!!...I gotta see this.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 5:37:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 5:32:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 3:52:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I would point out that if you want a rational and well thought out debate about creationism vs evolution, aside from a couple of exceptions, you will not get it here. The key requirements, logic, rationality and objective reasoning is normally missing.

However, with that in mind, Like Polaris suggests, stay on topic and don't get bogged down at their level.

Creationist arguments are very good at sucking you in to continually restating and explaining why they're wrong. What you find, is that they put in a lot of text, and make a very limited number of points that completely misunderstand, mis present or otherwise lie about what evolution says, but don't actually justify their position with respect to what evolution actually is.

If you can actually challenge them to justify their own position, they normally end up being conspicuously absent from the proceeding conversation....


If you want a logical and well thought debate on creationism, Id be happy to argue from the creationist position. It would be funny to turn the tables for a change.

HAHA!!!...I gotta see this.

He offered before to you, but you never took him up on it.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 6:09:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 5:37:17 PM, Enji wrote:
At 2/2/2013 5:32:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 3:52:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I would point out that if you want a rational and well thought out debate about creationism vs evolution, aside from a couple of exceptions, you will not get it here. The key requirements, logic, rationality and objective reasoning is normally missing.

However, with that in mind, Like Polaris suggests, stay on topic and don't get bogged down at their level.

Creationist arguments are very good at sucking you in to continually restating and explaining why they're wrong. What you find, is that they put in a lot of text, and make a very limited number of points that completely misunderstand, mis present or otherwise lie about what evolution says, but don't actually justify their position with respect to what evolution actually is.

If you can actually challenge them to justify their own position, they normally end up being conspicuously absent from the proceeding conversation....


If you want a logical and well thought debate on creationism, Id be happy to argue from the creationist position. It would be funny to turn the tables for a change.

HAHA!!!...I gotta see this.

He offered before to you, but you never took him up on it.

I have trouble doing a formal debate in 8000 characters, especially when the issue is as involved as this one is.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 6:15:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 6:09:45 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 5:37:17 PM, Enji wrote:
At 2/2/2013 5:32:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 3:52:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I would point out that if you want a rational and well thought out debate about creationism vs evolution, aside from a couple of exceptions, you will not get it here. The key requirements, logic, rationality and objective reasoning is normally missing.

However, with that in mind, Like Polaris suggests, stay on topic and don't get bogged down at their level.

Creationist arguments are very good at sucking you in to continually restating and explaining why they're wrong. What you find, is that they put in a lot of text, and make a very limited number of points that completely misunderstand, mis present or otherwise lie about what evolution says, but don't actually justify their position with respect to what evolution actually is.

If you can actually challenge them to justify their own position, they normally end up being conspicuously absent from the proceeding conversation....


If you want a logical and well thought debate on creationism, Id be happy to argue from the creationist position. It would be funny to turn the tables for a change.

HAHA!!!...I gotta see this.

He offered before to you, but you never took him up on it.

I have trouble doing a formal debate in 8000 characters, especially when the issue is as involved as this one is.

The offer was for a remainder of a thread, if you actually provided a logical justification for something you stated as fact. I can't remember what that was, or which thread it was now.

I would argue from the point of view of creation only against someone who I felt would do justice to evolution. No offence, but I don't think you understand the breath and depth of the theory well enough.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 6:51:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 6:15:14 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/2/2013 6:09:45 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 5:37:17 PM, Enji wrote:
At 2/2/2013 5:32:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 3:52:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I would point out that if you want a rational and well thought out debate about creationism vs evolution, aside from a couple of exceptions, you will not get it here. The key requirements, logic, rationality and objective reasoning is normally missing.

However, with that in mind, Like Polaris suggests, stay on topic and don't get bogged down at their level.

Creationist arguments are very good at sucking you in to continually restating and explaining why they're wrong. What you find, is that they put in a lot of text, and make a very limited number of points that completely misunderstand, mis present or otherwise lie about what evolution says, but don't actually justify their position with respect to what evolution actually is.

If you can actually challenge them to justify their own position, they normally end up being conspicuously absent from the proceeding conversation....


If you want a logical and well thought debate on creationism, Id be happy to argue from the creationist position. It would be funny to turn the tables for a change.

HAHA!!!...I gotta see this.

He offered before to you, but you never took him up on it.

I have trouble doing a formal debate in 8000 characters, especially when the issue is as involved as this one is.

The offer was for a remainder of a thread, if you actually provided a logical justification for something you stated as fact. I can't remember what that was, or which thread it was now.

I would argue from the point of view of creation only against someone who I felt would do justice to evolution. No offence, but I don't think you understand the breath and depth of the theory well enough.

http://debate.org...

The demand was for Medic to support his continued assertion that there was no evidence for the Big Bang despite being shown evidence for the Big Bang. Medic responded by saying that he admits that "that something similar to the big bang could have occurred, if that was the mechanism that God chose to use" and he proceeds to repeat that there is no evidence for the Big Bang still without explaining why the evidence for the Big Bang isn't evidence for the Big Bang.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 7:35:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 6:51:21 PM, Enji wrote:
At 2/2/2013 6:15:14 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/2/2013 6:09:45 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 5:37:17 PM, Enji wrote:
At 2/2/2013 5:32:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 3:52:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I would point out that if you want a rational and well thought out debate about creationism vs evolution, aside from a couple of exceptions, you will not get it here. The key requirements, logic, rationality and objective reasoning is normally missing.

However, with that in mind, Like Polaris suggests, stay on topic and don't get bogged down at their level.

Creationist arguments are very good at sucking you in to continually restating and explaining why they're wrong. What you find, is that they put in a lot of text, and make a very limited number of points that completely misunderstand, mis present or otherwise lie about what evolution says, but don't actually justify their position with respect to what evolution actually is.

If you can actually challenge them to justify their own position, they normally end up being conspicuously absent from the proceeding conversation....


If you want a logical and well thought debate on creationism, Id be happy to argue from the creationist position. It would be funny to turn the tables for a change.

HAHA!!!...I gotta see this.

He offered before to you, but you never took him up on it.

I have trouble doing a formal debate in 8000 characters, especially when the issue is as involved as this one is.

The offer was for a remainder of a thread, if you actually provided a logical justification for something you stated as fact. I can't remember what that was, or which thread it was now.

I would argue from the point of view of creation only against someone who I felt would do justice to evolution. No offence, but I don't think you understand the breath and depth of the theory well enough.

http://debate.org...

The demand was for Medic to support his continued assertion that there was no evidence for the Big Bang despite being shown evidence for the Big Bang. Medic responded by saying that he admits that "that something similar to the big bang could have occurred, if that was the mechanism that God chose to use" and he proceeds to repeat that there is no evidence for the Big Bang still without explaining why the evidence for the Big Bang isn't evidence for the Big Bang.

I will now take the position of a creationist.

That didn't happen.

It's all a big lie, constructed by the atheist agenda to teach abiogeneis in school.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 7:36:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 7:35:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/2/2013 6:51:21 PM, Enji wrote:
At 2/2/2013 6:15:14 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/2/2013 6:09:45 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 5:37:17 PM, Enji wrote:
At 2/2/2013 5:32:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 3:52:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I would point out that if you want a rational and well thought out debate about creationism vs evolution, aside from a couple of exceptions, you will not get it here. The key requirements, logic, rationality and objective reasoning is normally missing.

However, with that in mind, Like Polaris suggests, stay on topic and don't get bogged down at their level.

Creationist arguments are very good at sucking you in to continually restating and explaining why they're wrong. What you find, is that they put in a lot of text, and make a very limited number of points that completely misunderstand, mis present or otherwise lie about what evolution says, but don't actually justify their position with respect to what evolution actually is.

If you can actually challenge them to justify their own position, they normally end up being conspicuously absent from the proceeding conversation....


If you want a logical and well thought debate on creationism, Id be happy to argue from the creationist position. It would be funny to turn the tables for a change.

HAHA!!!...I gotta see this.

He offered before to you, but you never took him up on it.

I have trouble doing a formal debate in 8000 characters, especially when the issue is as involved as this one is.

The offer was for a remainder of a thread, if you actually provided a logical justification for something you stated as fact. I can't remember what that was, or which thread it was now.

I would argue from the point of view of creation only against someone who I felt would do justice to evolution. No offence, but I don't think you understand the breath and depth of the theory well enough.

http://debate.org...

The demand was for Medic to support his continued assertion that there was no evidence for the Big Bang despite being shown evidence for the Big Bang. Medic responded by saying that he admits that "that something similar to the big bang could have occurred, if that was the mechanism that God chose to use" and he proceeds to repeat that there is no evidence for the Big Bang still without explaining why the evidence for the Big Bang isn't evidence for the Big Bang.

I will now take the position of a creationist.

That didn't happen.

It's all a big lie, constructed by the atheist agenda to teach abiogeneis in school.

aww i thought you were serious
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 7:44:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 7:36:36 PM, Enji wrote:
At 2/2/2013 7:35:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/2/2013 6:51:21 PM, Enji wrote:
At 2/2/2013 6:15:14 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/2/2013 6:09:45 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 5:37:17 PM, Enji wrote:
At 2/2/2013 5:32:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 3:52:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I would point out that if you want a rational and well thought out debate about creationism vs evolution, aside from a couple of exceptions, you will not get it here. The key requirements, logic, rationality and objective reasoning is normally missing.

However, with that in mind, Like Polaris suggests, stay on topic and don't get bogged down at their level.

Creationist arguments are very good at sucking you in to continually restating and explaining why they're wrong. What you find, is that they put in a lot of text, and make a very limited number of points that completely misunderstand, mis present or otherwise lie about what evolution says, but don't actually justify their position with respect to what evolution actually is.

If you can actually challenge them to justify their own position, they normally end up being conspicuously absent from the proceeding conversation....


If you want a logical and well thought debate on creationism, Id be happy to argue from the creationist position. It would be funny to turn the tables for a change.

HAHA!!!...I gotta see this.

He offered before to you, but you never took him up on it.

I have trouble doing a formal debate in 8000 characters, especially when the issue is as involved as this one is.

The offer was for a remainder of a thread, if you actually provided a logical justification for something you stated as fact. I can't remember what that was, or which thread it was now.

I would argue from the point of view of creation only against someone who I felt would do justice to evolution. No offence, but I don't think you understand the breath and depth of the theory well enough.

http://debate.org...

The demand was for Medic to support his continued assertion that there was no evidence for the Big Bang despite being shown evidence for the Big Bang. Medic responded by saying that he admits that "that something similar to the big bang could have occurred, if that was the mechanism that God chose to use" and he proceeds to repeat that there is no evidence for the Big Bang still without explaining why the evidence for the Big Bang isn't evidence for the Big Bang.

I will now take the position of a creationist.

That didn't happen.

It's all a big lie, constructed by the atheist agenda to teach abiogeneis in school.

aww i thought you were serious

I was actually being seriously with the original statement; I was just being humourously ironic there.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 7:49:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 6:15:14 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/2/2013 6:09:45 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 5:37:17 PM, Enji wrote:
At 2/2/2013 5:32:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 3:52:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I would point out that if you want a rational and well thought out debate about creationism vs evolution, aside from a couple of exceptions, you will not get it here. The key requirements, logic, rationality and objective reasoning is normally missing.

However, with that in mind, Like Polaris suggests, stay on topic and don't get bogged down at their level.

Creationist arguments are very good at sucking you in to continually restating and explaining why they're wrong. What you find, is that they put in a lot of text, and make a very limited number of points that completely misunderstand, mis present or otherwise lie about what evolution says, but don't actually justify their position with respect to what evolution actually is.

If you can actually challenge them to justify their own position, they normally end up being conspicuously absent from the proceeding conversation....


If you want a logical and well thought debate on creationism, Id be happy to argue from the creationist position. It would be funny to turn the tables for a change.

HAHA!!!...I gotta see this.

He offered before to you, but you never took him up on it.

I have trouble doing a formal debate in 8000 characters, especially when the issue is as involved as this one is.

The offer was for a remainder of a thread, if you actually provided a logical justification for something you stated as fact. I can't remember what that was, or which thread it was now.

I would argue from the point of view of creation only against someone who I felt would do justice to evolution. No offence, but I don't think you understand the breath and depth of the theory well enough.


Lol, In other words you'd rather just debate someone who believes in evolution.

I don't get it, there are a ton of laymen on here, and so far I haven't seen one person sway on their belief of evolution vs creation.

Either 1) we're insanely stubborn, 2) your theory isn't true, or 3) you just really suck at explaining it.

F*ck you if you think 1.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 7:59:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 7:49:31 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 6:15:14 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/2/2013 6:09:45 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 5:37:17 PM, Enji wrote:
At 2/2/2013 5:32:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 3:52:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I would point out that if you want a rational and well thought out debate about creationism vs evolution, aside from a couple of exceptions, you will not get it here. The key requirements, logic, rationality and objective reasoning is normally missing.

However, with that in mind, Like Polaris suggests, stay on topic and don't get bogged down at their level.

Creationist arguments are very good at sucking you in to continually restating and explaining why they're wrong. What you find, is that they put in a lot of text, and make a very limited number of points that completely misunderstand, mis present or otherwise lie about what evolution says, but don't actually justify their position with respect to what evolution actually is.

If you can actually challenge them to justify their own position, they normally end up being conspicuously absent from the proceeding conversation....


If you want a logical and well thought debate on creationism, Id be happy to argue from the creationist position. It would be funny to turn the tables for a change.

HAHA!!!...I gotta see this.

He offered before to you, but you never took him up on it.

I have trouble doing a formal debate in 8000 characters, especially when the issue is as involved as this one is.

The offer was for a remainder of a thread, if you actually provided a logical justification for something you stated as fact. I can't remember what that was, or which thread it was now.

I would argue from the point of view of creation only against someone who I felt would do justice to evolution. No offence, but I don't think you understand the breath and depth of the theory well enough.


Lol, In other words you'd rather just debate someone who believes in evolution.

I don't get it, there are a ton of laymen on here, and so far I haven't seen one person sway on their belief of evolution vs creation.

Either 1) we're insanely stubborn, 2) your theory isn't true, or 3) you just really suck at explaining it.

F*ck you if you think 1.

You for got 4.) You are incapable of believing it, due reasons of either intelligence or emotion.

I'm pretty clearly saying that it is not about believing in evolution, it's about understanding, which is sorely lacking in a great number of people here. There is no point in having someone arguing for Evolution who doesnt actually accept there is any evidence, any science, and thinks that large morphological changes should be seen in a human lifetimes. it's that sort of boneheaded lunacy that cannot even argue properly against it, leave alone for it.

One of the people arguing against evolution here, has stated that he would not change his beliefs unless there was some form of divine intervention, so it's quite difficult for little-old-me to convince them.

Now in terms of why no one here is convinced, the question is 'what would take you to beleive', from my experience with creationists, that answer is normally something absurd, which logically leads to either 1 or 4, regardless of whether you swear at me.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 10:28:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 4:14:28 PM, Polaris wrote:
I suppose I'll start


Argument against Creationism via Incongruity with the Fossil Record:

According to the creation account all land animals were created within the same day. What does the fossil record show? The oldest reptile fossils known are about 300 million years old, first appearing in the carboniferous period. The oldest mammal fossil is about 160 million years old first appearing in the middle Jurassic period. More interestingly, according to the Creation account Birds were created before any of the land animals. In the fossil record we find precisely the opposite, the oldest bird fossil being about 155 million years old, appearing within the Late Jurassic. So not only is the order incorrect, the time-span is completely incorrect. Not only could these fauna not have been created in the same day, they couldn't have been created in the same millennium, or epoch even.

Illustration:
http://i75.photobucket.com...

I'm curious to see the Creationist response to this, as typically whenever this point is raised it's ignored altogether.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 12:52:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 6:15:14 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/2/2013 6:09:45 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 5:37:17 PM, Enji wrote:
At 2/2/2013 5:32:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 3:52:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I would point out that if you want a rational and well thought out debate about creationism vs evolution, aside from a couple of exceptions, you will not get it here. The key requirements, logic, rationality and objective reasoning is normally missing.

However, with that in mind, Like Polaris suggests, stay on topic and don't get bogged down at their level.

Creationist arguments are very good at sucking you in to continually restating and explaining why they're wrong. What you find, is that they put in a lot of text, and make a very limited number of points that completely misunderstand, mis present or otherwise lie about what evolution says, but don't actually justify their position with respect to what evolution actually is.

If you can actually challenge them to justify their own position, they normally end up being conspicuously absent from the proceeding conversation....


If you want a logical and well thought debate on creationism, Id be happy to argue from the creationist position. It would be funny to turn the tables for a change.

HAHA!!!...I gotta see this.

He offered before to you, but you never took him up on it.

I have trouble doing a formal debate in 8000 characters, especially when the issue is as involved as this one is.

The offer was for a remainder of a thread, if you actually provided a logical justification for something you stated as fact. I can't remember what that was, or which thread it was now.

I would argue from the point of view of creation only against someone who I felt would do justice to evolution. No offence, but I don't think you understand the breath and depth of the theory well enough.

Yeah, I wouldn't be a good opponent for that one. Seeing as how evolutionary theory encompasses everything that isn't creation, not many people can understand it all. :)
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 12:56:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 12:52:32 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Yeah, I wouldn't be a good opponent for that one. Seeing as how evolutionary theory encompasses everything that isn't creation, not many people can understand it all. :)

Evolution here, is referring to biological evolution.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 12:57:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 10:28:26 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/2/2013 4:14:28 PM, Polaris wrote:
I suppose I'll start


Argument against Creationism via Incongruity with the Fossil Record:

According to the creation account all land animals were created within the same day. What does the fossil record show? The oldest reptile fossils known are about 300 million years old, first appearing in the carboniferous period. The oldest mammal fossil is about 160 million years old first appearing in the middle Jurassic period. More interestingly, according to the Creation account Birds were created before any of the land animals. In the fossil record we find precisely the opposite, the oldest bird fossil being about 155 million years old, appearing within the Late Jurassic. So not only is the order incorrect, the time-span is completely incorrect. Not only could these fauna not have been created in the same day, they couldn't have been created in the same millennium, or epoch even.

Illustration:
http://i75.photobucket.com...

I'm curious to see the Creationist response to this, as typically whenever this point is raised it's ignored altogether.

I'm curious as to why you need a third grader to give you an artist's rendering of your geologic column, rather than having real pictures of it.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 4:42:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 12:57:36 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 10:28:26 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/2/2013 4:14:28 PM, Polaris wrote:
I suppose I'll start


Argument against Creationism via Incongruity with the Fossil Record:

According to the creation account all land animals were created within the same day. What does the fossil record show? The oldest reptile fossils known are about 300 million years old, first appearing in the carboniferous period. The oldest mammal fossil is about 160 million years old first appearing in the middle Jurassic period. More interestingly, according to the Creation account Birds were created before any of the land animals. In the fossil record we find precisely the opposite, the oldest bird fossil being about 155 million years old, appearing within the Late Jurassic. So not only is the order incorrect, the time-span is completely incorrect. Not only could these fauna not have been created in the same day, they couldn't have been created in the same millennium, or epoch even.

Illustration:
http://i75.photobucket.com...

I'm curious to see the Creationist response to this, as typically whenever this point is raised it's ignored altogether.

I'm curious as to why you need a third grader to give you an artist's rendering of your geologic column, rather than having real pictures of it.

Really? That's your argument? The sum of evidence for the dating of fossils and alignment of the geological column is invalid because the picture supplied was colored in 'outside' the lines?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 6:45:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 3:14:48 PM, Polaris wrote:
When debating Evolution vs Creation, or any topic for that matter it's important to keep a narrow focus on what is actually being debated. Don't try and bite off more than you can chew, so to speak. Therefore if the intent is to argue the validity of Evolution, stick to just the facts regarding Evolution, don't venture to claims regarding religion or religious doctrine. You may end up alienating a sympathetic audience, and you don't want to do that. Similarly Creationists should avoid arguing against atheism, when discussing the facts relating to Evolution.

It's never a good idea in debate to attempt to refute something by arguing against some other indirectly related concept. Stick to the topic of discussion. This is my advise.

It's already a little too late for that.

"I am also Evolutionist due to the bible".
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 9:18:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 12:57:36 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/2/2013 10:28:26 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/2/2013 4:14:28 PM, Polaris wrote:
I suppose I'll start


Argument against Creationism via Incongruity with the Fossil Record:

According to the creation account all land animals were created within the same day. What does the fossil record show? The oldest reptile fossils known are about 300 million years old, first appearing in the carboniferous period. The oldest mammal fossil is about 160 million years old first appearing in the middle Jurassic period. More interestingly, according to the Creation account Birds were created before any of the land animals. In the fossil record we find precisely the opposite, the oldest bird fossil being about 155 million years old, appearing within the Late Jurassic. So not only is the order incorrect, the time-span is completely incorrect. Not only could these fauna not have been created in the same day, they couldn't have been created in the same millennium, or epoch even.

Illustration:
http://i75.photobucket.com...

I'm curious to see the Creationist response to this, as typically whenever this point is raised it's ignored altogether.

I'm curious as to why you need a third grader to give you an artist's rendering of your geologic column, rather than having real pictures of it.

The illustration is only meant to serve as a point of baseline comparison to show what we would expect to find if each were true. If you don't understand what either predicts then it does no good to show what the Fossil record really looks like. That being said, which one do you suppose the fossil record more closely resembles?
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 9:21:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 1:50:48 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I am Agnostic, for reasons I will explain later, they are backed with some fact, not much, but mainly they are just philosophically based.

I will spark this debate by telling you all that I am more Evolutionist than Creationist, I believe Creationism is on a much more divided front, most creationists are closed minded, and claim if you don't worship their god, you will not go to their heaven. Evolution is on a more united front, and is not contradictory, like Creationism (when one religion contradicts another).

I am also Evolutionist due to the bible and it's many flaws, I think a lot of people who are religious get tricked from bare assertion fallacies made by their parents and local religious leaders, I believe a large majority of Creationists are only Creationist due to their fear for their gods, which is illogical, it is like claiming it is logical to due a ritual of reversing your pajama pants and dancing in your underpants to keep the ghosts away at night.

I am fine with like minded Evolutionists who want to help me argue my side, by I would appreciate getting a few of the site's more prominent creationists to argue their case and justify why they believe in Creationism, and then further go on to claim why they think their certain form of creationism (religion) is superior to the others.

Look on Youtube for proper debates - this will give you insights into how serious thinkers approach this subject, eg:

and this clip too - where you see a real "scientist" make a fool of himself (because he does not understand the limits of scientific inquiry).

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 9:45:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 4:14:28 PM, Polaris wrote:
I suppose I'll start


Argument against Creationism via Incongruity with the Fossil Record:

According to the creation account all land animals were created within the same day. What does the fossil record show? The oldest reptile fossils known are about 300 million years old, first appearing in the carboniferous period. The oldest mammal fossil is about 160 million years old first appearing in the middle Jurassic period. More interestingly, according to the Creation account Birds were created before any of the land animals. In the fossil record we find precisely the opposite, the oldest bird fossil being about 155 million years old, appearing within the Late Jurassic. So not only is the order incorrect, the time-span is completely incorrect. Not only could these fauna not have been created in the same day, they couldn't have been created in the same millennium, or epoch even.

Well your post shows very clearly how we need to first define "creationist" - there are numerous different ideas put forward by creationists - you are confronting just one particular version of (so called) Biblical Creationism.

I am a creationst and I do not think the Bible says everything was created in six days at all and I find no issue at all with the existence of fossils and no contradiction between what I find in the Bible and in science.

Exposing weakness in one or other naive versions of some creationst arguments does not show that things were not created - it can only show that that particular version of creationsim is incorrect.

I was a staunch defender of Darwinian ideas until my mid 20s, I studied mathematics and physics when I was younger including special and general relativity and the history of physics and more.

I began to review my position on "creation" when I was forced to admit that most evolution arguments are unsound and presented to us dogmatically - we see this today for example with the claim "Evolution is a fact" and so on, which is never something you wil hear for any theory in physics like relativity, QED and so on.

It is the dogmatic manner in which breathtaking leaps of logic are made and too little attention paid to evolution weaknesses that led to me changing my position.

A theory (aka explanation, model) of reality is judged NOT by where it agress with observation but by where it disagrees - we don't say "relativity" is a fact just because it is in agreement with many observations.

Look at where evolution is weak, where the theory is in disagreement with observation, that is the key here.

Often when I critique evolution with evolutionists they like to point out the "masses of evidence" for this or that - but they dismiss areas where there is evidence against evolution, thinking that these are unimportant because of all the other evidence.

Imagine Newton saying "Poppycock! my laws of gravitation and motion are a fact, I mean look at all the evidence there is to support it - satellites, design of curved bends in roads, man on the moon - I mean puleeez!"

Yet this is exactly how many evolutionists react!

Harry.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 9:50:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 9:21:19 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/2/2013 1:50:48 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I am Agnostic, for reasons I will explain later, they are backed with some fact, not much, but mainly they are just philosophically based.

I will spark this debate by telling you all that I am more Evolutionist than Creationist, I believe Creationism is on a much more divided front, most creationists are closed minded, and claim if you don't worship their god, you will not go to their heaven. Evolution is on a more united front, and is not contradictory, like Creationism (when one religion contradicts another).

I am also Evolutionist due to the bible and it's many flaws, I think a lot of people who are religious get tricked from bare assertion fallacies made by their parents and local religious leaders, I believe a large majority of Creationists are only Creationist due to their fear for their gods, which is illogical, it is like claiming it is logical to due a ritual of reversing your pajama pants and dancing in your underpants to keep the ghosts away at night.

I am fine with like minded Evolutionists who want to help me argue my side, by I would appreciate getting a few of the site's more prominent creationists to argue their case and justify why they believe in Creationism, and then further go on to claim why they think their certain form of creationism (religion) is superior to the others.

Look on Youtube for proper debates - this will give you insights into how serious thinkers approach this subject, eg:



and this clip too - where you see a real "scientist" make a fool of himself (because he does not understand the limits of scientific inquiry).



Harry.

This is the sort of thing that I was speaking of in my first post on this topic. While evolution does not include God it doesn't necessarily exclude him either. It's erroneous to set up this question as being 'God vs Evolution' as it's a false dichotomy. Dr. Kenneth Miller, a well known scientists and supporter of Evolution is also a Roman Catholic for instance. So we must look only at whether the facts seem to support the theory of evolution, and not dwell on questions of theology. Although perhaps I am being a bit wishful in thinking that people will focus only on the facts relating to Evolution.