Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution

LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 11:48:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

It doesn't disprove it, they aren't the same thing. Creationism is about creating life with the wave of a gods magic hand, while evolution is what happens to life forms over time.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 11:59:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If by creationism you mean young earth creationism evolution disproves that because evolution entails the earth is older than 5 - 10 k years and that life developed gradually.

If by creationism you mean the simple notion that God created the universe then evolution doesn't disprove creationism.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
steffon66
Posts: 240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:30:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

it doesnt it just makes it so unlikely that it might as well disprove it.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:35:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

Creationism is (usually) based on the stories in Genesis in which God creates each species (or "kind"), fully formed as a singular event. Evolution is a complete explanation for the origin of species and shows that they came from a single (or few), original forms of life.

Abiogenesis is the more direct challenge to creationism, and the First Law of Thermodynamics refutes the idea of "creation", outright.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:52:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 11:48:20 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

It doesn't disprove it, they aren't the same thing. Creationism is about creating life with the wave of a gods magic hand, while evolution is what happens to life forms over time.

It doesn't. But you just can't fill in the blanks that science hasn't filled yet with subjective reasoning. It would be very, unscientific. Faith and science need to remain separate, because they are.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 4:20:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 11:48:20 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

It doesn't disprove it, they aren't the same thing. Creationism is about creating life with the wave of a gods magic hand, while evolution is what happens to life forms over time.

This is more along the lines of my thinking. Creationism being that a being created the universe and evolution being the path of life forms from one to the next.
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 4:21:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 11:59:05 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
If by creationism you mean young earth creationism evolution disproves that because evolution entails the earth is older than 5 - 10 k years and that life developed gradually.

If by creationism you mean the simple notion that God created the universe then evolution doesn't disprove creationism.

I have no to little belief in young Earth Creationism. It doesn't make sense. That does not mean it is impossible, just improbable. Going then to your notion, that is what I have been finding is that Evolution doesn't disprove it.
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 4:22:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:30:38 PM, steffon66 wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

it doesnt it just makes it so unlikely that it might as well disprove it.

If this is the case, then explain how. What is the reason it "basically" disproves it?
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 4:26:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:52:07 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:48:20 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

It doesn't disprove it, they aren't the same thing. Creationism is about creating life with the wave of a gods magic hand, while evolution is what happens to life forms over time.

It doesn't. But you just can't fill in the blanks that science hasn't filled yet with subjective reasoning. It would be very, unscientific. Faith and science need to remain separate, because they are.

Filling in the blanks because, "science hasn't filled yet" is incorrect. You make the statement that, " Faith and science need to remain separate, because they are". I also disagree with this statement. Let me explain:

1. First, how we "fill in the blanks" with faith. In all honesty, we do. So is most of the ideas of the Big Bang, Evolution, and many other theories. We use scientific deductive reasoning to reach a conclusion. This is the case of just about everything in science, so how is it different with God? Simply because you do not believe in any faith?

2. Faith and science are not separate. Genesis 1:3. "Let there be light". What is the Big Bang? An explosion of light. Man made from the dust. The first suggested life on Earth? Prokaryote mitochondria on a piece of clay. The Bible has said what "science" is only now explaining so how are they different?
steffon66
Posts: 240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 6:36:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 4:22:06 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
At 11/11/2014 12:30:38 PM, steffon66 wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

it doesnt it just makes it so unlikely that it might as well disprove it.

If this is the case, then explain how. What is the reason it "basically" disproves it?

because most of the time we have had life it hasnt been human life. just dinosaurs and other primitive life forms and then humans come along and will be extinct some time very soon so other life forms that serve no purpose can rome the planet eating and shiting and serving no purpose. other life forms are pointless. they dont know right from wrong or nothing so they cant be of interest to gods. if evolution really happened then we are just a random adaptation of a more primitive life form so there is no poiint. we werent meant to be we just are.
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 6:40:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 6:36:04 PM, steffon66 wrote:
At 11/11/2014 4:22:06 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
At 11/11/2014 12:30:38 PM, steffon66 wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

it doesnt it just makes it so unlikely that it might as well disprove it.

If this is the case, then explain how. What is the reason it "basically" disproves it?

because most of the time we have had life it hasnt been human life. just dinosaurs and other primitive life forms and then humans come along and will be extinct some time very soon so other life forms that serve no purpose can rome the planet eating and shiting and serving no purpose. other life forms are pointless. they dont know right from wrong or nothing so they cant be of interest to gods. if evolution really happened then we are just a random adaptation of a more primitive life form so there is no poiint. we werent meant to be we just are.

I don't entirely understand. Was that supposed to support Evolution? It sure doesn't sound like it.
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 6:46:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
On many points, creationism and evolutionism are not mutually exclusive. However, if creationism asserts that all of Genesis is true, and that the earth is between 5-10,000 years old, then evolutionism directly refutes it.

As Beastt already mentioned, abiogenesis is more directly opposed to creationism. Unfortunately abiogenesis is a relatively new field and lacks substantial evidence. However, all fields of science are substantiated by more irrefutable evidence that creationism.
Thanksfornotraping
Posts: 238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 6:56:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

It obviously doesn't- next question?
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 7:23:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 4:26:48 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
At 11/11/2014 12:52:07 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:48:20 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

It doesn't disprove it, they aren't the same thing. Creationism is about creating life with the wave of a gods magic hand, while evolution is what happens to life forms over time.

It doesn't. But you just can't fill in the blanks that science hasn't filled yet with subjective reasoning. It would be very, unscientific. Faith and science need to remain separate, because they are.

Filling in the blanks because, "science hasn't filled yet" is incorrect. You make the statement that, " Faith and science need to remain separate, because they are". I also disagree with this statement. Let me explain:

1. First, how we "fill in the blanks" with faith. In all honesty, we do. So is most of the ideas of the Big Bang, Evolution, and many other theories. We use scientific deductive reasoning to reach a conclusion. This is the case of just about everything in science, so how is it different with God? Simply because you do not believe in any faith?

It is different and I am an agnostic. That means that I do not denounce the possible existence of God. Let me explain that "filling in the blanks" with faith does not work in the real world. It is absolutely okay to admit that our understanding of science is not complete. But, it is not okay to fill in the places where we lack understanding by assuming it was magical intervention from God. You are making up for missing scientific data by saying, "If we can't explain it with science, it must be God." That's not reality. We would never progress from this point forward. Forget about finding the cure for cancer, diabetes. multiple sclerosis, etc. Forget about finding new ways to provide clean energy so that you can continue to sit at your PC reading this. Forget about learning anything new in science period. It doesn't work the way you want it to. And thank God for scientists who know that and strive to learn and advance while you decide to give it up to faith.

2. Faith and science are not separate. Genesis 1:3. "Let there be light". What is the Big Bang? An explosion of light. Man made from the dust. The first suggested life on Earth? Prokaryote mitochondria on a piece of clay. The Bible has said what "science" is only now explaining so how are they different?

Faith is a subjective ideal. Science is objective, without bias. They are most certainly different. Faith is the belief in things unseen and unproven. Science exists only to understand our natural universe. Science is NOT trying to disprove God, science is trying to find our origins, understand our physical universe and cure diseases for the good of mankind.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 1:05:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

It doesn't. Creationists find it threatening. The biblical creation myth disproves creation.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 1:28:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 11:48:20 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

It doesn't disprove it, they aren't the same thing. Creationism is about creating life with the wave of a gods magic hand, while evolution is what happens to life forms over time.

There is no evolution if life did not emerge out of non-life, which it obviously did not.
Evolution is a farce, and somehow people think they are smart for believing it and piling on observations which they say are proof of things that can never be tested by scientific method. Evolution is a belief system, it is not science. It is a belief system of hypothethesis which is only designed to make the believer feel like he or she is free from punishment beyond death with no need to fear God. Evolution is a self-deluding religious belief system in which the evolutionist makes himself his own god with no power to save them from death and the false hope of escape from life's problems through death.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 1:33:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:35:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

Creationism is (usually) based on the stories in Genesis in which God creates each species (or "kind"), fully formed as a singular event. Evolution is a complete explanation for the origin of species and shows that they came from a single (or few), original forms of life.

Abiogenesis is the more direct challenge to creationism, and the First Law of Thermodynamics refutes the idea of "creation", outright.

God created the laws of thermodynics, and those laws exclude the possibilty of life emerging from non-life.

For an honest look at how science disproves evolution: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org...

(the laws of thermodynamics are science and can be studied and applied in science, the belief in evolution and abiogenisis is nothing but hypothesis which violated the laws of thermodynmaics and cannot be scientifically tested.)
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 1:56:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 1:33:50 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 11/11/2014 12:35:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

Creationism is (usually) based on the stories in Genesis in which God creates each species (or "kind"), fully formed as a singular event. Evolution is a complete explanation for the origin of species and shows that they came from a single (or few), original forms of life.

Abiogenesis is the more direct challenge to creationism, and the First Law of Thermodynamics refutes the idea of "creation", outright.

God created the laws of thermodynics...
An assertion for which there is absolutely no support.

and those laws exclude the possibilty of life emerging from non-life.
Nope, not in any way, shape or form. But they do exclude the possibility that God "created" anything.

For an honest look at how science disproves evolution: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org...
There is nothing which disproves evolution. If there were, it wouldn't be a "theory".

(the laws of thermodynamics are science and can be studied and applied in science, the belief in evolution and abiogenisis is nothing but hypothesis which violated the laws of thermodynmaics and cannot be scientifically tested.)
When someone claims that the laws of thermodynamics refute evolution, they're demonstrating an extreme ignorance regarding thermodynamics, evolution, or both. In your case, it's likely both. Notice that you haven't even specified which law of thermodynamics, what that law says, or how it conflicts with evolution. But maybe I can help you out here; the standard (and refuted) creationist claim is that the SECOND law of thermodynamics (having to do with increasing entropy), violates evolution because evolution demonstrates a decline in entropy. And the reason that's not a violation of thermodynamics is because the second law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems, and isolated systems. It says so within the law itself. Earth is neither closed, nor isolated. Earth receives energy continually.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
v3nesl
Posts: 4,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 2:25:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

Evolution proposes a random process. And that means, some exact sequence of events is not required. "Noise" will make it happen. This is like stirring your cream into your coffee - you don't have to do it in any specific way - any old sort of agitation will do the job. Some forms of agitation will do the job faster, but any old agitation will do the job before long. There is a sort of natural selection at the molecular level that tends to separate the cream, and thus it ends up roughly equidistant throughout the coffee.

So, can an intelligent agent (i.e. 'creator') stir cream into coffee? Sure. Can you tell from examining a cup of coffee whether the cream was stirred in by a human or just sloshed around as you drove to work? No, you can't. So, from a scientific point of view, there is no distinction between directed or undirected creaming of coffee.

And likewise, from a scientific point of view, if life evolved, it's quite irrelevant whether there is a creator or not. If he does exist he didn't do anything that wouldn't have gotten done anyway.

But, just for record, let me say that I think it's utter nonsense to suppose that noise is sufficient to produce or variegate life. It might make sense if you started with some super-gene, some super complex original organism that sort of diffused into all the extant forms. But that's not Darwinian evolution, which proposes that life gained almost infinite complexity from a simple ancestor, and did that by noise alone. That's not stirring cream into coffee, that's putting your coffee in the freezer and finding an ice sculpture of the cathedral of Notre Dame when you take it back out. Ain't gonna happen.
This space for rent.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 2:31:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 2:25:25 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

Evolution proposes a random process. And that means, some exact sequence of events is not required. "Noise" will make it happen. This is like stirring your cream into your coffee - you don't have to do it in any specific way - any old sort of agitation will do the job. Some forms of agitation will do the job faster, but any old agitation will do the job before long. There is a sort of natural selection at the molecular level that tends to separate the cream, and thus it ends up roughly equidistant throughout the coffee.

So, can an intelligent agent (i.e. 'creator') stir cream into coffee? Sure. Can you tell from examining a cup of coffee whether the cream was stirred in by a human or just sloshed around as you drove to work? No, you can't. So, from a scientific point of view, there is no distinction between directed or undirected creaming of coffee.

And likewise, from a scientific point of view, if life evolved, it's quite irrelevant whether there is a creator or not. If he does exist he didn't do anything that wouldn't have gotten done anyway.

Yes, evolution doesn't disprove God, nor creationism in the general sense. If it did then our biology labs would probably have a LOT of job vacancies (since a massive fraction of them are traditional theists).

But, just for record, let me say that I think it's utter nonsense to suppose that noise is sufficient to produce or variegate life. It might make sense if you started with some super-gene, some super complex original organism that sort of diffused into all the extant forms. But that's not Darwinian evolution, which proposes that life gained almost infinite complexity from a simple ancestor, and did that by noise alone. That's not stirring cream into coffee, that's putting your coffee in the freezer and finding an ice sculpture of the cathedral of Notre Dame when you take it back out. Ain't gonna happen.

You can't be serious? You're still spewing out this crap when it has been addressed multiple times in detail already, and once was in a debate we had (although the topic for that was different, it would have made blatently obvious that this reasoning you gave is complete nonsense).
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 7:32:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 1:28:15 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:

There is no evolution if life did not emerge out of non-life, which it obviously did not.

Yes, it did, it's called "Abiogenesis."

Evolution is a farce

No, evolution is a fact.

and somehow people think they are smart for believing it and piling on observations which they say are proof of things that can never be tested by scientific method. Evolution is a belief system, it is not science. It is a belief system of hypothethesis which is only designed to make the believer feel like he or she is free from punishment beyond death with no need to fear God. Evolution is a self-deluding religious belief system in which the evolutionist makes himself his own god with no power to save them from death and the false hope of escape from life's problems through death.

It is clear by your understanding of evolution that you have no understanding of evolution. Perhaps, if you did, you might address the theory itself rather than exhibiting a religious agenda of dishonesty and deceit.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 7:35:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 2:25:25 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

Evolution proposes a random process.

What random process, exactly? Please explain.

But that's not Darwinian evolution, which proposes that life gained almost infinite complexity from a simple ancestor, and did that by noise alone. That's not stirring cream into coffee, that's putting your coffee in the freezer and finding an ice sculpture of the cathedral of Notre Dame when you take it back out. Ain't gonna happen.

It does not appear you have a grasp on evolution. Could I offer you a link to a website to get you started?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 7:37:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A question I've never had answered in many years of debating evolution-proponents is why the sheep and cows survived through the Jurassic Age while being only good for food.

I mean doesn't the fact they are alive completely derail everything scientists claim about how evolution takes place?
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 7:55:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

Evolution says all animals come from a common ancestor. Creation from Genesis says humans came about suddenly formed fully as a species, evolution disagrees with that.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 8:54:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 7:37:18 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
A question I've never had answered in many years of debating evolution-proponents is why the sheep and cows survived through the Jurassic Age while being only good for food.

I mean doesn't the fact they are alive completely derail everything scientists claim about how evolution takes place?

I'm not sure when sheep and cows first emerged from the evolutionary path of mammals. But most mammals didn't exist in the Jurassic. So I'm not sure I understand your question.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:46:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 7:23:44 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/11/2014 4:26:48 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
At 11/11/2014 12:52:07 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:48:20 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

It doesn't disprove it, they aren't the same thing. Creationism is about creating life with the wave of a gods magic hand, while evolution is what happens to life forms over time.

It doesn't. But you just can't fill in the blanks that science hasn't filled yet with subjective reasoning. It would be very, unscientific. Faith and science need to remain separate, because they are.

Filling in the blanks because, "science hasn't filled yet" is incorrect. You make the statement that, " Faith and science need to remain separate, because they are". I also disagree with this statement. Let me explain:

1. First, how we "fill in the blanks" with faith. In all honesty, we do. So is most of the ideas of the Big Bang, Evolution, and many other theories. We use scientific deductive reasoning to reach a conclusion. This is the case of just about everything in science, so how is it different with God? Simply because you do not believe in any faith?

It is different and I am an agnostic. That means that I do not denounce the possible existence of God. Let me explain that "filling in the blanks" with faith does not work in the real world. It is absolutely okay to admit that our understanding of science is not complete. But, it is not okay to fill in the places where we lack understanding by assuming it was magical intervention from God. You are making up for missing scientific data by saying, "If we can't explain it with science, it must be God." That's not reality. We would never progress from this point forward. Forget about finding the cure for cancer, diabetes. multiple sclerosis, etc. Forget about finding new ways to provide clean energy so that you can continue to sit at your PC reading this. Forget about learning anything new in science period. It doesn't work the way you want it to. And thank God for scientists who know that and strive to learn and advance while you decide to give it up to faith.

2. Faith and science are not separate. Genesis 1:3. "Let there be light". What is the Big Bang? An explosion of light. Man made from the dust. The first suggested life on Earth? Prokaryote mitochondria on a piece of clay. The Bible has said what "science" is only now explaining so how are they different?

Faith is a subjective ideal. Science is objective, without bias. They are most certainly different. Faith is the belief in things unseen and unproven. Science exists only to understand our natural universe. Science is NOT trying to disprove God, science is trying to find our origins, understand our physical universe and cure diseases for the good of mankind.

1. First, I am not saying that we simply fill in all blanks with God. Also, for your information, I know for a fact that we have a clean energy source planned within the next 13 years being nuclear fusion. We have also cured cancer through the use of specialized cells hit with UV rays that evaporate with the cancerous cells. We can also use things like the measles virus vaccinations 200 fold on the cancerous cells and the immune system finds it and destroys it. These examples you give (sclerosis exempt as I have no clue what this is) all have feasible solutions. The problem with using science to find a solution with God just doesn't work. Make me an argument of Creation that does not involve a malevolent being and science itself refutes it.

2. You say that science is not objective, correct? Then why is it a divine being is rejected while there is still proof that one may exist? People become too personal for too many reasons when religion is brought together with science. There are so many things that we cannot understand and personally I use the Bible to fill in the blanks. Back on subject, saying faith and science are different is correct. The important part to remember is that they are essential for the existence of the other. Take for example the chicken and the egg. The egg only exists because of the chicken but the chicken only came to being because of an egg. Science is the child of religion. While it may deny its heritage, it is not changed.
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:47:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 7:55:35 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

Evolution says all animals come from a common ancestor. Creation from Genesis says humans came about suddenly formed fully as a species, evolution disagrees with that.

Could you source in the Bible where it says the word, "suddenly"?
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:50:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 6:46:12 PM, Praesentya wrote:
On many points, creationism and evolutionism are not mutually exclusive. However, if creationism asserts that all of Genesis is true, and that the earth is between 5-10,000 years old, then evolutionism directly refutes it.

As Beastt already mentioned, abiogenesis is more directly opposed to creationism. Unfortunately abiogenesis is a relatively new field and lacks substantial evidence. However, all fields of science are substantiated by more irrefutable evidence that creationism.

You say that Genesis would only make the Earth roughly 5-10,000 years old. Where does it say that? I have read it and it says God made the universe in 7 days. The only problem is we do not know what a "day" is in God's terms.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 11:03:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:46:08 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
At 11/11/2014 7:23:44 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/11/2014 4:26:48 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
At 11/11/2014 12:52:07 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:48:20 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:43:33 AM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I have a curious question that I would like to see answered. How or why does Evolution disprove Creationism?

It doesn't disprove it, they aren't the same thing. Creationism is about creating life with the wave of a gods magic hand, while evolution is what happens to life forms over time.

It doesn't. But you just can't fill in the blanks that science hasn't filled yet with subjective reasoning. It would be very, unscientific. Faith and science need to remain separate, because they are.

Filling in the blanks because, "science hasn't filled yet" is incorrect. You make the statement that, " Faith and science need to remain separate, because they are". I also disagree with this statement. Let me explain:

1. First, how we "fill in the blanks" with faith. In all honesty, we do. So is most of the ideas of the Big Bang, Evolution, and many other theories. We use scientific deductive reasoning to reach a conclusion. This is the case of just about everything in science, so how is it different with God? Simply because you do not believe in any faith?

It is different and I am an agnostic. That means that I do not denounce the possible existence of God. Let me explain that "filling in the blanks" with faith does not work in the real world. It is absolutely okay to admit that our understanding of science is not complete. But, it is not okay to fill in the places where we lack understanding by assuming it was magical intervention from God. You are making up for missing scientific data by saying, "If we can't explain it with science, it must be God." That's not reality. We would never progress from this point forward. Forget about finding the cure for cancer, diabetes. multiple sclerosis, etc. Forget about finding new ways to provide clean energy so that you can continue to sit at your PC reading this. Forget about learning anything new in science period. It doesn't work the way you want it to. And thank God for scientists who know that and strive to learn and advance while you decide to give it up to faith.

2. Faith and science are not separate. Genesis 1:3. "Let there be light". What is the Big Bang? An explosion of light. Man made from the dust. The first suggested life on Earth? Prokaryote mitochondria on a piece of clay. The Bible has said what "science" is only now explaining so how are they different?

Faith is a subjective ideal. Science is objective, without bias. They are most certainly different. Faith is the belief in things unseen and unproven. Science exists only to understand our natural universe. Science is NOT trying to disprove God, science is trying to find our origins, understand our physical universe and cure diseases for the good of mankind.

1. First, I am not saying that we simply fill in all blanks with God. Also, for your information, I know for a fact that we have a clean energy source planned within the next 13 years being nuclear fusion. We have also cured cancer through the use of specialized cells hit with UV rays that evaporate with the cancerous cells. We can also use things like the measles virus vaccinations 200 fold on the cancerous cells and the immune system finds it and destroys it. These examples you give (sclerosis exempt as I have no clue what this is) all have feasible solutions. The problem with using science to find a solution with God just doesn't work. Make me an argument of Creation that does not involve a malevolent being and science itself refutes it.

2. You say that science is not objective, correct? Then why is it a divine being is rejected while there is still proof that one may exist? People become too personal for too many reasons when religion is brought together with science. There are so many things that we cannot understand and personally I use the Bible to fill in the blanks. Back on subject, saying faith and science are different is correct. The important part to remember is that they are essential for the existence of the other. Take for example the chicken and the egg. The egg only exists because of the chicken but the chicken only came to being because of an egg. Science is the child of religion. While it may deny its heritage, it is not changed.

First of all I said science IS objective, without bias. Science is no more the child of religion than than you are the child of Elvis Presley. Please explain to me what the Bible says that science is just now figuring out.

Science isn't trying to disprove God. Science doesn't care about that. If scientists discover God, I'm sure they will admit it and be happy for it. Don't be so defensive. Science isn't going to sneak into your brain and erase your faith.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."