Vote
1986 Total Votes
1

Evolution

1513 votes
70 comments
2

Creationism

473 votes
33 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
leojm says2013-09-04T11:27:11.5810420-05:00
I'd like the Liberal logic on this one. Mr. Bench I give you the honor to explain. Since this is your poll that you created. >:)
imabench says2013-09-04T11:28:58.5685270-05:00
The liberal logic behind evolution is that evolution is actually logical, whereas creationism is not.....
leojm says2013-09-04T11:32:43.3403644-05:00
That's not a reasonable response, that is like using Wiki as a source. You didn't answer my question from my comment when I voted. Do better. You should be able to explain your own belief, I can but seems like you can't. So please lets hear it.
leojm says2013-09-04T11:39:25.4692975-05:00
Oh really now, they said dinos were millions of years old. Guess what a new studies found out that there is still some soft bone marrow in the dino bones meaning they are not millions of years old.
leojm says2013-09-04T11:40:00.2514441-05:00
And you believe what an old man said, vs. Real Bible scripts written by the disciples of Jesus?
leojm says2013-09-04T11:44:06.8207080-05:00
Lol
leojm says2013-09-04T11:50:41.7797573-05:00
You loose. How sad, the great and all just crashed down. :p
MysticEgg says2013-09-04T12:06:07.1364982-05:00
Leojm, if America was colonised by the Europeans...Why do we have Europeans? Answer me that, and you pretty much have your answer. Although it wasn't apes, it was homoerectus we evolved from. It should be noted that there are no more homoerectus around...So yeah.
MysticEgg says2013-09-04T12:09:09.7198236-05:00
Bench, I added an option onto "Creationists are...", in case you wanted to change it ;P
imabench says2013-09-04T12:10:29.6718736-05:00
Ah yes, that option fits my opinion much better!
TheEnergyHippo says2013-09-04T12:15:17.0002723-05:00
I hope in the near future there will be more atheists than religious people...
imabench says2013-09-04T12:16:05.2520002-05:00
As do I
TN05 says2013-09-04T12:23:35.3989554-05:00
If there was an 'I don't really focus on stuff that happened 12 billion years ago' option, I'd take it. This whole creation-evolution debate is silly, we have more pressing issues to focus on.
MoonGazer says2013-09-04T12:38:47.7229170-05:00
"I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature" -Anthony Flew
leojm says2013-09-04T12:59:11.1278249-05:00
You know what, everybody stop! This was fun trolling Imabench until everyone came in. So... We all have different views and opinions, and we just need to cope with each other, Like Imabench voted to put the Liberal and Conservative views together and come up with a solution. I gata say this is a blast. :) O love these polls, I can troll all over them. Lol
Ragnar says2013-09-04T13:04:09.4042636-05:00
Where is the both option?
Magic8000 says2013-09-04T13:06:02.4284371-05:00
Leo says "new studies found out that there is still some soft bone marrow in the dino bones meaning they are not millions of years old." How does the one soft tissue account for the age of all dinosaurs? Your claim has been debunked, but it's irrelevant. Evolution is perfectly consistent with some dinosaurs surviving the Cretaceous–Paleogene event.
TheEnergyHippo says2013-09-04T13:17:27.3835048-05:00
OOOOOOOOOOO
Neoteric says2013-09-04T14:19:09.4980022-05:00
This is almost as bad as the Youtube comment section
Subutai says2013-09-04T14:37:53.8613990-05:00
@Neoteric: Lol so much win.
Mikal says2013-09-04T15:02:45.2939050-05:00
Leo, I challenge you. Give you reasoning as to why creationism is a more valid and solid theory than evolution.
imabench says2013-09-04T16:18:11.7053497-05:00
Also leave it to Leojm to take an hour to respond to someone and then claim victory when someone hasnt responded back to her in under 20 minutes..... No wonder why her parents took up drugs and alcohol, Im surprised they didnt beat her face in with a baseball bat....
leojm says2013-09-04T16:36:10.6844989-05:00
Http://www.Foxnews.Com/scitech/2010/04/27/noahs-ark-found-turkey-ararat/ http://news.Nationalgeographic.Com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/ ^Proof These are just some.
imabench says2013-09-04T17:01:15.2242318-05:00
1) Im from Florida not Britain 2) People claiming to have found Noah's Ark doesnt solidify Creationism as fact.... Only a massive idiot would think that
MysticEgg says2013-09-04T17:05:07.4970985-05:00
From the first one you cited, the first thing it said was "UPDATE: Experts suspect a hoax". Lol. From the second one: "...Archaeologists and historians are taking the latest claim that Noah's ark has been found about as seriously as they have past ones—which is to say not very." I don't think two news articles which state the opposite constitute as "proof".
leojm says2013-09-04T17:16:25.2833326-05:00
Evolution is everything about testing and experimenting, so since scientist don't take the time to look for evidence (which there is plenty of evidence) Because they can't test it or experiment Creation. Therefore they just blow it off and say there is no such thing as Creationism. Well how come you got a British accent? Hmmm? You didn't magically got it one night.
imabench says2013-09-04T17:19:08.2057736-05:00
Youre argument for why scientists dont believe in creation is that scientists dont look for evidence so they simply blow off creationism...... ^ THIS is why I love this site.... Also I think youre the only one who thinks I have a British accent
leojm says2013-09-04T17:19:13.5567108-05:00
"A philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it." "There is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as ‘science’ and creation as ‘religion’, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation." "Because Darwinism is so malleable as to accommodate almost any conceivable observation, science philosopher Karl Popper proclaimed that it was not falsifiable, and therefore not a proper scientific theory in that sense."
imabench says2013-09-04T17:24:53.8170352-05:00
"Because Darwinism is so malleable as to accommodate almost any conceivable observation, science philosopher Karl Popper proclaimed that it was not falsifiable, and therefore not a proper scientific theory in that sense." . . Really? Part of youre argument against Evolution is a quote from one guy who went on record saying "Its TOO perfect, therefore its false"..... Its a miracle that you people can even tie your shoes in the morning....
leojm says2013-09-04T17:37:46.3097794-05:00
Nope, I saw you in your video, I think bout a year ago. You were complaining because this guy banned you for no reason, yada yada yada. I listened to it all. So Yes you do.
imabench says2013-09-04T17:40:45.9550219-05:00
That was rationalmadman......
leojm says2013-09-04T17:41:26.0244046-05:00
Wow, I'm the only one to post why I believe in Creationism? That's sad. It's funny, people want to be heard but don't want to voice their opinion. How is this country ever change if all we do is sit in our little nut shells and hope for the better. Come on Conservatives, get yourselves together here. You wana be heard then comment. Everyone needs to know how we feel bout everything. I give kudos to liberals for voicing their opinions, no wonder we got Obama in office.
imabench says2013-09-04T17:41:26.8668208-05:00
Seriously you must be the biggest idiot ive ever met on here
leojm says2013-09-04T17:47:48.2551429-05:00
That's bull crap, how the fvck did I mess that up? W/E. Lol. I at least will laugh at my darn mistake. XD
Mikal says2013-09-04T17:51:55.5978994-05:00
No one supports it because it is illogical. Most of it goes with YE creationism which just defies everything science and nature has ever taught us
Mikal says2013-09-04T17:51:56.1283096-05:00
No one supports it because it is illogical. Most of it goes with YE creationism which just defies everything science and nature has ever taught us
imabench says2013-09-04T17:52:40.5735643-05:00
The amount of fail right there was quite staggering.... I mean for f****s sake I literally post videos of myself once every two weeks on the site for everyone to see, how on earth do you somehow miss that?????
Subutai says2013-09-04T17:53:36.7550054-05:00
Why do you think evolution is called evolution? Because evolution is "evolved" to creationism. Natural selection at work...
Mikal says2013-09-04T17:55:45.5151208-05:00
^ this.
JustinAMoffatt says2013-09-04T19:44:52.0934644-05:00
Okay. Listen, since ya'll are killing my notification box anyways -.- lol I favor Creationism,NOT because it is better supported scientifically, but because my faith is that God created the world. I do not believe that Evolution (as a theory explaining the diversity of life) has been proven, nor can it be "proven" in our lifetime. Most of those who support Evolution will state that creation goes against everything science stands for. This logic is flawed. Even if Evolution was probable, then it would not suddenly "disprove" creationism. Science doesn't work like that, which you know as well as I do. Creationism, naturally, cannot be proven nor dis-proven by science at this time. (And probably never proven anyways, considering science doesn't prove anything) In defense of Evolution, or rather those who would prefer to not believe in creation, the fact that no one has ever shown an alternative to creation for the beginning of the world IS NOT proof of creation. Science and logic both don't work like that. So, in the end, until science can disprove the idea that God created the world OR that He didn't... Science won't do anything. So you're left with your personal decision on whether to have faith in creation or not. Up to you. But this flame war is getting annoying.
Nyx999 says2013-09-04T19:51:41.9913469-05:00
The reason not all apes are human is because we didn't come from exactly apes. Apes and us just share a common ancestor that is closer to the modern ape than it is to us.
Mikal says2013-09-04T21:15:59.3130140-05:00
@Justin That it is why it is a theory, but a theory supported by multitudes of facts. So much so that the catholic church changed their doctrine to support it. Even hearing some of the arch bishops and recent pope talk, they were forced to accept the fact. Actually part of this was in a debate when dawkins took on the arch bishop of Canterbury. The difference between evolution and creationism, is that there is plausible logic and evidence to support evolution. Creationism relies solely off of faith and bad logic.
JustinAMoffatt says2013-09-04T21:37:48.0681691-05:00
@Mikal 1. One of the issues with this is that Evolution and Creationism aren't directly at odds with one another. Creationism's goal is to account for the origin of life, whereas Evolution's goal is to account for the diversity of life. Evolution, in the sense that species adapt to survive (also called "natural selection"), may reasonably be considered true. It's heavily backed in the scientific world. However, there is no support, no hard scientific support, only possibilities, to support Evolution. I would encourage you to either message me, or post here (apologies to those still being notified), some facts supporting Evolution (which could account for the diversity of all life, not just variations in species).
Mikal says2013-09-04T23:24:50.1812689-05:00
I entirely concur, some people would say they can even go hand in hand. I don't believe it is the case though. There are a lot of people that believe in theistic evolution, but evolution accounts for unity and diversity not just diversity. Everything stemming from one single celled organism. If I am not mistaken there is around 1.8 -1.9 millions of species that we are aware of. This is obvious and far to much to put into a comment section, but the diversity comes from mutations that can (a) succeed or (b) fail. Example us evolving from hominids. It accounts for probability and chance within gene mutations. Take in the fact there are fungi, Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes at the base level. It is a tree of life in a way. Some of the oldest cells on earth are bacteria. Some evidences points to the fact, that mounds of bacteria use to cover earth in its younger years. One of the leading theories at the moment is some of these cells started creating their own food using photosynthesis. After enough oxygen was present, it changed earths atmosphere allowing the start of new diverse bacterial life. Another theory is the endosymbiotic theory. I am going to just direct quote this because I will not be able to summarize it, or explain it further. It hits the key points though. It says this essentially "There is compelling evidence that mitochondria and chloroplasts were once primitive bacterial cells. This evidence is described in the endosymbiotic theory. How did this theory get its name? Symbiosis occurs when two different species benefit from living and working together. When one organism actually lives inside the other it's called endosymbiosis. The endosymbiotic theory describes how a large host cell and ingested bacteria could easily become dependent on one another for survival, resulting in a permanent relationship. Over millions of years of evolution, mitochondria and chloroplasts have become more specialized and today they cannot live outside the cell." There are thousands of ways one single cell could have paved the way for new diverse life form. That is the brilliance that is evolution and adaption . The only thing is, if you admit that the earth was created, most of the time its leads to YE creationism which completely goes against logic. It is almost better to say you are a deist than a Christian. No one can contest deism, with Christ you get him muddling around with stuff that makes Christianity over complicated and illogical .
leojm says2013-09-05T21:50:16.2456522-05:00
Creationism had proof!!! So does Evolution, so how do we mingle these together to come up with something that is believable? Because there is so much disagreement everywhere.
leojm says2013-09-05T21:50:17.7587940-05:00
Creationism had proof!!! So does Evolution, so how do we mingle these together to come up with something that is believable? Because there is so much disagreement everywhere.
leojm says2013-09-05T21:53:44.7368064-05:00
Wow two! That's insane, double wamy. Lol
Greematthew says2013-09-06T12:23:49.8836305-05:00
How about believe in both maybe?
TheEnergyHippo says2013-09-06T13:13:09.6193474-05:00
Leo there is more proof for evolution than creationism...
Stonewall says2013-09-06T18:53:37.4407803-05:00
Wish there was an in-between option.
Rabia1997 says2013-09-07T03:54:59.0158130-05:00
Ever notice how evolutionists will manipulate reality to try and do away with creationism? For example, when you ask an evolutionist how they come up with the age of the sedimentary layers in the earth, they will always tell you they date them by the fossils found in those sedimentary layers. Then when you ask them how they come up with the age of the fossils, they say their age is determined by which sedimentary layer of rock they’re found in. But how can that be? How can the rocks date the layers, if the layers date the rocks? That's what's called “circular reasoning.” One minute they say the rock determines the age of the fossil, the next they say the fossil determines the age of the rock.
Jingram994 says2013-09-07T03:56:52.2271901-05:00
Not sure if trolling or brain damaged.
MysticEgg says2013-09-07T05:35:25.2427293-05:00
We don't date rocks by the age of the fossils. Who told you that? We can predict the age of the rock, but we cannot say for sure. We actually have to, you know, date the rock. You assume that every single rock has a fossil in it. Haha, was that from AiG?
Rabia1997 says2013-09-07T06:33:44.2902455-05:00
I took the information from internet...
Rabia1997 says2013-09-07T07:07:25.1274743-05:00
Humen are born from Adam and eve, n no way from Apes....Well mutation is a mechanism through which genetic changes take place but once we are told that Adam n eve are our parents there is no way that we deny it, okay adaptation and mutation bring about changes at animal levels, but human are superior to all creations n there is no way that our birth should be compared to animals or plants.
TheEnergyHippo says2013-09-07T07:10:03.0971247-05:00
Rabia this makes no sense. We are animals. We were made from animals.
Rabia1997 says2013-09-07T07:16:38.8077545-05:00
The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start.
imabench says2013-09-07T07:17:48.1666883-05:00
Yeah rabia, that's pretty damn stupid
TheEnergyHippo says2013-09-07T07:18:23.7257149-05:00
This makes no sense. All evidence brings us that we were something close to a monkey and then we evolved.
Rabia1997 says2013-09-07T07:23:09.5796692-05:00
The evolution of man scientifically disproved ...
Rabia1997 says2013-09-07T07:29:52.1766113-05:00
Throughout   the centuries Scientists have always argued when life on earth came  from . “Creationists” are people who believe we were created by God. People who do not believe there is  a God find the idea of life being created by a superior being unthinkable. So these people have been forced to try and think of other possible ways how life could exists on earth in so many different forms (from single cell all the way up to complex life forms called Homo Sapiens or human beings) Fror example Darwin was saying that over many  many years, small living organism must have  evolved  into more complex creatures, which evolved into fish, which evolved into birds, which eventually evolved into larger animals, then into people, all by themselves.However Darwin before his dead said that all the things he was saying was not true. Unfortunately scientist didnt want to believe it ....
imabench says2013-09-07T07:32:28.6164197-05:00
We're you dropped on your head as a child or thrown against a wall?
Rabia1997 says2013-09-07T07:35:34.4529434-05:00
This is not respectful we are trying to solve this problem .... :(
TheEnergyHippo says2013-09-07T07:36:47.8991558-05:00
Rabia want to have a debate about that?
Rabia1997 says2013-09-07T07:37:05.5529453-05:00
You just dont want to believe ...
TheEnergyHippo says2013-09-07T07:37:55.3023020-05:00
Because all of the facts and evidence show that I believe in the correct thing.
Rabia1997 says2013-09-07T07:45:15.0123578-05:00
Again, how can the first ever so called living thing come to exist? Can you answer that?
Deathmonkey7 says2013-09-07T07:46:45.7311836-05:00
Rabia1997, That doesn't have any bearing on Evolution. It's a separate idea. It's one that isn't figured out yet, but that doesn't mean we should pretend an imaginary bearded man did it.
TheEnergyHippo says2013-09-07T07:46:56.4326464-05:00
It was made from particles. For an example sand..
Rabia1997 says2013-09-07T07:47:48.9571730-05:00
Where did it come from? What was the origin of that living thing? Was it better ( More complicated ) than a cell?
TheEnergyHippo says2013-09-07T07:49:45.8959670-05:00
It was complicated things that scientists are studying. There are enough documantaries to disproove your claims.
Deathmonkey7 says2013-09-07T07:50:37.5017594-05:00
The original life would have been less complicated than a cell. It would have probably began as just simple self-replicating RNA.
Rabia1997 says2013-09-07T07:51:39.8212324-05:00
A particle or a sand is also composed of cells. Today we know that a cell is like a metropolitan city. Each part of it has its certain duties which can only be performed by conscious knowledge. Certainly, nothing happens by just chance.
TheEnergyHippo says2013-09-07T07:53:43.6868204-05:00
Alright Rabia this is not the place where I can prove you wrong. Let's have a debate.
Rabia1997 says2013-09-07T07:55:34.5470717-05:00
Alright
Rabia1997 says2013-09-07T08:11:20.7594416-05:00
In fact, your claims are either of these three hypotheses, or perhaps all of them, aren't they? First, the laws of nature are the causes of all beings. Second, all that exist happens to exist by themselves, self replication or sel creation. Third, things happen as the causes and effects for one another. I will try to prove that all these are illogical and impossible for an individual with an intelectual mind.
TheEnergyHippo says2013-09-07T08:15:56.0817623-05:00
Alright accept my debate and we will see
Rabia1997 says2013-09-07T08:19:52.2625264-05:00
I am new in this site , could you tell me how to accept it?
TheEnergyHippo says2013-09-07T08:20:38.2911893-05:00
I am new too. I have no idea all I know is that I have challenged you.
AtomicRap says2013-09-08T14:01:13.8597119-05:00
I believe in both
leojm says2013-09-09T03:21:45.2862257-05:00
That's bullcrap. TheEnergyHippo
TheEnergyHippo says2013-09-10T03:43:17.3220442-05:00
That's the truth ^^
Jebby says2013-09-11T06:30:12.3181324-05:00
:L i dont know which one to choose as i cant really decide which one i think is more truthful to me. I agree to both
Deathmonkey7 says2013-09-12T20:34:12.7376793-05:00
"repulsor101 says Creationism makes perfect sense on every level, while evolution is full of inconsistency, and lies. Evolutionists so obviously avoid certain questions that it's actually quite funny. It truly is a mystery why so many people believe it." Lolwat? Would like to point these inconsistencies, lies, and what questions we avoid? Would you like to put your money where your mouth is and debate me on it?
Thornberry says2013-09-13T13:19:45.3692797-05:00
Sorry just a bit of advice, Rabia and Leo are trolling. Trolling is saying a viewpoint they don't believe in just to get people heated. It can be obvious when they make endless spelling mistakes, or use unusually bad arguments. Leo even admitted to trolling and yet you guys still went on. Wrote this so raise awareness of trolls on this site.
The_Mystery says2013-09-19T10:32:11.2887343-05:00
*ahem* Can i have a say in this? So far a creationist idiot (I think we know who that is) depends a book which keeps changing and changing. So i would like to say that Creationism is totally WRONG! I mean come on people Evolution has been proven to be correct by studying how past creatures or species have changed according to weather and hot/ cold places on the surfaces of the planet. If Evolution did not exist we would not be sitting here right now. In fact we would be all dead. Therefore to keep alive we evolve to different temperatures. This is why the woolly mammoth died out. It was killed by humans and their body's could not adapt to the changing environment. Evolution takes millions of years to perfect. The ID idea is complete bollocks. Who would believe in such nonsense (Expect Creationists of course)? Therefore I am willing to say Evolution is correct right to my death and brainwashing children is highly stupid just to be clear.
MollyHendrix says2013-09-24T22:16:02.7181852-05:00
It's convenient that evolutionists ignore the flaws in their experiments (*gasp* flaws?) Major flaws. Ernest Haeckel, Urey and Miller, the fruit flies...I could go on but it's getting late...
TheAntidoter says2013-09-25T13:56:35.4936947-05:00
Am I the only one here who believes that god could have used the process of evolution to make things happen?
TheAntidoter says2013-09-25T13:56:39.5809733-05:00
Am I the only one here who believes that god could have used the process of evolution to make things happen?
PatriotPerson says2013-09-27T08:36:02.6796721-05:00
On DDO, i don't know. But in real life, no.
imabench says2013-09-27T15:11:36.2776523-05:00
Actually in real life about 30% of people think it was God + Evolution: http://www.Gallup.Com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.Aspx
Deathmonkey7 says2013-09-28T13:03:25.8430759-05:00
@MollyHendrix - There may be some experiments that have been done incorrectly over the long history of research into evolution, but I don't see how that debunks or even puts a dent in the legitimate evidence for it. It's convenient that creationists ignore the flaws in the legitimate evidence for creation in that there is none.
MattyB says2013-09-29T07:04:54.9411605-05:00
Right, here we go. How can a creationist declare that there is insufficient evidence for evolution? It is laughable, that their theory was written in book 2000 years ago, when the world was still flat and the sun moved around us (so no, religion is not wiser than science). It's also quite clever that creationism can be bent and, essentially, broken to suit one's opinion. So, say we combine both, don't really know how, but we do. Still relies on the fact that every religion agrees with one another, which is obviously a joke. If, as some people believe, that God created the earth through evolution (and that this is taught by the Church), according to your own book - and he then made man. Right. So man evolved from what, nothing? And while I'm here, let's make this perfectly clear - yes, there are things in both theories that are hard to understand. Like, in the Bible, everything lacks logic, and in evolution, people just don't understand it well enough to comprehend it. And, while I'm still here, we can discount years of scientific research and fossils of creatures which appear to be half-ape, half-man. And how do you creationists explain that? Did some stone-age man have a kid with a monkey? But, since you all rely on faith, there is no changing your minds.
MattyB says2013-09-29T11:36:13.4582805-05:00
Sorry for the rant, I needed to voice an opinion. People are entitled to whatever beliefs they want. I just wanted to make it clear that there is, in my mind, less doubt about evolution than there is about creationism. I admire people who accept both on account of their faith and also their ability to observe rational and evidenced arguments. Please don't be offended by my comment, I'm just tired of people who ask for evidence for evolution when they believe in creationism. Look at the facts - scientists have done their best to find a logical reason as to why we ended up looking like we do, and acting like we do. And evolution, at the moment, is by far the best theory.
MattyB says2013-09-29T11:36:18.1228001-05:00
Sorry for the rant, I needed to voice an opinion. People are entitled to whatever beliefs they want. I just wanted to make it clear that there is, in my mind, less doubt about evolution than there is about creationism. I admire people who accept both on account of their faith and also their ability to observe rational and evidenced arguments. Please don't be offended by my comment, I'm just tired of people who ask for evidence for evolution when they believe in creationism. Look at the facts - scientists have done their best to find a logical reason as to why we ended up looking like we do, and acting like we do. And evolution, at the moment, is by far the best theory.
MysticEgg says2013-10-01T05:00:28.0259493-05:00
I CHALLENGE ANY ANTI-EVOLUTIONIST TO DEBATE ME! PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS! Maybe I can use it to fix my caps lock...
gizem says2013-10-01T07:43:32.6995489-05:00
Look at all the other events in the Quran already proven to be true... With out any possible way to prove them false... Like a flood that covered the entire earth.... EVERY Culture makes mention to this event... Ever go to mount Zion??? U should... There are so many things that happened there.... Or the red sea? They found the bodies of an army of roman soldiers, with the chariots and horses at the bottom... The fact that so many things mentioned in the Quran proves that it can be nothing but truth...
gizem says2013-10-01T07:43:36.4124441-05:00
Look at all the other events in the Quran already proven to be true... With out any possible way to prove them false... Like a flood that covered the entire earth.... EVERY Culture makes mention to this event... Ever go to mount Zion??? U should... There are so many things that happened there.... Or the red sea? They found the bodies of an army of roman soldiers, with the chariots and horses at the bottom... The fact that so many things mentioned in the Quran proves that it can be nothing but truth...
Rabia1997 says2013-10-01T07:45:19.3792209-05:00
Definitely! You are right!
Rabia1997 says2013-10-01T07:45:25.4320573-05:00
Definitely! You are right!
Rabia1997 says2013-10-01T07:45:30.3304573-05:00
Definitely! You are right!
gizem says2013-10-01T08:00:51.3837424-05:00
And the people who says that creationists idiot ( i think you know what i mean" the mystery" !) You are idiot yourselves that you don't see that there are lots of LOTS OF proves of creationisms you just have to read and learn them ok? :/
gizem says2013-10-01T08:00:52.7753633-05:00
And the people who says that creationists idiot ( i think you know what i mean" the mystery" !) You are idiot yourselves that you don't see that there are lots of LOTS OF proves of creationisms you just have to read and learn them ok? :/
gizem says2013-10-01T08:00:56.3758384-05:00
And the people who says that creationists idiot ( i think you know what i mean" the mystery" !) You are idiot yourselves that you don't see that there are lots of LOTS OF proves of creationisms you just have to read and learn them ok? :/
gizem says2013-10-01T08:00:57.0341906-05:00
And the people who says that creationists idiot ( i think you know what i mean" the mystery" !) You are idiot yourselves that you don't see that there are lots of LOTS OF proves of creationisms you just have to read and learn them ok? :/
Deathmonkey7 says2013-10-01T11:07:11.0352778-05:00
Wow, gizem. Change your avatar. I read your comment and thought "Hmm, this sadly misinformed post seems out of character for imabench"
Deathmonkey7 says2013-10-01T11:07:13.5926575-05:00
Wow, gizem. Change your avatar. I read your comment and thought "Hmm, this sadly misinformed post seems out of character for imabench"
gizem says2013-10-01T11:19:55.5181946-05:00
Hahaha really! I did it for fun ! :)))
gizem says2013-10-01T11:20:02.8659830-05:00
Hahaha really! I did it for fun ! :)))
imabench says2013-10-05T11:15:55.7571324-05:00
Gizem, you're a complete idiot you know that?
imabench says2013-10-05T11:15:59.6697879-05:00
Gizem, you're a complete idiot you know that?
gizem says2013-10-06T00:52:15.9095274-05:00
No i am not :d
gizem says2013-10-06T00:57:38.6129148-05:00
You can't call me an idiot until you know what intelligent means.
Jingram994 says2013-10-06T06:29:52.4571426-05:00
Gizem, I think if the comment is submitted for moderation *four* times(Which I assume is why it was posted four times), then you should probably *rewrite* some things rather than copy-pasting four times. To expand on this, the fact that a flood may or may not have occurred at some point just before recorded history does not 'prove' creationism, it proves that a flood happened. So what? The fact that a heavily propagandized book say that this flood was caused by 'God' does not make this a fact, nor could anyone but a moron substantiate it as such because of this.
TheEnergyHippo says2013-10-06T06:35:16.2346496-05:00
Don't even bother with gizem. Obviously he is retarded or is trolling. Just ignore him.
gizem says2013-10-12T09:33:49.9500233-05:00
Example: The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did". The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless. Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor. The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does Cold exists?" The professor answered, "What kind of question is that? ...Of course the cold exists... Haven't you ever been cold?" The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot." "And, does Dark exist?", he continued. The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light." Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil." The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man." After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back. The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN.
gizem says2013-10-12T09:33:55.2385589-05:00
Example: The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did". The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless. Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor. The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does Cold exists?" The professor answered, "What kind of question is that? ...Of course the cold exists... Haven't you ever been cold?" The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot." "And, does Dark exist?", he continued. The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light." Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil." The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man." After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back. The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN.
gizem says2013-10-12T09:39:50.7238343-05:00
By the way Jingram994 i am not coppy pasting texts , it occurs itself . İ do not know why is it repeating twice or four times.
gizem says2013-10-12T09:43:48.9001172-05:00
The Great Proof of Creation We have established that creation demands a Creator. The next few paragraphs introduce some amazing scientific proofs of creation. The theory of evolution is shot full of inconsistencies. Evolutionists have seized on many theories, within the overall theory of evolution, in an attempt to explain the origins of plants, animals, the heavens and the earth. Over and over, these “theorists” try to explain how life evolved from inanimate material into more complex life forms until it reached the pinnacle—human beings. Yet, as one geologist wrote, “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as student…have been debunked” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Dept. Of Geology, Imperial College, London, The Nature of the Fossil Record, Proceedings of the Geological Assoc., Vol. 87, 1976, pp. 1132-1133). Perhaps the biggest reason that so many theories within the overall theory of evolution collapse is because they contain terrible logic requiring great leaps in faith to believe. Here is one example of a “debunked” theory: “Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people’s closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: ‘Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man’s closest relative.’ ‘On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative’” (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967). İ took it from İnternet to prove you! :p
Jingram994 says2013-10-13T00:40:18.1953010-05:00
Well, how about DNA tests? You know, the one that actually tells you the actual relation between individuals and species? Consistently shows very high levels of relation between humans and higher apes, chimpanzees in particular, and next to no relation aside from both being mammals, with other species of mammals, and pretty much zero relation with reptiles, amphibians, fish or what-have-you. Also, abiogenesis, or any other theory about how life on Earth began, are simply not related to the theory of evolution in such a way that one being false necessarily means the other also is. I'm sorry to say, but these supposed 'inconsistencies' with the theory of evolution just don't exist. And at no point have you established that 'creation demands a creator'. If that were the case, then the creator would also require a creator, ad infinitum, which is a fallacy, or else the creator is exempt from the rule being used to 'prove' his existence, for no reason whatsoever. Which is also a fallacy.
nmccormack says2013-10-17T00:51:49.6966080-05:00
I thought anyone with Internet was past the Creationism stage already.. There are countless articles, journals, books that prove evolutionism.. There is one book that proves Creationism: the Bible. Wasn't even written by Jesus himself, just people who claimed to have heard his speeches. Where are their credibility?
tylergraham95 says2013-10-18T10:03:02.9780714-05:00
The biggest problem with this poll that I see is the wording. You BELIEVE in creationism. You ACCEPT evolution because evolution exists with or without your belief whereas creationism only exists because those who do not understand the scientific method believe in it. This belief, however, does not make it true, although the IDEA of creationism does exist. The fact is that creationism only exists in faith. Evolution is based on real, tangible, observation. Furthermore, gizem's comments are all largely illogical, anecdotal, and simply put, unintelligent.
tylergraham95 says2013-10-18T10:03:13.7888714-05:00
The biggest problem with this poll that I see is the wording. You BELIEVE in creationism. You ACCEPT evolution because evolution exists with or without your belief whereas creationism only exists because those who do not understand the scientific method believe in it. This belief, however, does not make it true, although the IDEA of creationism does exist. The fact is that creationism only exists in faith. Evolution is based on real, tangible, observation. Furthermore, gizem's comments are all largely illogical, anecdotal, and simply put, unintelligent.
tylergraham95 says2013-10-18T10:03:21.7292714-05:00
The biggest problem with this poll that I see is the wording. You BELIEVE in creationism. You ACCEPT evolution because evolution exists with or without your belief whereas creationism only exists because those who do not understand the scientific method believe in it. This belief, however, does not make it true, although the IDEA of creationism does exist. The fact is that creationism only exists in faith. Evolution is based on real, tangible, observation. Furthermore, gizem's comments are all largely illogical, anecdotal, and simply put, unintelligent.
sangheili says2013-10-21T02:05:32.0858505-05:00
The one flaw you have is that you can use science to backup bible and yes i have the internet as you can see which just expands my mind to learn more about God
yesuke says2013-10-24T14:32:24.2902019-05:00
This makes me so sad :( Scientific theory = best explanation for the facts that we observe, supported by so much evidence that it would be foolish not to take it as true until a different, better fitting theory is provided.
yesuke says2013-10-24T14:37:58.5067443-05:00
"Proof, there is proof. And I would like to know how we came from apes? And how come not all apes are human. Hmmm. Did some just didn't make it to that stage in transformation? " Also, this just shows how little some know about both evolution and biology. :(
yesuke says2013-10-24T14:38:06.7435971-05:00
"Proof, there is proof. And I would like to know how we came from apes? And how come not all apes are human. Hmmm. Did some just didn't make it to that stage in transformation? " Also, this just shows how little some know about both evolution and biology. :(
chengste says2013-10-29T05:08:03.5909109-05:00
@jingram DNA simularity? Lets keep this simple for you, in your body you have over 6 billion DNA "letters" (the code of life) so if we are 2% different as some say, that would say we have 120 million differences. Thats is how "close" we are to your chimps. There are even bigger problems than that but this space is way to small to explain it
chengste says2013-10-29T05:08:12.1392725-05:00
@jingram DNA simularity? Lets keep this simple for you, in your body you have over 6 billion DNA "letters" (the code of life) so if we are 2% different as some say, that would say we have 120 million differences. Thats is how "close" we are to your chimps. There are even bigger problems than that but this space is way to small to explain it
chengste says2013-10-29T05:08:18.4101509-05:00
@jingram DNA simularity? Lets keep this simple for you, in your body you have over 6 billion DNA "letters" (the code of life) so if we are 2% different as some say, that would say we have 120 million differences. Thats is how "close" we are to your chimps. There are even bigger problems than that but this space is way to small to explain it
Jingram994 says2013-10-29T05:19:40.9235053-05:00
Yeah, I'm well aware that 2% is overall a pretty big disparity. However, looking at relations with other species, this is still objectively quite close; for example, we have about 65% identical DNA with horses. 98% is still very close. We simply wouldn't have a DNA relation with higher apes that close unless we were in some way a related species. The alternative is that we are entirely unrelated, we just have 98% identical DNA for no reason, and that because religious books don't really talk about genetics a lot, the religions based on them aren't required to explain it any further than 'god did it'. If all species really were unrelated, and were instead 'created' as per biblical BS, we would likely be seeing something a tad closer to 0% relation, and would have no fossil record substantiating evolutionary theory. And please, do feel free to point out any other supposed 'problems' with humans being related to higher apes.
chengste says2013-10-29T16:56:28.3002198-05:00
Sure it easy because there are MANY. For example the way the evolutionary scientist get to 98% is by using only a section of the gnome instead of the entire gnome. However thanks to some computers we can do the entire gnome now and guess what? If you where to look at the entire gnome we are only about 70% simular. Now you might try and mention some things like the tail bone, and say it is a left over from evolution. However the tail bone is used to secure several hip tendons so it does server a purpose not some left over
yay842 says2013-10-29T19:15:17.1412818-05:00
Wow, highest vote count ever
yay842 says2013-10-29T19:15:27.5464151-05:00
Wow, highest vote count ever
Jingram994 says2013-10-30T01:14:39.3715886-05:00
I'll say again, so there's no confusion. 98% is the TOTAL genome similarity; there is no study that shows 70% total genetic relation between humans and chimpanzees, and if there is it's faked, sir. And also, fossil record. We can clearly see transitional fossils, where it's blatantly obvious that *evolution happened*.
chengste says2013-10-30T08:14:49.6766704-05:00
Really check your 98% number and how it is obtained you will find it is not the entire gnome than check for white papers comparing the entire gnome with chimps you probably won't like what you find. I will tell I believe in evolution only micro evolutioin, macro does not exist. You really don't want to go to the fossil record for there are NO transitionals to date. You may want to claim Nebraska Man, or Pitdown man (both faked) how about Lucy of Ida, one is a sloth the other a baboon. Even evolutionary scienctist are baking away from them in droves. So what is your transitional?
Jingram994 says2013-10-31T02:44:20.5144038-05:00
Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same thing, with a different scale involved. Saying that micro-evolution is real and macro-evolution isn't is like saying that I can theoretically ride my bike down a street, yet it's still totally impossible for me to ride that same bike into the next state. And if you're sticking with the argument that 98% isn't the 'real' number, we've got nothing more to discuss; you're *wrong* on that point, and no argument from either side changes that. As well, I'm discussing *all* transitional fossils, not just between humans and the common ancestor shared with other higher apes. They exist, and you're actually just misinformed or incorrect if you deny that. I can actually just point you in the direction of *Wikipedia* to disprove your notions. Which is just what I'm going to do. Among other sites, of course. 1) http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils 2) http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils 3) http://www.Transitionalfossils.Com/ 4) http://biologos.Org/blog/series/human-fossil-record 5) http://humanorigins.Si.Edu/evidence/human-fossils 6) http://www.Livescience.Com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.Html 7) http://news.Sciencemag.Org/plants-animals/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives 8) http://humanorigins.Si.Edu/evidence/genetics 9) http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics And if there are any problems with linking to those pages, just copy the URL directly, and delete all capital letters and replace them with lower case versions. Sorry, but I don't know why it keeps doing that here.
chengste says2013-10-31T06:26:12.0260083-05:00
Here are a few for you to: 1.The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. 2005. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature. 437: 69-87. 2.Tomkins, J. 2011. How Genomes are Sequenced and Why it Matters. Answers Research Journal. 4: 81-88. 3.Tomkins, J. 2011. Response to Comments on “How Genomes are Sequenced and Why it Matters: Implications for Studies in Comparative Genomics of Humans and Chimpanzees.” Answers Research Journal. 4 (2011): 161-162. 4.Tomkins, J. P. 2011. Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86–89%. Answers Research Journal. 4 (2011): 233–241. 5.Buggs, R. Chimpanzee? Reformatorisch Dagblad. Posted on refdag.Nl October 10, 2008, accessed January 2, 2013. 6.Tomkins, J. And J. Bergman. 2012. Genomic monkey business—estimates of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated using omitted data. Journal of Creation. 26 (1): 94-100. Now as far as Microevolution and macroevolution and seeing how you seem to like "Wikipedia" here is what it says Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a geological time period (i.E. Consisting of extended microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into the evolution process. Macroevolution can be seen as the sum of long periods of microevolution, and thus the two are qualitatively identical while being quantitatively different. Note the last sentence, so using your own source you are wrong.
chengste says2013-10-31T06:26:24.1785641-05:00
Here are a few for you to: 1.The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. 2005. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature. 437: 69-87. 2.Tomkins, J. 2011. How Genomes are Sequenced and Why it Matters. Answers Research Journal. 4: 81-88. 3.Tomkins, J. 2011. Response to Comments on “How Genomes are Sequenced and Why it Matters: Implications for Studies in Comparative Genomics of Humans and Chimpanzees.” Answers Research Journal. 4 (2011): 161-162. 4.Tomkins, J. P. 2011. Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86–89%. Answers Research Journal. 4 (2011): 233–241. 5.Buggs, R. Chimpanzee? Reformatorisch Dagblad. Posted on refdag.Nl October 10, 2008, accessed January 2, 2013. 6.Tomkins, J. And J. Bergman. 2012. Genomic monkey business—estimates of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated using omitted data. Journal of Creation. 26 (1): 94-100. Now as far as Microevolution and macroevolution and seeing how you seem to like "Wikipedia" here is what it says Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a geological time period (i.E. Consisting of extended microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into the evolution process. Macroevolution can be seen as the sum of long periods of microevolution, and thus the two are qualitatively identical while being quantitatively different. Note the last sentence, so using your own source you are wrong.
Jingram994 says2013-11-01T00:11:47.0454305-05:00
*Qualitatively identical*. Means they are the same thing for the purposes of our conversation. I myself pretty much stated they were quantitatively different forms of the exact same thing. "Saying that micro-evolution is real and macro-evolution isn't is like saying that I can theoretically ride my bike down a street, yet it's still totally impossible for me to ride that same bike into the next state." We still have evidence of macro-evolution in the real world. Plants actively cultivated by humans; for example, bananas. Ever seen a natural banana? Look it up. And do you think you could provide some links to those articles you're talking about?
yay842 says2013-11-01T00:16:53.1365682-05:00
Yea just keep ignoring me and continue arguing, im just here to be a part of history in the making of the most controversial debated topic
Jingram994 says2013-11-01T00:18:55.1725434-05:00
Hey, how ya going? You didn't seem to be really saying much besides 'wow, good turnout', so there wasn't a lot to respond to, you know?
yay842 says2013-11-01T00:19:59.5069434-05:00
Id prefer to remain neutral in a massive war
chengste says2013-11-02T12:16:53.5765153-05:00
Your claim of micro-evolution and macro evolution being the same is just another example of evolutionary circular reasoning. Just like the comet debate, evolutionist claim the reason comets have not gotten smaller is due to a thing called the ORT cloud, and then they turn around and say that the proof of the Ort cloud is that we have comets still. Micro-evolution is adaptation we see it all the time, macro evolution would be to increase the DNA strand and add knowledge both of which violate several known physical laws
chengste says2013-11-02T12:17:03.7162553-05:00
Your claim of micro-evolution and macro evolution being the same is just another example of evolutionary circular reasoning. Just like the comet debate, evolutionist claim the reason comets have not gotten smaller is due to a thing called the ORT cloud, and then they turn around and say that the proof of the Ort cloud is that we have comets still. Micro-evolution is adaptation we see it all the time, macro evolution would be to increase the DNA strand and add knowledge both of which violate several known physical laws
Jingram994 says2013-11-03T07:29:30.5248675-06:00
No, no and no. Are you serious? Do you even know what the Oort Cloud *IS*? You do realize that *WE CAN SEE IT*, right? And please explain to me how complexity occurring/increasing in a non-closed system 'violates the laws of physics'.
chengste says2013-11-03T14:08:34.0264592-06:00
ROFL the ORT has never been seen never been found go for it either post the link with proof or give up and admit you have no idea what you are talking about
chengste says2013-11-03T14:08:47.2552592-06:00
ROFL the ORT has never been seen never been found go for it either post the link with proof or give up and admit you have no idea what you are talking about
yay842 says2013-11-03T14:13:03.0484592-06:00
Im just gonna randomly post this website as a reference if you want to use it or not. Http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Oort_cloud
Jingram994 says2013-11-03T19:55:47.8298750-06:00
You're a moron. The *Oort* cloud has been, and can currently be, seen. Ever heard of Google?
chengste says2013-11-05T19:39:16.5536486-06:00
Here silly boys read something written by scienctist not wikipedia which anyone can write! Coulter, D. The Sun Steals Comets from Other Stars. NASA Science News. Posted on science.Nasa.Gov November 23, 2010, accessed December 2, 2010 Jingram wow google shows some pictures of what they believe the Ort cloud would look like you really need to read more. After you two heroes read the NASA white paper get back to me? ROFL
chengste says2013-11-05T19:39:28.7686052-06:00
Here silly boys read something written by scienctist not wikipedia which anyone can write! Coulter, D. The Sun Steals Comets from Other Stars. NASA Science News. Posted on science.Nasa.Gov November 23, 2010, accessed December 2, 2010 Jingram wow google shows some pictures of what they believe the Ort cloud would look like you really need to read more. After you two heroes read the NASA white paper get back to me? ROFL
Jingram994 says2013-11-05T21:56:48.3675281-06:00
We can see individual objects within the Oort cloud. Excuse me for misstating that we could see the whole thing. We say that it exists because that's the only possible reason for comets to be as locally frequent as they are, and because we can in fact see these comets showing up as they do; there is no 'circular logic' involved. And you still haven't responded re any of the stuff that actually concerns the topic at hand; evolution.
chengste says2013-11-06T20:37:27.8833235-06:00
Which have I not? Your missing links like Nebraska Man, Pit down man, Lucy, Ida? ALL proven to not be links at all. Or why the Gnome is really 70% same is a chimp if you compare the entire Gnome, intially the only comparisons done where on portions of the Gnome the rest was considered junk DNA, that has now been found out to not be the case. So what part else would you like me to address?
chengste says2013-11-06T20:37:38.7898165-06:00
Which have I not? Your missing links like Nebraska Man, Pit down man, Lucy, Ida? ALL proven to not be links at all. Or why the Gnome is really 70% same is a chimp if you compare the entire Gnome, intially the only comparisons done where on portions of the Gnome the rest was considered junk DNA, that has now been found out to not be the case. So what part else would you like me to address?
Jingram994 says2013-11-06T20:41:01.0518575-06:00
Did I ever mention Nebraska Man, Pit down man, Lucy or Ida? Are you serious? "And please explain to me how complexity occurring/increasing in a non-closed system 'violates the laws of physics'." Or how about the original statement, that you tried to derail by bringing up the Oort cloud. "*Qualitatively identical*. Means they are the same thing for the purposes of our conversation. I myself pretty much stated they were quantitatively different forms of the exact same thing. "Saying that micro-evolution is real and macro-evolution isn't is like saying that I can theoretically ride my bike down a street, yet it's still totally impossible for me to ride that same bike into the next state." We still have evidence of macro-evolution in the real world. Plants actively cultivated by humans; for example, bananas. Ever seen a natural banana? Look it up. And do you think you could provide some links to those articles you're talking about?" Evolution applies to *all* living organisms. Bananas are no different to humans with regards to evolution. And perhaps you missed this list I posted earlier; "1) http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils 2) http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils 3) http://www.Transitionalfossils.Com/ 4) http://biologos.Org/blog/series/human-fossil-record 5) http://humanorigins.Si.Edu/evidence/human-fossils 6) http://www.Livescience.Com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.Html 7) http://news.Sciencemag.Org/plants-animals/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives 8) http://humanorigins.Si.Edu/evidence/genetics 9) http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics"
chengste says2013-11-08T05:02:55.5279882-06:00
You love wiki don't you? You do know that people but what ever they want in there? Oort cloud concept is a failure the hubble has not such a thing as the NASA post shows and if your board try these: 1) Stern, S.A. And Weissman, P.R., Rapid collisional evolution of comets during the formation of the Oort cloud, Nature 409(6820):589–591, 2001 2) Sagan, C. And Druyan, A., Comets, Random House, New York, p. 201, 1985 and pg 251 3) Weissman, P.R., 1990. The Oort cloud. Nature, 344:825–830 Many more if you want them http://humanorigins.Si.Edu/evidence/genetics this paper, not a study, states that we are about 1.5% different than chimps to put that into numbers that is close to 90,000,000 differences so if you call that close do me a favor I will lend you a dollar you pay me back with 10,000,000 it's close enought right? Http://news.Sciencemag.Org/plants-animals/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives simular to the one above to me this shows a createor. Here is why I work for a major automotive company, if you compare a VW bug from 1960 to a Lamborgini 2013 you will find they are about 98% the same. Why? Because when you have a basic pattern it does not take much change to give you a differnt looking outcome.
Jingram994 says2013-11-08T09:14:54.4133295-06:00
Are you stupid? Do you know how complex genetic sequences even *are*? '90,000,000' individual differences is *NOTHING* compared to the total DNA structure. Hence '1.5% difference', moron. When looking at something like DNA, that number of differences really is minimal in comparison to the entirety of the structure. I'm not sure you realize this, but '98.5% the same' is a f**kload of a lot closer to 'the same' than it is to 'completely different'. 98.5% relation to 'just' another person would be nearly a clone. 98.5% genetic relation to another species is *REALLY F**KING CLOSE*. Genetics do not amount to the same thing as money for this example, pal. And you do realize that standards of automobile design *evolved* over time, right? The lamborgini is not an entirely new and different mode of transport, it's a newer version of the same thing as the VW. And I thought we weren't talking about the Oort cloud anymore; and you are incorrect. The Oort cloud is a 'theory' because it's the only thing that could really reasonably account for local comet activity. Either it exists, or comets are just flying around the universe as a whole in much greater numbers than otherwise expected.
chengste says2013-11-08T13:30:06.2197213-06:00
Glad to show how little you know about genetics do yourself a favor and go talk to an expert you are really looking foolish here. I will give you one more example in hopes to help you learn. My daughters genetic code is very close to mine, big shock, less than .2% different, so what does tha mean, she is young lady, which in itself shows great differences unless you are one who believes males and females are the same. Oh, yeah there is one more difference that might be important, she has Down's Syndrome, affecting here ability to learn, to grow, etc. Yet we are very close genetically much closser than 2%. So where that number seems like nothing to you, it means everything to your body. AS for the Oort could way to prove my point thanks I could have not said it better, the belief why we still have comets is because the Oort cloud is there, and when asked for proof to the Oort cloud you get "the only thing that could really reasonably account for local comet activity" (your words) nice circular reasoning. We are not friends so please don't call me pal, I would not associate with people who have such a limited vocabualry that they must curse
Mikal says2013-11-08T13:55:23.8374492-06:00
^ go to a biology class before you ramble with incomprehensible nonsense.
Jingram994 says2013-11-09T02:46:44.6327109-06:00
You and your wife shared genetic contributions to your daughter equally; your daughter has roughly half your DNA, and roughly half your wife's. You do not hold a '99.8%' genetic relation to her, you share 99.98% of her total genetic structure; that's not quite the same thing. A random person off the street shares 99.97% of their total genetic structure with your daughter's; their genetic relation to her is still much less than yours is. You cannot confuse them for her, or you, with a DNA test, for example. If I had a 99.99% genetic relation to someone, not simply having 99.99% of the same total genetic structure as they do, we would be very nearly carbon clones of each other. And this is getting ridiculous; we're talking about evolution here; if you mention the Oort cloud again, or continue talking about existent genetic relations analogies involving you and your daughter, I'm just going to stop responding. And me calling you 'pal' is not indicative of a friendly tone that implies we're friends, buddy.
chengste says2013-11-09T07:44:02.3042238-06:00
So in your comment you make this statement "A random person off the street shares 99.97% of their total genetic structure with your daughter's" however we can see that major differences occur in that .03%, I find it out how you extrapulate micro-evolution to macro-evolution however you cannot follow that if .03% is creates major differences in people, 1.5% whicih is magnitudes more, would show almost no relations at all.
Jingram994 says2013-11-09T23:04:47.1031730-06:00
That's the point; 1.5% is still a big difference, going just by raw numbers and the differences in phenotypes from those numbers, but based on percentages shared with other species as opposed to individuals in the same species, it's still a very close relation, and is close enough to say that there is genetic relation. That's without any other evidence toward us being related, which are in some of those links I provided; can't actually remember which, though. And of course, the *evolution* of bananas quite solidly proves 'macro-evolution', all on it's lonesome.
chengste says2013-11-10T16:26:53.3391873-06:00
So you would consider bannas a carbon based life? Really?
Jingram994 says2013-11-10T20:53:27.7217105-06:00
Uhh... Bananas *are* carbon based life, genius.
AaronMcCartney says2013-11-13T01:08:09.7680492-06:00
How could humans have evolved from a simple cell with little DNA? Humans and other creatures have a lot more DNA than the first forms of life would of had. How was that DNA added? The theory of evolution says that mutations of DNA caused evolution. Any mutation of DNA destroys DNA and doesn't add it. So how did this new DNA get added?
yesuke says2013-11-13T15:57:22.5393981-06:00
AaronMcCartney: mutations don't 'destroy' DNA, it simply changes the genetic code (often - but not always - only slightly so). There are several types of mutations, including 'deletions', 'insertions' and 'duplications', which account for how DNA can change in total length ;) between generations.
yesuke says2013-11-13T16:07:38.5181909-06:00
Ps. This page is annoying and keeps posting our reactions multiple times :(
icjosh says2013-11-14T10:06:51.1398551-06:00
Everyone here do some research on abiogenesis. Also, stop stating you understand evolution when I haven't seen a valid argument defending or attacking science yet. Please research these things instead of being emotionally combative.
icjosh says2013-11-14T10:08:29.5452859-06:00
I have no idea why so many posts were posted after I clicked submit. Sorry. I don't know how to take them down. Hopefully this doesn't effect your actions to take it seriously. I really hope you do some research. Knowledge is truly power.
tylergraham95 says2013-11-14T10:21:06.8963996-06:00
"this doesn't effect your actions to take it seriously." Either you meant to say affect, or you meant "this doesn't create you actions to take it seriously" which is hilariously counter to what you would want. (To effect meaning to create)
vegeta501 says2013-11-14T20:30:16.8785695-06:00
ImaBench just because you disagree with some one does not mean you need to be mean to them you have no evidence what so ever so stop crying because people disagree with your bull crap evolution. All you say is that humans used to be wereapes and the world was created by magic. Nothing can't just pop out of a hole for no reason there has to be a god. So stop talking trash about creationism and take a look in others point of view. You are the biggest jerk I had ever seen on ddo
PotBelliedGeek says2013-11-16T11:25:20.5839448-06:00
I believe in both. If someone does not think this is possible, I will accept a debate challenge.
Mikal says2013-11-16T12:30:06.0513612-06:00
^ you can disprove theistic evolution. You can only assume it is logical that you do not need a God to guide the process.
2-D says2013-11-19T18:50:34.7396490-06:00
@ leojm- We actually didn't just come from them, we are monkeys/apes but our ancestors looked very different than modern primates, apes is a subset of monkey. We can verify that all dogs came from grey wolves but no one questions evolution because there are still grey wolves. This guy has some great videos on this topic, here he explains why we're monkeys: http://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=igq_niFmXNs&list=PLEFC671097AD08F0C
2-D says2013-11-19T18:52:23.0932885-06:00
Uh search "aronra Human Evolution: Did We Come From Monkeys?" on youtube.
chengste says2013-11-19T20:16:42.0109068-06:00
Youtube strong source
2-D says2013-11-19T20:27:13.6004818-06:00
Yes, it often is. Youtube allows anyone to post a video and with some quick research you can verify or debunk the points. The community polices the site free of charge and points out which are valuable and those that aren't worth your time making them easier to sort through them. Information on the internet no longer comes from single authorities like text books that are often outdated. Communities work together to learn and share information. AronRa is a great source and has several very educational, entertaining videos. The information speaks for itself.
Jingram994 says2013-11-19T21:23:29.5202991-06:00
I wouldn't bother. If it doesn't support his own preconceptions, it isn't a 'strong enough' source. This person is blatantly ignoring any and all evidence that anyone tries to give him.
chengste says2013-11-20T09:06:20.6016930-06:00
@jingram really like you ignoring the LAW in other discussions we have? Or you ignoring the fact that anyone can post anything on youtube. Here I was starting to get some respect for you thinking that you could debate, guess not.
2-D says2013-11-20T09:22:30.8006865-06:00
That anyone can post information or correct it is a strength of learning sites on the internet. There's a debate topic for you chengste. I'll bet the respect you have earned on this site on it.
chengste says2013-11-20T12:50:18.6038653-06:00
It also a problem, there is so much information on the web to determine what is real and what is not takes great time and patience
Jingram994 says2013-11-20T22:49:02.9068000-06:00
"...Really like you ignoring the LAW in other discussions we have? Or you ignoring the fact that anyone can post anything on youtube. Here I was starting to get some respect for you thinking that you could debate, guess not." I 'can't debate' because I find you, in general, a somewhat lackluster opponent? In 'our other argument' I am not 'ignoring' the 'LAW', I bluntly pointed out blatant contradictions in how the law is being applied. I'm well aware that 'anyone can post anything' on youtube. I don't think most people would actually try using a given video from youtube *as an information source* if they didn't think it was accurate/reliable, and presumably were able to back that information up with other sources. Ignoring information purely because you don't like the site it came from is folly.
chengste says2013-11-21T12:44:05.8337884-06:00
Yet you ignore the facts that the LAW is working and putting people in jail, according to the Law. Which is only deemed unconstitutional by you
Jingram994 says2013-11-21T14:48:45.0939049-06:00
No, a law claiming that a fetus is a person, is explicitly illegal. By federal law, a fetus is very explicitly and tacitly NOT a person. Any law claiming otherwise is blatantly contradicting federal law, at a very basic level. What part of that are you *not* getting?
TrueScotsman says2013-11-21T16:43:03.5379992-06:00
@jingram994 The government definitely can create a law which states that a human fetus is a person, this would not contradict anything currently within the Constitution but rather would expand the applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment. According to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, a fetus is a, "child in utero" and, "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." This is listed in Title 18, Section 1841 of the United States Code. While this law does allow for abortion, it can be said that this may be viewed as a contradiction as a person is often defined as a "human being," which is blatantly the designation of these unborn children. Food for thought.
chengste says2013-11-21T17:58:04.7771630-06:00
@True thanks for that @jing I get the fact that you would like to think of a baby being something else, makes killing it easier. However the LAW, you know the one that puts people in jail and the one TrueScotsman typed of states they are children. The part you are failing to understand is your argument is with the law not me, I am only one to follow it.
Jingram994 says2013-11-21T20:03:36.1183157-06:00
"According to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act" https://www.Nrlc.Org/federal/unbornvictims/statechallenges/ http://criminal.Lawyers.Com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Raised-Voices-The-Unborn-Victims-of-Violence-Act.Html http://www.Cbsnews.Com/news/busting-a-myth-about-iroe-v-wade-i/ The UVVA is itself a draconian rights violation, completely at odds with the official ruling of Roe v. Wade, and if taken with any credulity, completely unconstitutional. Under this act, several women have been imprisoned for *miscarrying*. The act itself attempts to place legal penalties, under the official guise of 'murder' in most serious cases, on the 'killing', or even simply 'harm to', a completely non-conscious mass of cells, that has already been officially ruled, under federal law, to not legally be considered a 'person'. The official wording of Roe v. Wade is very explicit on this point. To note, I am extremely against the UVVA, and all legal acts similar to it. It attempts to impose person-hood and rights where none exist, in the process often taking those rights away from the actual people carrying the fetuses. While I do believe that people who, very intentionally and maliciously, without the consent of the 'parent(s)', 'kill' the fetus, should receive punishment of some kind, construing this as 'murder' is very explicitly against the official ruling of Roe v. Wade. "According to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, a fetus is a, "child in utero" and, "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." Nevertheless, this description is at odds with the federal ruling of Roe v. Wade. A fetus cannot be correctly described as a 'child', either. " While this law does allow for abortion, it can be said that this may be viewed as a contradiction as a person is often defined as a "human being," which is blatantly the designation of these unborn children." Yet it also explicitly denies that they legally constitute persons, despite this. This is not a contradiction; 'human' and 'person' are different terms, with different meanings.
Jingram994 says2013-11-21T20:05:00.5616570-06:00
Also, two other comments were 'submitted for moderation'; this last one is the complete, fully edited version, so if more than one comes up just pay attention to the longest one, with the links right at the start.
TrueScotsman says2013-11-21T20:40:41.7947958-06:00
@Jingram994 I am always fascinated why people base almost all of their logic in debates like these off of the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment which only excludes an unborn child because of the phrase, "persons born or naturalized in the United States." If you study your history, you will find out that the Constitution has a few times been the absolute enemy of Human Rights, as the South had a stronger argument per the Constitution to forbid the Federal Government from stealing their property, namely their slaves. This was due to the 5th amendment, the same one that grants the right to privacy for mothers to terminate their unborn children (note I am just using the language common within our legal system). The correct question for issues like these are not whether they are Constitutional or not, but rather are they morally right. Per Article V of the Constitution we can amend the Constitution as necessary to correct this, with the necessary amount of votes. I also find it interesting how you employ the usage of "rights." Where do "rights" come from in your world view? Are you a naturalist or theist? These "legal rights" are built upon per the Constitution and other founding documents, Natural Laws inherent and universal among all human beings. Are these rights only applicable in your view to conscious beings? If so, then there should be no protection under the law for people in a coma. Or does the fact that they are a, "mass of cells," somehow degrade their standing as a homo sapien? All homo sapiens are Eukaryotic Multi-Cellular Mammals, and this classification is no different for an unborn human baby. These unborn children are also distinct individuals with a unique Genome, and though dependent on the mother for life, this fragility should in no way impugn this right to life. Granted there are specific circumstance that should absolutely be open for discussion, such as rape, incest, mother's health, nonviable fetus, etc. However, contraception should be the standard for birth control not the extermination of unborn members of the human race. If you would like to discuss further, I would be open to a formal debate on this website as this discussion is technically off topic on this page. Regards, TrueScotsman
Jingram994 says2013-11-21T21:08:43.2706900-06:00
"If you study your history, you will find out that the Constitution has a few times been the absolute enemy of Human Rights, as the South had a stronger argument per the Constitution to forbid the Federal Government from stealing their property, namely their slaves. This was due to the 5th amendment, the same one that grants the right to privacy for mothers to terminate their unborn children (note I am just using the language common within our legal system). The correct question for issues like these are not whether they are Constitutional or not, but rather are they morally right." Personally, I think legality should match moral right. If the constitution actually allowed for slavery, I would demand it be immediately amended. Personally, I don't like the fact that Roe v. Wade tries to paint the issue as having anything to do with 'privacy', as opposed to the simple fact that a fetus really is nothing more than a non-conscious mass until around 26 weeks. Thus, not a legal 'person', thus has no 'rights' to violate, thus the 'mother' has every right to remove it from her body, preferably before that 26 week point. The wording isn't very good, but changing it wouldn't lead to any change in practice, unless it lead to complete illegality, which would be, from both a pragmatic and ethical standpoint, monstrous. "I also find it interesting how you employ the usage of "rights." Where do "rights" come from in your world view? Are you a naturalist or theist? These "legal rights" are built upon per the Constitution and other founding documents, Natural Laws inherent and universal among all human beings. Are these rights only applicable in your view to conscious beings? If so, then there should be no protection under the law for people in a coma. Or does the fact that they are a, "mass of cells," somehow degrade their standing as a homo sapien? All homo sapiens are Eukaryotic Multi-Cellular Mammals, and this classification is no different for an unborn human baby. These unborn children are also distinct individuals with a unique Genome, and though dependent on the mother for life, this fragility should in no way impugn this right to life." You asked my views. Brace yourself, sir. 'Human' rights is, in my opinion, misleading. 'Human' =/= 'person', and even non-human persons, for example aliens, still have the same rights. I myself am a naturalist; all sapient beings (ie. Persons) have rights, purely by dint of being persons, capable of consciousness, self-awareness, and rational thought. Whether or not these rights are in fact legally 'recognized' is irrelevant to the fact of the matter of having them. Slavery and rape were just as morally wrong in, say, 400 b.C. As they are today, as they were still inherent violations of rights. As well, the issue of 'consciousness' deserves to be looked at. 'Conscious' does not simply mean' awake'; your consciousness still 'exists' while you are asleep, or in a coma, it is simply 'unconscious', or conscious on a different level to when you are awake. A person in a coma still has rights because they still exist as a person. A person who is brain-dead, however, no longer qualitatively exists. They are not simply unconscious, they are entirely 'non-conscious'; their consciousness does not exist, on any level whatsoever. In humans, you are always 'conscious' on some level if your 'higher brain' is functioning. If this ever ceases, you are considered brain dead, and thus *actually* dead for all legal and medical intents and purposes save organ donation. In a human fetus, the higher brain does not even completely form, and actually begin functioning, until at least 26 weeks, well into the third trimester and actually after the point of legal abortion. As well, genetics really aren't part of the issue at all. So long as your genes don't impact on your ability to be conscious, self-aware or to be capable of rational thought, you're still a 'person' regardless. A clone of me is still not me, despite having literally identical DNA to me. A corpse is still genetically human. DNA has little if anything to do with the issue of 'person-hood'. Also, yeah, off-topic, so if you actually would like to debate this in some format, you could arrange that.
2-D says2013-11-22T11:09:51.4813123-06:00
Looking forward to reading the blocks of text above. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. Two good debaters facing off here. I am pointing out that comments should allow for formatting, especially paragraph spacing. The debates start here in the comments so I'm just saying... Please add paragraph spacing to DDO comments.
aldrich says2013-11-23T07:40:57.7516657-06:00
I think that we were created. Based on the fact that we carry out the DNA our parents, and the DNA are codes full of information of our previous generations, this is when, the changes start to happen because the DNA gradually make those chances to happen. If the DNA are coded information, and code need to be create by intelligence and before those evolution happen the DNA already exist. How can the the evolution exist before the DNA?
jh1234l says2013-11-25T17:30:09.4750154-06:00
"Proof, there is proof. And I would like to know how we came from apes? And how come not all apes are human. Hmmm. Did some just didn't make it to that stage in transformation? And how did this one living organism appeared and created us all, every different animal. It does not make sense. " Evolution does not claim that. Evolution states that apes and humans have a common ancestor, not that an ape randomly gave birth to a person.
Luggs says2013-11-25T18:37:14.8456711-06:00
What is with so many posts repeatedly being posted? It definitely does not seem like this is intentional, with there being so many repeated posts.
thisisbob says2013-11-25T21:28:12.9837310-06:00
That kind of seemed like an accident.
thisisbob says2013-11-25T21:28:16.7368278-06:00
That kind of seemed like an accident.
2-D says2013-11-26T13:56:42.7164607-06:00
I'm guessing that it started out when people hit submit multiple times due to a loading error and ended up with multiple posts. From ther it turned into a joke/a way to make sure people read your point by posting it several times... Lets say its a website flaw tho :)
dtaylor971 says2013-12-02T20:50:57.9188134-06:00
I think evolution is far mar believable than creationism. Maybe creationism is the way to go, I don't know. Evolution is easier to believe.
dtaylor971 says2013-12-02T20:50:58.5779241-06:00
I think evolution is far mar believable than creationism. Maybe creationism is the way to go, I don't know. Evolution is easier to believe.
dtaylor971 says2013-12-02T20:51:17.1692134-06:00
I think evolution is far mar believable than creationism. Maybe creationism is the way to go, I don't know. Evolution is easier to believe.
dtaylor971 says2013-12-02T20:51:19.1571201-06:00
I think evolution is far mar believable than creationism. Maybe creationism is the way to go, I don't know. Evolution is easier to believe.
dtaylor971 says2013-12-02T20:51:35.3744134-06:00
I think evolution is far mar believable than creationism. Maybe creationism is the way to go, I don't know. Evolution is easier to believe.
dtaylor971 says2013-12-02T20:51:55.3424134-06:00
I think evolution is far mar believable than creationism. Maybe creationism is the way to go, I don't know. Evolution is easier to believe.
dtaylor971 says2013-12-02T20:52:16.0280134-06:00
I think evolution is far mar believable than creationism. Maybe creationism is the way to go, I don't know. Evolution is easier to believe.
dtaylor971 says2013-12-02T20:52:43.2812134-06:00
I think evolution is far mar believable than creationism. Maybe creationism is the way to go, I don't know. Evolution is easier to believe.
dean5796 says2013-12-06T13:59:37.8112416-06:00
Imabench, how can you call yourself a Christian and believe in Evolution. You cannot believe in the theory of Evolution and the bible both. The bible says the earth was made in six days.
Nyx999 says2013-12-06T18:05:58.7512308-06:00
Dean, yeah you can. A lot of Christians believe that the bible is a book filled with stories, and some of the stories, are true, but some are like fables, not meant to be taken seriously, but still able to impart knowledge.
Nyx999 says2013-12-06T18:06:05.4145595-06:00
Dean, yeah you can. A lot of Christians believe that the bible is a book filled with stories, and some of the stories, are true, but some are like fables, not meant to be taken seriously, but still able to impart knowledge.
Jingram994 says2013-12-06T22:20:54.5467266-06:00
Also, dean, you are aware that Christian doesn't by definition mean 'Creationist', right? And that there is such a thing as the 'theory of Theistic Evolution'? I can't provide any links, as this would undoubtedly be moderated if I did, but Google it sometime.
dean5796 says2013-12-06T23:38:59.9663919-06:00
If you are a Christian, then you believe in the Bible. You cannot believe in the Bible and evolution BOTH. Because the Bible states that the earth was made in six days, and man created on the sixth day. Land animals were also created on the sixth day. Dinosaurs would fall into the sixth day category as well. If you don't believe me, read Genesis 1-2.
dean5796 says2013-12-06T23:39:13.6163044-06:00
If you are a Christian, then you believe in the Bible. You cannot believe in the Bible and evolution BOTH. Because the Bible states that the earth was made in six days, and man created on the sixth day. Land animals were also created on the sixth day. Dinosaurs would fall into the sixth day category as well. If you don't believe me, read Genesis 1-2.
Jingram994 says2013-12-07T00:24:49.6886189-06:00
The bible does not have to be taken literally. Most Christians take it as more metaphor and allegory than anything else. You need only read and follow the teachings of the bible (or one of the several hundred variations thereof) to be Christian; you do not need to be a biblically literal fundamentalist to be Christian. In fact, taking it literally by definition means you are deluded and deny basic facts about the real world that are simply not up for debate. For example, the world was not created in seven literal days, 6000 years ago. We can prove this.
dean5796 says2013-12-07T00:29:13.5469971-06:00
*Six days. Here is the proof that the Bible says it to be six literal days. Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. The Sabbath lasts one day, from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. He made the earth in six days and rested the seventh day, therefore the seventh day is sanctified as the Sabbath. Day. Literal Day.
Jingram994 says2013-12-07T00:34:34.1593301-06:00
Oh, my bad. So that's where the 'Sunday is the Lord's day' thing came from? Also, the bible cannot be used as 'proof' for things it itself states. That's a tautology. Do you have any non-biblical evidence for this? We can prove, using physical evidence in the real world, that the bible's statement of the world being created in six days is, at best, nothing more than metaphor, or at worst a simple lie. For example, many believe six 'days' to be allegory for a time period in the millions-of-years range. This same section also states that the Earth was created first, then the sun. This is a false statement, and we can prove this. 1) http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System 2) http://www.Universetoday.Com/38118/how-was-the-solar-system-formed/ 3) http://www.Astronomy.Org/astronomy-survival/solform.Html 4) http://www.Nhm.Ac.Uk/print-version/?P=/nature-online/space/planets-solar-system/formation/index.Html
dean5796 says2013-12-07T00:40:37.1943736-06:00
I'm not using the Bible as a source of fact. I'm merely saying that the Bible does literally suggest the earth was made in six days. Now you can chose to believe in the Bible or not believe in the Bible. That's not my point. If each day in Genesis really lasted millions of years, then the seventh day would have lasted millions of years as well. The Sabbath day would not last one day, and the week described in Exodus would last millions of years. It creates other problems as well. If day meant millions of years in Genesis, it would just as likely mean millions of years in other parts of the Bible as well. How long was Yeshua in the tomb? Three days or three million years? It helps to understand that the Hebrew day is 24 hours, from dusk to dusk.
Jingram994 says2013-12-07T00:44:10.7115736-06:00
Well, maybe the Sabbath Day is just a metaphorical representation that humans can understand and actually meaningfully perform in their own lives. My point is, that using the bible as a literal information source is what fundamentalists do. It's supposed to be used as a guide to living a moral life, not a literal account of reality. My other point was that if the bible is indeed a 'literal' document, it is completely discredited by basic facts we know about the real world. The solar system formed Sun first, then planets. The Earth formed over millions of years, not in 7 days. We know and can prove this. If the bible says otherwise, it is wrong.
dean5796 says2013-12-07T00:50:31.7202399-06:00
"The solar system formed Sun first, then planets. The Earth formed over millions of years, not in 7 days. We know and can prove this." You certainly cannot prove this. And the Sabbath is certainly not a metaphorical representation but a strict commandment. The penalty for breaking the Sabbath was death (Numbers 15:32-35). There is actually much historical evidence for creationism. There is absolutely no observable evidence for Darwinian evolution.
Jingram994 says2013-12-07T00:55:45.0653425-06:00
See my links above. We can and have proven this; people who deny this are deluded. And no, there exists no meaningful or physical evidence for creationism, and there exists effectively absolute proof of the theory of evolution. A scientific theory is not considered to be such unless it answers all available evidence and can be considered factual in light of such. I don't think I need to point out that evolution, the creation of the solar system and the 'source' of life are all completely unconnected concepts. And I'm well aware what the penalty for breaking sabbath was; this is just further evidence that the bible should not be taken literally or used as a moral guide in and of itself. Death for doing stuff on Sunday is a horrific law. 1) http://anthro.Palomar.Edu/evolve/evolve_3.Htm 2) http://www.Livescience.Com/474-controversy-evolution-works.Html 3) http://www.Evolutionfaq.Com/articles/five-proofs-evolution 4) http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
dean5796 says2013-12-07T21:33:33.7167003-06:00
I saw your links, and I think you need to see mine now. Http://www.Genesispark.Com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/ http://www.Creationscience.Com/onlinebook/EarthSciences16.Html http://www.Icr.Org/articles/view/570/270/
Sumocolt768 says2013-12-16T07:38:18.2674771-06:00
I believe in both.
Diirez says2013-12-16T18:18:51.8724989-06:00
For those against evolution: "If we evolved from animals, where did the animals come from?" The animals came from cells. Which is described with endosymbiotic theory. If however you mean, where did all life come from? You're looking in the wrong theory. Evolution does not describe how life began, but rather the diversity of life. The origins of life is better understood with abiogensis theory. "What happened to the monkeys?" Humans did not evolve from monkey's, rather we evolved with them. Bonobos, Chimpanzees and Humans all share a common ancestor. All three groups evolved to fit their needs from different locations and humans happened to evolve a larger neocortex which started language and then we rapidly went from there.
Diirez says2013-12-16T18:19:03.8690527-06:00
For those against evolution: "If we evolved from animals, where did the animals come from?" The animals came from cells. Which is described with endosymbiotic theory. If however you mean, where did all life come from? You're looking in the wrong theory. Evolution does not describe how life began, but rather the diversity of life. The origins of life is better understood with abiogensis theory. "What happened to the monkeys?" Humans did not evolve from monkey's, rather we evolved with them. Bonobos, Chimpanzees and Humans all share a common ancestor. All three groups evolved to fit their needs from different locations and humans happened to evolve a larger neocortex which started language and then we rapidly went from there.
KonigWolf says2013-12-20T12:01:27.0029936-06:00
So why have humans failed to "evolve" for the past hundreds of years? You can claim that it has been an evolution of knowledge, but you can't prove that we're smarter now (I would actually argue a regression in the average intelligence-especially in the Western world). The main reason for our recent technology boom having happened recently as opposed to a hundred years ago is because they didn't have the information and technology that we have now to expound upon. Edison invented the light bulb, but that's because we didn't have any before that. Who knows what he could have done in this era. So again, back to my question. I understand that were evolution real it would take a long time to become noticeable, but we've been sentient for a long time and still don't have wings. So why did we stop evolving?
Jingram994 says2013-12-20T23:35:59.6741136-06:00
Because evolution works on a long time-scale. We *have* been evolving, it's just that you can't see direct, huge effects because it takes millions of years to happen. We haven't 'stopped evolving'; so long as we are still biological life forms, our genetics will still experience large-scale shifts over large periods of time; it is impossible for a biological life form to not experience evolution. We don't have wings because 1. The genetic code for that sort of limb does not exist in our current DNA set, and evolutionary biology can't just make s**t up; it has to work with what it has. Otherwise every single species would have wings, be uber-intelligent, insanely fast and strong, and so on. That isn't how evolution works. 2. We have no need for wings; even if the genes for wings did exist in some form in our current DNA structure, there is no pressure in our environment that would make those genes any more successful than other genes. What you are describing has little if anything to do with actual biological evolution; the human population is getting 'smarter' on average not due to genuine increase in intelligence levels in the species as a whole, but because ever increasing standards of education, and cultural factors that make intelligent individuals far more likely to be successful in most areas, including breeding, means that the difference between the 'average' level of intelligence and the 'maximum' level of intelligence is becoming smaller.
Buckethead31594 says2013-12-21T00:32:31.3460462-06:00
I "believe" in neither.
Buckethead31594 says2013-12-21T00:32:43.4393078-06:00
I "believe" in neither.
NovaLux says2013-12-24T14:17:12.4524814-06:00
Both? -Deism
BChart2 says2014-01-21T13:13:01.8856477-06:00
Saying creationism is true because evolution is false is confirmation bias. News flash: Even if you could disprove evolution (which you can't), it wouldn't make creationism true. "Debunking" an opposing view doesn't make yours the correct one.
002682 says2014-01-23T01:11:27.7064852-06:00
NovaLux, my sentiments exactly.
paul_g says2014-01-25T20:37:29.7134780-06:00
Being ignorant to science doesn't make Creationists right. Clearly they all know too little about the science of evolution to debate its validity. So far every Creationist comment I have read has just helped to prove my point on how they fail to understand and fully grasp the topic.
Stalin_Mario says2014-02-01T14:21:54.6836698-06:00
Any creationist who says they have "studied" evolution and have good knowledge of it, but then say "If Humans came from Apes, then why are Apes still here?" as a way to defend creationism and/or prove themselves right, then they obviously have not studied evolution and are clearly lying.
Nater777 says2014-02-16T15:50:28.9468280-06:00
I don't believe in evolution because of a lack of evidence, and you can laugh at me all you want, I really don't care. I also believe in creationism because I have faith. Just because I can see a lack of evidence doesn't mean you can, as some are blind or ignorant of the truth. DNA itself proved creationism true, specifically the amount of coding in the genes to form a single DNA strand. In other words, it is a coding system of information. DNA loses information from generation to generation, thus corrupting the entire coding process. It has been calculated that to decode an entire gene of DNA would take about a billion years; DNA decoding is incredibly difficult, well near impossible. And those simplistic life forms evolutions states slowly evolved into another species are incredibly complex. It has been said a bacteria is more complex than a city, while we only have as many genomes as mice do.
Stalin_Mario says2014-02-16T16:17:47.0258610-06:00
Saying evolution doesn't have enough evidence is one thing, but saying that creationism has more evidence than evolution is just plain stupid and childish.
chewster911 says2014-02-17T17:58:15.1126014-06:00
@dean5796 There is observable evidence for Darwinian evolution through morphology and phylogeny. And because there is no observable evidence immediately,doesn't mean evolution is false. You need quite a lot of time ,my friend, to observe the change of species. Genetics prove enough already. I guess this is why it's still called a "theory" but i think it should be called fact.
saxman says2014-02-20T20:59:25.3097676-06:00
Many of Darwins foundations for evolution have been proven to be variation. Now evolution does not impress me. It does not have enough proof to be the sole dominating theory. However, it is a viable scientific route. And Creationism doesn't have a lot of proof either. It is also a viable scientific route. Now neither of these has been proven. So work on proving the other wrong and proving your own right. Neither of the theories can defend itself without faith or speculation. As i myself am a Christian, I tend to lean more creationist. But that doesn't mean I hate science. I am actually several years ahead of other people my grade in the maths and sciences. Evolution caught Christians off guard. Now the Christians theorized Creationism, and they have a lot of catching up to do.
paul_g says2014-02-21T20:16:31.1176288-06:00
@saxman Regardless of how you look at it the theory of evolution has much more proof than the theory of creationism. There is plenty of undeniable evidence that evolution is true and very little (if any) proof of creationism. Now this does not mean creationism is false or that there is no God, but the evidence we do have strongly goes against a lot of creationists claims.
WJJM says2014-03-04T20:32:52.0176905-06:00
I've read through a lot of these comments and a distinct trend has become abundantly clear; Most of the commenters trying to disprove evolution, have a incredible lack of basic knowledge about evolution. My favorite "If we evolved form monkeys why are there still monkeys?" This can be answered by any 9th grader taking evolution or a simple google search also does the trick. It almost seems to me like this is willful ignorance. I guess it's true that ignorance is bliss.
YouShallExist552 says2014-03-05T19:34:57.8960516-06:00
I believe in both. God could have created the Earth and its creatures to evolve over time. Note: this site is so full of teenage liberals...
Stalin_Mario says2014-03-06T15:41:48.5423731-06:00
This website is filled mostly with two type of people. Teenage liberals and stupid Christian kids.
TheAntidoter says2014-03-07T10:13:58.1585534-06:00
Is it possible to believe evolution up until common descent? Probably not.
saxman says2014-03-08T11:39:07.5426238-06:00
@paul_g there are so many disproofs for the proofs of evolution. Irreducible complexity states that some things cannot form by mere chance. According to natural selection, life chooses what works, and throws away whatever doesn't work in order to refine itself. So irreducible complexity and natural selection do not line up. An example is the Bacteria Flagellum. Its motor, or so its called, is extremely efficient and complex. It has over 30 necessary parts. And if one of those parts is gone, then it won't work. It didnt just come up out of the air. Without that flagellum, the bacteria would die. According to natural selection, this "motor" would have never happened.
saxman says2014-03-08T11:45:43.2284029-06:00
And Darwin's book The Origins of Species According to Natural Selection has an interesting subtitle. It is The Preservation of the Favoured Race in the Struggle for Life. The favored race, according to Darwin, is the whites. Is that scientifically true?
NecroVirus says2014-03-08T13:40:02.6458570-06:00
In response to 'imabench': The fossil record, as we all know (creationists and evolutionists alike) is invalid evidence for Evolution. We all know that the Fosssil Record contains gaps showing NO transition between a species.
paul_g says2014-03-08T18:29:55.2952045-06:00
@ saxman, actually most biologists believe the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. While it is true the flagellum doesn't function with fewer proteins this does not mean it was intelligently designed, Although the Flagellum could not act as it does now with fewer proteins scientist have shown it could still have performed other roles and evolution adapted it to fulfill a new one. And in regards to your other statement, not everything Darwin said is accurate, but that doesn't mean our modern understanding of Evolution is. @ NecroVirus, yes the fossil record is incomplete and doesn't show transitions between every species but it can still be used as evidence as it does show some transitions between species.
emilykristen says2014-03-14T10:17:46.7617452-05:00
I just dont understand evolution. Why dont we still evolute? A milk can cant just turn into a butterfly. One more thing, you people who think evolution is how it all began are stupid because you guys should read the bible
TheManofTacoos says2014-03-14T12:12:56.4369587-05:00
I cannot believe we are still having this discussion in the 21st century. When will people learn it is ok to give up on old beliefs when new evidence disproves it?
ladiesman says2014-03-14T13:46:46.9278152-05:00
This is not black-and-white. There is room for both; perhaps God guided the process of evolution.
Stalin_Mario says2014-03-14T18:20:14.1942617-05:00
Emily, you clearly are an uneducated person who has no idea what she/he is talking about. Please read a book that doesn't have the word "Bible" on it, maybe you'll learn something.
paul_g says2014-03-14T22:21:01.5912000-05:00
@emilykristen Just because you have no comprehension of basics of evolution does not make it false.
paul_g says2014-03-14T22:21:45.6144000-05:00
@emilykristen Just because you have no comprehension of basics of evolution does not make it false.
MMaximuSS1975 says2014-03-15T16:03:17.1803249-05:00
Creationism is not or ever will be considered a scientific theory. It is pure nonsense dreamt up by pre-literate, superstitious, and unscientific primitive humans that had no idea how the mechanisms of the universe functioned. People that thought the earth was flat, we were it's center, and the Sun was a god riding a chariot across the sky, and a Middle Eastern prophet flew to heaven on winged horse. A scientific theory has one very important criteria. It needs to be falsifiable. Which means it needs to be tested to see if it can be proven wrong. All quests for knowledge are open ended. This is why scientific theories are never said to be 100 % complete. Gravity is a theory. It is a fact, even though we don't know everything about it. Are you going to deny it's existence? Atomic theory? Germ theory? Even music is a theory. Go ahead. Try to define objective or absolute musical theory. It does not exist. Creationism is unfalsifiable. It offers no experimentation, hypothesis, formulas, data, observations, not even one testable idea. It is completely unsupported nonsense on par with Harry Potter, and has mountains of empirical evidence discovered through peer reviewed, scientific research that undoubtedly contradict every evidence-free claim made by creationism. It is completely false. Never happened and should not be taught as anything more than a mythical tale. It is not scientific in any way shape or form. Teaching such nonsense as fact should be considered immoral as well as unethical. Creationism in simple terms is a 110% fairytale.
vassrox says2014-03-21T15:36:36.2689204-05:00
How could there be something out of nothing?
vassrox says2014-03-21T15:37:20.4105916-05:00
How could there be something out of nothing?
vassrox says2014-03-21T15:38:16.3728370-05:00
How could there be something out of nothing?
vassrox says2014-03-21T15:39:28.7715088-05:00
How could there be something out of nothing?
Stalin_Mario says2014-03-21T19:21:08.5400132-05:00
I don't know vassrox, you tell me.
sasori_san says2014-03-24T02:37:31.4817170-05:00
Neither, I do not want to go to hell
Stalin_Mario says2014-03-25T05:19:26.7364925-05:00
There is no Hell.
cucommonsense says2014-04-01T15:55:52.7756798-05:00
Personally, baraminology. So both I guess? In order for something to be proven scientifically, there must be both observational and historical science. Evolution is lacking in the historical science area, though not in observational. Christianity has some historical and observational sciences. This is why there are still large controversies.
yomama12 says2014-04-04T07:31:02.2169897-05:00
If you want me to vote, put a section that has both, cuz I believe partially creationism, partly evolution
jrrjacques says2014-04-14T14:02:42.4174521-05:00
Of corse it would be a person with the profile picture of Stalin that would say (or hope really) that "there is no Hell). I have noticed that evolution zealots love stroking, petting, and caressing each other's ego. "Creationists are idiots," "Quite right chap and you know more than them by far." "Why thank you Herman. I can likewise say that to you." "Oh no, I may know a small bit. And don't be so modest we all know that you, Melvin, are the true wise man." "I must correct you and say you are." "It is my honor to say you are." "It can't be me I only have a Phd in every field of Science." "Excuse me gentleman?" "Who might you be?" "I am Kent Hovind, and have you ever thought of how the geologic column is based on circular reasoning, and that radiometric dating contradicts itself?" "I say Herman this man is an idiot. I mean really to point out that little fault that we keep as true science, he has an idiot." "Let us leave before he beats us again in another one of his blasted unbeatable debates." "I totally agree, I say we are geniuses for leaving him and turning our nose to fact." "Quite right, quite right." I think there are very few of you 420 evolutionist that support Evolutionism that really know what it is.
TrustmeImlying says2014-04-14T14:58:52.9447865-05:00
Jrrjacques - So much staggeringly wrong in such a small space
Stalin_Mario says2014-04-14T16:47:23.0213110-05:00
Jrrjacques, I'm not sure what exactly you were trying to say in that comment of yours, but I can assure you that I know what evolution is, unlike you, because if you truly knew what evolution was, then you would find it more logical and reasonable than creationism. That run-on sentence though.
jrrjacques says2014-04-15T13:14:04.2100437-05:00
Please notice Mr. Stalin that I said few this does not exclude the possibility of you my brainwashed competitor. I know what I am talking about because I have debated on it several times and have even converted a few unfortunate souls. I have a debate in the comments currently where I have even knocked out two Evolutionists for they will no longer reply even though I have send them messages. They completely ignore me for they do not wish to admit their defeat. If you wish to have your turn then please join it is "Creationism Vs. Evolution" pole on slide 40 of the religion section. Of course this is if you are not too frightened and do not like risking your precious beliefs in Evolutionism in a fair unvotable debate. It goes until you admit your defeat. And no changing subjects. So this offer goes to the rest of you misguided persons. I will show you the many grave unfixable errors in your beliefs. Come try and if you do not this will give some evidence that you do not wish to see facts about your zealous religion. Come if you dare I am awaiting. Jrrjacques at your service.
Stalin_Mario says2014-04-15T13:44:20.5597643-05:00
Uh huh, okay. You sir are one messed up kid. You're more brainwashed than a North Korean. Also no, you have no idea what you're talking about, none. You clearly are desperately trying to make your delusion of creationism, and whatever else your believe in, to be true. Also you say you have debated people on it and won, to a degree where the opponent changed his mind, mind sending me a link to that debate? Because all I see is that you actually lost a debate to someone on the same exact subject. I have found the poll you mentioned, and I love how you twisted the story completely, It was you and some other nut-head (Trom) against 2 reasonable people who accept evolution. Only one of them stopped posting (probably gave up after seeing how stupid you were and decided not to waste his time on a lost cause). While the other guy is still posting, to which you haven't replied to. Now I'm not going to join in, because I don't have time reading a wall of bull that you and your partner have wrote, because after reading the first few sentences of the first paragraphs, you clearly are taking everything out of your ass. Also everything you write is bull and bull and nonsense and you know it; however you are so desperate and pathetic in your little delusion that you will go so far into trying to bring other people down with you. Thankfully as people get more educated, religion and all of it's myths (creationism, Noah's's ark, etc) will fade away and people in the future will look at you the same way we look back at the Greeks and Aztecs. You know that in the future the majority of the people will be atheists, agnostics, and deists; yet for some reason you try so hard to keep your dumb beliefs alive. Everyone that debates you stops only because they view you as a lost cause and a freak, so they don't feel like wasting time with you. But I guess you are too stupid to see that, so you say you win, but that again just shows how delusional you are. You probably are going to reply to this comment calling me "afraid" and "scared' of debating you, but that again just proves my point. Hopefully you end up getting common sense, for not only your sake, but for everyone else's as well. Later, scrub.
jrrjacques says2014-04-15T14:07:06.6928441-05:00
My dear delightful Mr. Stalin, you are a most peculiar chap. You say you read the first few lines and instantly made a generalization of me and my intelligence. Typical. Now if you had read completely what I had said then you might have seen the proverbial light. But unfortunately you are the typical Evolutionist who call a creationist multiple names of undesirable context while dismissing us as fools and idiots. Now about the debate I lost. Look how many Evolutioists there are 420 vs. 180 creationists. Of course you are going to win every time this debate is full of stubborn persons. Could say more but I have to leave.
Stalin_Mario says2014-04-15T14:18:17.5806032-05:00
I have read enough to understand that everything you say is wrong. You are just repeating what ever every other creationist says. Oh and nice excuse on why you lost, yea okay, it's because there are more evolutionists than creationists? Whatever you say, whatever helps you sleep at night. Face it, you know you're wrong and that us evolutionists are right, you are just angry that you have been lied to your whole life and were brainwashed. Heck, you're probably just a dumb troll, trying to tick people off with your stupidity. I feel bad for you, I really do, it must be awful figuring out that you were lied to your whole life by your parents and loved ones, that everything you thought was true were just lies. I pity you and I hope one day you can let go of your delusion, for the sake of everyone, especially your children, who I truly hope you let them think for themselves and not brainwash them the way your parents did to you. Goodbye sir.
TrustmeImlying says2014-04-15T16:13:06.6924721-05:00
Jrrjacques - I'm sending you a debate challenge now. I'm sure you won't decline it, after describing your track record of victories against evolutionists and our ilk, and the unshakable foundation of truth you believe you stand upon. I definitely don't think you'll give me any excuses along the lines of "not having enough time" as I've given you a full 72 hours to post your argument. And I'm sure you won't mention "not having enough space" as I've given you the full 10,000 character limit that we BOTH must abide by. I eagerly await debating such a worthy opponent.
TrustmeImlying says2014-04-16T12:48:11.1606327-05:00
Jrrjacques - it's unfortunate you declined my debate challenge. You mock an opposing viewpoint, claim that the defenders of said viewpoint are "brainwashed", and call myself and anyone else who understands evolution to be "misguided" (and challenge any of us to debate with you, as you've "knocked out" so many in the past).You say "Come if you dare, I am waiting and at your service". You accuse others of making generalizations and assumptions while blanketing the entirety of evolutionists in the same breath (evolution, of which, I fear you considerably lack understanding). You say all this derogatory and hypocritical commentary on a scientific theory, and then when I send you a debate challenge you decline. I must not understand your reasoning behind doing this. The only comparison I could make is someone who is being highly untruthful about their knowledge of the subject, their ability to debate, and their methods of debating. Certainly you're not one of these people?
jrrjacques says2014-04-16T13:17:28.4404171-05:00
My good sir, did you not read the messeage i had posted in the comments of the said debate? I had even posted it as my reason for not accepting when I declined it. Please read it for my logical reasons are contained within.
jrrjacques says2014-04-16T13:23:01.2688341-05:00
My dear sir had you not read my reasoning in the comments of the said debate? I had even used it for the required reasons that I must post for declining your invitation. I believe it was in letter format roughly 200 to 300 words explaining my reasoning. Please read it.
jrrjacques says2014-04-16T13:29:17.3075655-05:00
Please excuse my repeating myself my computor is messed up
jrrjacques says2014-04-16T13:29:54.5757266-05:00
Please excuse my repeating myself my computor is messed up
jrrjacques says2014-04-16T13:31:12.0448300-05:00
Please excuse my repeating myself my computor is messed up
jrrjacques says2014-04-17T23:15:32.2569474-05:00
Simple question for Mr. Stalin, for I do not have much time. Why did you send me a friend request after calling me so many uncouth names?
Stalin_Mario says2014-04-18T18:05:22.7130450-05:00
I add everyone I have a long conversation/argument with.
jennyaaaah says2014-04-21T01:50:48.6325576-05:00
Its like saying a flower just grows out of no where... No, it needs a seed, water, sunlight and time.
BblackkBbirdd says2014-04-21T03:09:37.2332964-05:00
That's a pretty bad analogy.
Stalin_Mario says2014-04-21T05:08:02.7748170-05:00
It's an awful one. Learn about evolution before you comment.
jrrjacques says2014-04-21T14:02:06.3936334-05:00
I concur with them. Obvious from my posts I am a creationist and I find that a analogy of poor and undesirable context. Also I have had an even longer "talk" with Retroman000 and we are not friends. I only will accept if it is a genuine invitation of friendship. Though I do respect the gesture.
Trom88 says2014-04-23T13:43:56.0068778-05:00
Wow, this is a long debate going on in the comments. Hello everyone.
jrrjacques says2014-04-24T12:50:23.9264505-05:00
Moron
jrrjacques says2014-04-24T12:51:45.4607271-05:00
Please do not take that offensively for it was only a joke at your expense. I do not mean it!
Watchemoket says2014-04-26T09:59:14.9448817-05:00
Vassrox saysMarch 21 2014 04:36 PM: How could there be something out of nothing? Jennyaaaah saysApril 21 2014 02:50 AM : Its like saying a flower just grows out of no where... No, it needs a seed, water, sunlight and time. Where did "God" come from, or was He "grown from nothing?" Arguments like these are simply a waste of time for both sides. Admit that we do not know (yet) how life started and use the scientific method and evidence to try to find an answer. Maybe we will never know for certain, but why is it so hard to admit that we as a species do not know something?
jrrjacques says2014-04-26T12:21:35.8496690-05:00
My dear fellow I thank you for pointing out The Scientific Method. One can rarely use the Scientific Method when trying to test something in Creation and one can never use it when trying to prove Evolutionism. We can only look at the result of an event then make hypothesizes and use logic to explain it. Such as the Grand Canyon. There are three main theories of how it came to be. The first is one you've been taught since Kindergarten, that it was slowly carved out by the Colorado River over millions of years. The majority of geologists agree that it is impossible for that trickling river to make the Grand Canyon. If this theory were true, then it would have the world's largest delta. It does not. In fact its delta is very, very, very small. Well the dirt had to go somewhere and the Colorado River didn't move it; so, what did? This is where the other two theories come into play. One says that the Flood (Biblical Flood) when all the water was rushing about it carved it out and spread its dirt across the world. The other still concerns the Flood , but it takes place post-Flood. Now when the water receded it pooled in man places, the largest being the oceans. Well at the beginning of the Grand Canyon one of these massive lakes form. In fact, its beach is still clearly visible. This lake is now called Dry Lake. This lake was raised above where the Grand Canyon is and it shores were made of very soft ground. A little while after the Flood, no one knows for sure how long after, the water found a weakening in the shore and began to trickle out. Eventually this trickle eroded the shore away creating a huge hole where the lake rushed out. Now as all large masses of fast moving water does, it found the easiest path through the still soft ground. It eroded deep removing uncountable tons of post-Flood mud. There was so much water moving so fast that it carried most of this mud to the Gulf of Mexico while also spreading it all over the place on its way down. This the most plausible reason why there is no delta for the Grand Canyon and how it got there, for the slow moving Colorado River could not have carved out the Grand Canyon. It is a logical theory but it can not be 100% proven by way of the Scientific Method for it is on such a massive scale and e cannot duplicate all of the events leading up to it.
ArcTImes says2014-04-26T12:29:17.8343872-05:00
@jrrjacques You don't have a clue how the scientific method works, what is a scientific theory and why the Flood, the bible, and creation is pure nonsense.
jrrjacques says2014-04-26T12:57:58.6796690-05:00
My dear friend, the definition of "The Scientific Method" in http://dictionary.Reference.Com/browse/scientific+method?S=t Scientific Method, noun: a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested" A scientific theory is my friend according to Encyclopedia Britannica, " systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner. " Now "empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited." The Big Bang theory breaks several of these empirical laws and it is not a regularity. Evolutionism (in the macroevolution definition) has neither been observed nor posited. They are both "conceived by the human imagination". "A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner. " Neither is suggested by these laws nor is their experimentation carried out in a "scientifically rational manner" where as Creation is. Also defend your statement, "the Flood, the bible, and creation is pure nonsense" I will show you proof of its sensible conclusion if you'll show me its nonsense. Please do.
ArcTImes says2014-04-26T13:27:16.1875413-05:00
Giving the definitions from a dictionary or an encyclopedia doesn't prove you know the meanings. Even after reading those, you don't understand. Dude, you are not understanding what you are reading. We would be in caves if we should observe things to prove them. What it is talking about is the first step in the scientific method.. The observation. Of course we would not notice evolution without observing the real world. And of course it is from human imagination. That's a theory, a model to explain reality. We invent those models, just like we invented mathematics. And creation is not like that at all. It i could not even be an hypothesis. You can't infer that because there is reality, there is a creator, there are no observations related to creation. And yes, they are nonsense because they don't make sense with what we know about reality, specially the flood and the bible. People can give you the benefit of the doubt about creation if they want, but it doesn't make that much sense either.
Loveshismom says2014-04-27T07:35:55.9870550-05:00
If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Stalin_Mario says2014-04-27T19:35:25.7952410-05:00
^ Typical Creationist who has no idea what evolution is.
Loveshismom says2014-04-27T19:47:40.5552410-05:00
Of course I do. It's a theory that says we evolved from monkeys.
ArcTImes says2014-04-27T21:26:34.0910332-05:00
That's not what the theory of evolution says. It says that humans and modern apes have a common ancestor.
jrrjacques says2014-04-28T06:50:41.4891973-05:00
Actually it says all living things such as plants, insects, animals, etc. came from rocks. Evolutionists believe we "evolved" (that is a tricky word, 6 definitions, only one is true) from rocks.
Jingram994 says2014-04-29T01:32:44.1975200-05:00
"Actually it says all living things such as plants, insects, animals, etc. came from rocks. Evolutionists believe we "evolved" (that is a tricky word, 6 definitions, only one is true) from rocks." 1. 'Evolutionism' is not a real thing. Everyone, atheist and theist alike, who actually knows anything at all about biology understands that evolution is factual. 2. The theory of evolution has nothing at all to do with how life began. It only tells us how the mechanism of evolution works. 3. Actually, the leading theory of how life began is that inorganic compounds early in the earth's history came under the right conditions to form complex organic compounds. We have verified that this is possible many times. Those organic compounds then naturally formed more complex arrangements, eventually resulting in the formation of primitive prokaryotes, which multiplied and evolved from there.
aegis1000 says2014-05-01T06:40:59.3701549-05:00
Ok, I'm a christian and I have been since birth, so I believe God created earth and all that stuff. HOWEVER. Who says God said everything? Does the Bible say it is omniscient and all-knowing? Only God is, and maybe he just created the Big Bang itself. Who said Secular science and the bible are incompatible :)? Therefore, I am a comitted evolutiono-creationist? God made the Big Bang and watched the results. There. A nice unification of my religion and my education. Of course, I could be wrong, but I keep an open mind. I'm a deist agnostic rationalist christian :)
Stalin_Mario says2014-05-01T15:53:44.6956734-05:00
I love Deists.
jrrjacques says2014-05-02T12:44:45.3754402-05:00
Now my friend you have a hypocrisy. For all Hebrew experts say that the original Hebrew scrolls mean a literal six day creation and that it all came into being instantly by word of his mouth. @jingram994 I am formulating a response by gathering my notations and highlighting my sources. You sir are in for some serious reading. Jrrjacques at your service.
Jingram994 says2014-05-03T00:39:22.9637269-05:00
"Now my friend you have a hypocrisy. For all Hebrew experts say that the original Hebrew scrolls mean a literal six day creation and that it all came into being instantly by word of his mouth." That's not 'a hypocrisy' (you mean 'an inconsistency', right?) unless he also attests to believe in literal six-day creationism. You can be theist and believe in this same biblical God without believing something that is verifiably incorrect and ridiculously implausible. For one, taking the bible as metaphor or recognizing that it was actually written by human authors makes your argument just plain wrong. "@jingram994 I am formulating a response by gathering my notations and highlighting my sources. You sir are in for some serious reading." OK, cool. Go ahead. Please keep in mind that you need secular, unbiased sources that actually prove the actual things you are arguing for (namely that 'evolution' says that "life evolved from rocks", which first of all isn't even in the same area as what evolutionary theory describes, and secondly isn't what the theory that is actually in question tells us happened) and your current straw-man of an 'argument' almost certainly cannot be backed up by any legitimate sources.
jrrjacques says2014-05-03T11:03:33.0902184-05:00
Now we all agree that Evolutionism says that the first life forms came from non-living material, right? Good. Now during the Hadean Era of Earth the earth developed a second atmosphere. A second atmosphere is “is an atmosphere of a planet that did not form by accretion during the formation of the planet's sun. A secondary atmosphere instead forms from internal volcanic activity, or by accumulation of material from comet impacts.” (Dr. James Schombert (2004). "Primary Atmospheres (Astronomy 121: Lecture 14 Terrestrial Planet Atmospheres)". Department of Physics University of Oregon. Retrieved 2009-12-22.) This second atmosphere was formed through the degassing of the rocks of the Earth. Please stay with me now and make a mental not on “rocks of the Earth.” This atmosphere contained “contained 60% hydrogen, 20% oxygen (mostly in the form of water vapour), 10% carbon dioxide, 5 to 7% hydrogen sulfide, and smaller amounts of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, free hydrogen, methane” (Russell, Michael (2011). Origins, Abiogenesis and the Search for Life. JPL, Pasedena) Well these chemicals over a period of time formed water with carbon dioxide in it. The atmosphere was also described as a “gigantic, productive outdoor chemical laboratory." (Follmann, H; Brownson, C (2009). "Darwin's warm little pond revisited: from molecules to the origin of life". Naturwissenschaften 96 (11): 1265–92.) This water formed clouds and caused torrential rains and making the earth a “water wolrd” (Rosing, M.T., Bird, D.K., Sleep, N.H. Glassley, W., Albarede, F (2006) "The rise of continents - an essay on the geological consequences of photosynthesis (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology) 232, pp. 99–113) Chemicals from the rocks mixed in with the chemicals from the second atmosphere began churning and mixing in the oceans. With combine energy from hot steam, rock vapor (Sleep, Norman H. Et al. (1989). "Annihilation of ecosystems by large asteroid impacts on early Earth". Nature 342 (6246): 139–42.), and direct UV light from the sun (since there was not ozone in the air) (Rosing, M.T., Bird, D.K., Sleep, N.H. Glassley, W., Albarede, F (2006) "The rise of continents - an essay on the geological consequences of photosynthesis (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology) 232, pp. 99–113) this provided the sufficient amount of energy to combine these rock and atmospheric chemicals to begin the formation of life at its earliest stage. (Follmann, H; Brownson, C (2009). "Darwin's warm little pond revisited: from molecules to the origin of life". Naturwissenschaften 96 (11): 1265–92. AND Bahadur, K (1974). "Photochemical formation of self-sustaining coacervates" (PDF). Proc Indian Nat Acad Sci 39 (4): 455–467.) So here is how it all happened according to your view. Earth is bombarded and when the it begins to cool the ROCKS release gases forming another atmosphere. The chemicals in this atmosphere (which came from ROCKS) rained down on top of ROCKS. The chemical and minerals from both ROCK sources began to combine into the earliest life forms with the assistance of energy from hot steam, ROCK vapor, and UV light. That earliest life form evolved through macroevolution into everything we see today including us. That my good fellow is how Evolutionism believes we came from ROCKS.
Jingram994 says2014-05-04T03:41:21.8702103-05:00
Reduction ad absurdum. Reducing all of these actually correct, complex explanations to their simplest possible form, and trying to ridicule that extremely simple analogy you've come up with, doesn't disprove the actual explanations.
jrrjacques says2014-05-05T14:01:21.5351779-05:00
My connection is messed up.
jrrjacques says2014-05-05T14:02:07.1651779-05:00
I'll try posting this again.
jrrjacques says2014-05-06T06:49:03.8322408-05:00
Great I just did my eleventh try in posting it and it will not work. A curious circumstance.
jrrjacques says2014-05-06T13:36:12.0391338-05:00
My dearest delusional fellow human which originated from a rock, Did I not quote these legitimate sources? Mamma mia, and saints preserve us all from ignorance and arrogance. Not to say that you who are denying your own biased Evolutionism resources are either of these two words. Alright I will repeat again.
jrrjacques says2014-05-06T13:38:21.5109974-05:00
There was a secondary atmosphere that was made by the degassing of ROCKS!
jrrjacques says2014-05-06T13:40:48.9007422-05:00
Now the chemicals in this atmosphere provided the necessary chemicals that when combined with the other chemicals from the ROCKS on the earth made the very first (listen closely now) the very first life-forms of this Earth were made out of chemicals from ROCKS! When the chemicals in the atmosphere rained down on the Earth, it created the primordial soup (otherwise known as oceans) which combined the chemicals of the atmosphere and the chemicals of the ROCKS by using ROCK vapor and UV energy to create life. ROCKS are involved in three different aspects of the making of life. So we all came from ROCKS!
jrrjacques says2014-05-06T13:41:59.2171338-05:00
YES!!!! IT FINALLY WORKED!!!!!! Hooray.
ArcTImes says2014-05-06T13:50:48.4471338-05:00
Holy spam. Actually coming from rocks sounds more plausible than creationism or its religious related stories, like that one that says that an old dude made men from dirt AND WOMEN FROM A RIB. Sadly, evolution doesn't have anything to do with coming from rocks or from ribs or from old dudes.
Trom88 says2014-05-06T14:06:05.9248029-05:00
We believe- in the beginning, God... You believe- in the beginning, matter... Matter is the equivalent to our God for you Evolutionists.
ArcTImes says2014-05-06T14:11:22.5163338-05:00
Evolution has anything to do with that. There are theists, that believe in god (duh, they are theists...) but they accept that evolution is true. They see the evidence and know that it's true. "Matter is the equivalent of god" Nope. We know that matter exist.
ArcTImes says2014-05-06T14:12:38.7067338-05:00
Has nothing*
Jingram994 says2014-05-07T03:55:58.6292268-05:00
"Now the chemicals in this atmosphere provided the necessary chemicals that when combined with the other chemicals from the ROCKS on the earth made the very first (listen closely now) the very first life-forms of this Earth were made out of chemicals from ROCKS! When the chemicals in the atmosphere rained down on the Earth, it created the primordial soup (otherwise known as oceans) which combined the chemicals of the atmosphere and the chemicals of the ROCKS by using ROCK vapor and UV energy to create life. ROCKS are involved in three different aspects of the making of life. So we all came from ROCKS!" The inorganic chemicals that formed the organic chemicals that formed life came from 'rocks', as you so persistently pointed out. You will note that it is *ridiculously* oversimplifying the actual process to state that life 'evolved from rocks'. You will also note that 'evolution' *did not occur* before life existed. Life only 'evolved' from other life; but life does not require other life to come into existence in the first place. It would be just as 'meaningful' (see what I did?) to state that all life 'evolved' from stars, or proto-planetary formations, or nebulae, or the big bang, or *nothing*.
Trom88 says2014-05-07T12:53:08.8797198-05:00
@arctimes, I meant it as a joke buddy, not as fact.
jrrjacques says2014-05-07T13:04:30.2097198-05:00
And here we have an amateur Evolutionist (Jingram994) debating with 12 World renowned Evolutionism Specialists. I am only writing what they have written. So you are literally in conflict with your own beliefs here. It is not I you are arguing with, it is Evolutionism you are debating with. Never in all my wonderful dreams did I think I would actually be talking with an Evolutionists about what they believe or what their saints (Otherwise known as Evolutionists Scientists) teach them. This is almost a dream come true. I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion. If you wish to argue further then write a letter or send an E-mail to any of those Evolutionists I mentioned. Jrrjacques at your service.
Stalin_Mario says2014-05-08T16:35:20.6171988-05:00
^ Yea after reading that comment, it is very clear that you're a troll.
Jingram994 says2014-05-09T06:20:05.7876207-05:00
And you're expecting these actual experts, who actually know what their information means, to agree with your ludicrously oversimplified and, need I say it, biased, summary that what they are saying *actually* means that life directly evolved from rocks? I told you in my last comment just how stupid this line of 'logic' is.
jrrjacques says2014-05-09T12:45:33.1851069-05:00
My dear communist Stalin, please explain how I might be a troll? My dear confused Jingram944, of course this information is biased. It is Evolutionism biased. Yes they will agree with me for I have quoted them. You are the one having trouble in your beliefs, which come from as you said (and what I solemnly believe) ludicrous and stupid logic. Can you not realize that this is what they have said and are still saying? It is not I but the "actual experts" who say this. Please try to read and understand (for once) what I have written. Read it carefully and slowly, I have tried to do that for you but you will have to meet me half way. Please try not to be a average Evolutionists who are ignorant (which in Greek mean dumb on purpose) and with religious fervor will not accept anything that goes against their religion. Jrrjacques at your service.
derplington says2014-05-13T07:44:02.3458966-05:00
What a long list of arguments...
jrrjacques says2014-05-14T06:55:14.3843821-05:00
In addition to my last post, I wish to point out that no one ever posted against my post on how the Grand Canyon could not have been made by the Colorado River. If anyone does wish to contest this fact, then please do so. Also I made a typo. Gulf of Mexico is suppose to be Gulf of California.
jrrjacques says2014-05-14T12:36:44.3368906-05:00
And don't think this averts the true statement the Evolutionism states that our roots are in rocks. I count that as a point for myself in defining what Evolutionists believe.
ArcTImes says2014-05-16T11:22:10.3981919-05:00
@jrrjacques Sadly for your argument, Evolution is not about "our roots". Stop mixing evolution with abiogenesis. And at the end it would not matter, evolution is supported by the evidence.
Loveshismom says2014-05-17T13:36:54.3475846-05:00
Well, either way, we had to come from a living thing according to Biogenesis.
jrrjacques says2014-05-19T06:54:38.6040244-05:00
To Mr. ArcTimes, You say it has evidence. Alright then that is the belief of your adopted religion, being Evolutionism. Did you know the US government has a $250,000 reward for anyone who can produce such evidence that soundly proves it to be true? Did you know this offer has been around for over 20 years? Did you know no one (may I repeat?) no one has been able to take this reward? Now, if there was such evidence wouldn't it have been taken already? Another thing, have you ever heard of Doctor Kent Hovind? If you have not then search his debates with the worlds greatest Evolutionists.
jrrjacques says2014-05-19T12:46:07.0352330-05:00
I wish to pint out that Mr. Stalin has not said anything of value for nearly 33 days. All he has said are insults to myself which are quite irrelevant. Mr. Jingram994 likewise has failed to make a substantial argument for 10 days. I believe Stalin has come to ignore me for he can not bring a substantial argument to the comments. Also Jingram994 I believe has not had time to reply.
jrrjacques says2014-05-20T11:57:54.2593643-05:00
And they have been on this website frequently since their last posts. I do not intend that any assumptions are being pushed forward on my part. I simply stating fact from looking at their profiles (of which they will not except any messages or posts on).
Stalin_Mario says2014-05-21T20:10:39.3917921-05:00
I have not said anything because there isn't much to say to a dumb troll like yourself. You keep on proving to everyone that you're only a troll and nothing more. You try to bring us into a pointless and endless debate, just for your own entertainment. No thanks I'm good. Have fun getting other people to waste their time on you and your bull. But I'm good.
e13runyon says2014-05-21T23:55:18.6149408-05:00
Why not both? Everything adapts but there also has to be a start. I believe in the Christian God creating the world and the basis of life. I'm not sure if we can trace it all back to a common ancestor but, evolution is a definite. But creationism is also a definite in my opinion.
e13runyon says2014-05-22T00:01:00.6329921-05:00
I believe in both. Everything evolves and adapts. But, there also has to be a start. I don't think the bible was being literal when it said the world was created in 7 days. I think the Christian God created earth and the universe, but then he created the basics of lifeforms and they have evolved over billions of years. It may have been from one common ancestor and possibly multiple. Why can't they coexist?
jrrjacques says2014-05-22T06:52:54.9671775-05:00
Mr. Stalin you have yet to explain why I am a troll. I have used factual information. You insult me and my beliefs while giving no defense for your own beliefs. You have used nothing of fact or speculation save insulting my intelligence, and this is not about my intelligence, it is about the Evolutionism Theory and Creation science. You have done what typical uninformed and ignorant Evolutionist believers have done since this debate between the two have existed. When losing or have found that your information is at fault, you begin to question the intelligence of your opponent in an attempt to steer to debate to something new. Fail. Anything else to say? I have found that you are easy and boring to debate with. Jrrjacques at your service.
jrrjacques says2014-05-22T13:36:38.5237199-05:00
Mr. E13 first of all the original Hebrew when translated means a literal 6 day creation. Not a 7 day creation for that is the day God rested from his works. Also it is impossible (emphasis on impossible) that God would use Evolution as a way to create the world for this main reason that conflicts that theory. If God used the Theory of Evolution then there would be death before sin. The Bible teaches that death came into the world through the sin of man. Not (emphasis on not) man came into the world through death and the use of natural selection and macroevolution. The latter choice is hypocrisy to the very foundations of what God teaches. It is a direct contradiction of everything the authors of the Bible have clearly stated. There is no room for speculation of what they say bluntly. One can not say, "Well maybe they didn't mean this." or "This other idea works for me better than what God teaches; so, I'll just combine the two, compromise." I hope this clears truth from false. Jrrjacques at your service.
jrrjacques says2014-05-22T13:37:18.4603549-05:00
Mr. E13 first of all the original Hebrew when translated means a literal 6 day creation. Not a 7 day creation for that is the day God rested from his works. Also it is impossible (emphasis on impossible) that God would use Evolution as a way to create the world for this main reason that conflicts that theory. If God used the Theory of Evolution then there would be death before sin. The Bible teaches that death came into the world through the sin of man. Not (emphasis on not) man came into the world through death and the use of natural selection and macroevolution. The latter choice is hypocrisy to the very foundations of what God teaches. It is a direct contradiction of everything the authors of the Bible have clearly stated. There is no room for speculation of what they say bluntly. One can not say, "Well maybe they didn't mean this," or "This other idea works for me better than what God teaches; so, I'll just combine the two, compromise." I hope this clears truth from false. Jrrjacques at your service.
ArcTImes says2014-05-22T18:13:04.2943849-05:00
@jrrjacques LOL. I knew about this rewards. I didn't know about the one from the US government, but it's irrelevant and it just makes it funnier.. I knew about Hovind and he also has this reward Those rewards don't mean anything. He is the one setting up the contest, he is the one setting up the rules. Of course he is not going to give that money. He won't accept the evidence, even if it's in his face. And I also saw some of this debates, and they were not against the "world's greatest evolutionists". Hovind just shows lack of knowledge about the theories on his debates. He is the typical young earth creationist that mix evolution with abiogenesis and big bang theory and other well known facts about the universe. The only skill he has is probably that he can speak really fast lol. Evolution has been proved, the evidence is there, it was tested and it is still tested with the predictions that end being true every single time. The scientific community agrees on evolution.
jrrjacques says2014-05-28T06:47:06.7417427-05:00
Mr. ArcTimes I agree with you fully concerning that evolution has been proven to be correct.
jrrjacques says2014-05-28T07:19:24.2556950-05:00
That is I agree with one of the aspects of the tricky word "evolution" which has 6 scientific definitions and only one has been tested and proven (it was also created by Creationists I might add). This would be microevolution. Since you did not capitalize "evolution" I assumed you were talking about the factual part of the definition. If you had capitalized it I would have assumed that we were still on the subject of the religion Evolutionism which holds the other 5 definitions.
jrrjacques says2014-05-28T07:22:23.2492279-05:00
Now back to the original reply I have planned for your last post.
jrrjacques says2014-05-28T07:23:27.2808723-05:00
To Mr. Arc Times you have used a typical Evolutionists tactic. Changing the subject or point of interest. I never mentioned about the reward Dr. Hovind has. You brought that up and then you downgraded it as an argument against me of which I never mentioned. Further more Dr. Hovind debated all comers, this included amateurs, professors, and the world's most renowned Evolutionists scientists. Dr. Hovind was winning so many debates in collages, on television networks, and radio that Evolutionists began trying to debate him over email. This final form of debate Dr. Hovind would not do because he types very slow and he has mush to say. Yes I agree with you that Dr. Hovind talks fast. Also write Dr. Hovind a letter and debate him on whether he is a blind, arrogant denier of science. It is easy to get a hold of his address (I know I have written him a letter) or do you believe you are not up to his caliber a factual information? Never mind that yes there is fact that Evolution uses; BUT, There are no Evolution facts. In other words it is like rat poison. Rat poison has 99% edible food, it is the 1% that kills. Same with Evolution uses facts that are undeniable but then they ruin it by adding their poison (the macroevolution, Big Bang Theory, biogenesis, etc.). Also Evolution's main methods that it uses to "prove " its belief that the world is millions and millions years old is the Geologic Column and radiometric dating. Both of these are greatly flawed. There are less than 10 sites around the world that has even three fossils of the Column in order. The Geologic Column does NOT exist. Now that I have crushed that fragile shell, on to radiometric dating. Radiometric dating has been proven to be flawed many times. Evolutionists test and test the abject until they get a date they like. Example; you walk into room and see a candle burning. I ask you when was it lit? You take some measurements on its height and find it is 10 centimeters tall. I ask you again, when was it lit? You still don’t know and you take more measurements. You find that it is burning 1 centimeter an hour. I ask again, when was the candle lit? In order to know you need to make the assumptions on how tall it was before it was lit, and has the rate of burning been constant. You don’t know so you guess. Here are a few examples on its unreliability Radiometric dating in chronological order. 1949-The lower leg of a mammoth was dated 15,000 years old and the skin 21,000. 1963-A living mollusk was dated to be 2,300 years old. 1970-An article was published telling how dates were selected, “If the date supports our theory we put it in the main text. If it is not entirely contradicting, it is put as a foot-note. If it doesn’t support our theory at all it is dropped and we test again.” 1971-A freshly killed seal was dated at 1,300 years old. 1984-The shells from living snails were dated at 27,000 years old. 1985-11 human skeletons that were supposed to be the earliest remains of North American humans that were thought to be about a quarter of a million years old were dated at 5,000 years old or less. 1992-Two Colorado Creek mammoths were found side by side, one was 22,000 years old, the other was 16,000. 1996-At Berkley University, the Evolutionist Karl Swisher was reevaluating one of the Homo Erectus bones. It was thought that it was 250,000 years old, but Mr. Swisher was startled and confused to find that the dates he was receiving ranged anywhere from 53,000-27,000. I might add that that is a 96% percent error. When using this method on an object of known date it never works. But when using it on an object of unknown age it is assumed to be correct. This is not commonsense science. This is an act of desperation on the part of the Evolutionists scientists to try and trick unsuspecting bystanders. With this evidence, it is apparent that radiometric dating is far from accurate. Jrrjacques at your service.
ArcTImes says2014-05-28T14:30:47.3858655-05:00
@jrrjacques Caliber of factual information?. He doesn't understand evolution. Those "6 definitions" are retarded. Evolution means change. The theory of evolution by natural selection is the explanation of the phenomenon. Those 6 definition that Hovind uses are really bad. Micro and Macro evolution is just the same process and it's exactly what evolution is about. The rest is not related, although is change, it is not related to the theory. Big bang theory and abiogenesis are not directly related with the theory of evolution, just like gravity is not related with evolution either. You can see this video and see how Hovind lacks understanding of simple biology, let alone evolution. Https://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=CGfhAevhy_0 And the analogy with radiometric dating with the candle is really bad. We know radiometric dating work because it is a group of techniques that we know they work. Https://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=iGDrq8rikJc I posting a video instead of discussing because really, your argument doesn't deserve discussion. The examples of failed dating have explanations. And it is really simple when you just understand that the radiometric dating is more than "taking some measurements" lol.
Jingram994 says2014-05-29T04:09:22.9554759-05:00
Excuse me. I didn't realize you had actually replied to my comment. "My dear confused Jingram944, of course this information is biased. It is Evolutionism biased." Evolution isn't a 'bias'. The fact that you're trying to conflate evolution with theories on the beginning of life, which absolutely does not fall under the purview of evolutionary theory, also shows that you're having trouble understanding the idea. "Yes they will agree with me for I have quoted them." I already pointed out why you quoting them out of context and reducing their arguments to the simplest possible wording fails to convey what they are *actually* saying and meaning. "You are the one having trouble in your beliefs, which come from as you said (and what I solemnly believe) ludicrous and stupid logic. Can you not realize that this is what they have said and are still saying?" Once again, I have pointed out how your ludicrous oversimplification glosses over the actual ideas being conveyed with those full statements. You are also deliberately confusing evolutionary theory with entirely separate theories that attempt to explain the origins of life. I have already spelled all of this out for you. "It is not I but the "actual experts" who say this. Please try to read and understand (for once) what I have written. Read it carefully and slowly, I have tried to do that for you but you will have to meet me half way." I have. See above. You are oversimplifying their words to such a ludicrous degree that you have removed the actual ideas being conveyed from what you are telling us. "Please try not to be a average Evolutionists who are ignorant (which in Greek mean dumb on purpose) and with religious fervor will not accept anything that goes against their religion." Evolution is not a religion. Science is not a religion. We can, and have, proven that evolutionary theory is absolutely factual. Abiogenesis is also a far more likely theory, with far more evidence behind it, and which meets its BoP to a far greater degree than, any other competing idea. Please see here for where I already answered 90% of this: "The inorganic chemicals that formed the organic chemicals that formed life came from 'rocks', as you so persistently pointed out. You will note that it is *ridiculously* oversimplifying the actual process to state that life 'evolved from rocks'. You will also note that 'evolution' *did not occur* before life existed. Life only 'evolved' from other life; but life does not require other life to come into existence in the first place. It would be just as 'meaningful' (see what I did?) to state that all life 'evolved' from stars, or proto-planetary formations, or nebulae, or the big bang, or *nothing*."
jrrjacques says2014-05-29T13:07:09.5640510-05:00
My good apposing friends. It has been enjoyable reading your wonderful fictional posts. Unfortunately there is an end to all good things. So it is with me. I only have availability to computers 1 hour a day on a public school computer. And today is my last day. So as a result I will be unable to reply to anything for the next 3 and one half months for Summer vacation. I wish I could debate with you the fantasies of the vast world of Evolutionism, but I can't for now. Fare you well and may God keep you safe. Jrrjacques at your service.
ArcTImes says2014-05-29T14:53:41.2544411-05:00
@jrrjacques The only thing I can say is LOL.
Loveshismom says2014-06-06T08:01:08.3133715-05:00
@jingram, who were Nebraska Man, Pit down man, and Ida?
Jingram994 says2014-06-07T03:54:47.3676508-05:00
Frauds. Who cares? We don't need those specific 'transitionals' for this one specific species to prove that evolution is true.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-06-10T18:48:07.1148179-05:00
http://www.evolutionvsgod.com/
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-06-10T18:49:00.4413387-05:00
http://www.evolutionvsgod.com/
imawholockian says2014-06-11T13:25:59.6471520-05:00
@imabench, in what way is evolution logical? It was an idea brought about by Charles Darwin, most theories about evolution are founded from Darwinian evolution, yet none of them actually follow what Charles Darwin said. For instance, Creationists believe that there was a worldwide flood (Noah's flood) and we find many fossils that belong in the "prehistoric" layer of the geologic collumn, towards the top! Yet evolution continues to deny the fact that there was infact a worldwide flood as it was according to the Biblical account. Another point , most evolutionists believe the earth is 4.54 billion years old, each year the moon moves 1 centimeter away from the earth, at that rate, we would no longer have a moon in the present day! Also, the salt levels in the sea get higher each year, if the earth was that old then the salt levels would be so high, the water would be to salty to support any sealife. Since most of the diagrams of apes turning into humans have many creatures in between, why haven't they found the transitionary fossils?
derplington says2014-06-11T13:54:18.3958085-05:00
The thing is, if someone even did find "the missing link", there would be no way to actually prove it was what they thought. Even if it seemed perfectly in between humans and Apes, it would only be another attempt to prove something you cannot prove. Bones are not a living creature, and therefore, the characteristics of the bones are your only proof.
ArcTImes says2014-06-16T12:46:31.4936452-05:00
@DefenderOfTheTruth lol that video is really really bad. I only made it to the third minute where the interviewer showed that he didn't understand the scientific method. Observation is about the phenomenon. The theory is the explanation. The phenomenon is the variety of species and how well adapted those species are to the environment. It's like saying that you can never be sure about a person killing another person because you can't observe it. A jsut because he calls it "evidence" doesn't change the fact that he is actually talking about observing how it happens. Btw I think this is the banana guy, which makes it less reliable lol.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-06-21T07:36:12.6841219-05:00
@Arctimes: Did you watch the entire film? "A theory is a generalization based on many observations and experiments; a well-tested, verified hypothesis that fits existing data and explains how processes or events are thought to occur." [http://biology.Clc.Uc.Edu/courses/bio104/sci_meth.Htm] According to this definition, evolution must be supported by MANY OBSERVATIONS, not to mention it must be testable. If you watch the entire movie, you see that this is not the case because millions of years are required and the millions of years of evolution fail to leave behind pretty much ANY transitional forms. "It's like saying that you can never be sure about a person killing another person because you can't observe it." Incorrect. If the undeniable evidence is there, you can be sure of a crime; all the man was asking for was observable evidence of transitional forms, and no one could give him a valid example.
Sagey says2014-06-21T08:11:20.7780189-05:00
You Creationists carry on as if Evolution is some kind of Pet Theory of Science, Like Creation is a Pet Argument of Christianity. WRONG! Science has no Pet Theories. Theories in Science are the highest status an Idea can reach. To be a Theory it must undergo a barrage of attacks by Science while it is in the Hypothesis stage. Science never tries to Prove Hypotheses nor Theories, Science is always about Disproving not proving. Because the Best Way Of Proving Anything Is To Try And Disprove It. That's the scientific approach, take any hypothesis or theory, find it's weakest points and attack them. If it can stand up to rigorous disproof then it is more likely to be True. Evolution has withstood 160 years of science trying to disprove it. They have tried everything. If any person (scientist or non-scientist) can discover something to disprove Evolution, they would be regarded as among the world's best scientists and would likely receive a Nobel Prize for it. So far, nobody has been able to demonstrate a flaw in Evolution. I've studied Creationist Literature for many years, all Creation Scientists have ever done is lie, cheat and misquote scientists to Prove Creation to be True. They are not Scientists for Two Reasons: 1: They do not follow proper scientific reasoning, as science is Inductive and the Premises are taken on their own value and the Conclusion is unknown prior to evaluation the outcome of the combined premises. Creationists: Take a preconceived Conclusion/Outcome "God Created The Universe" and alter the premises accordingly. That is actually Scientific Fraud. 2: If Creation Scientists were truly Scientific: Instead of Proving God Created The Universe, they should be trying to Disprove it or demonstrate that God Did Not Create the Universe, which is far more scientific. Conclusion: Creation Scientists are Definitely Not Scientists! Creationism is an Argument From Ignorance Fallacy! It can never be a Theory, nor even a Hypothesis. To be either of those, it requires tangible Evidence, something it lacks entirely. :-D~
ArcTImes says2014-06-21T09:34:41.1953956-05:00
@DefenderOfTheTruth No, I didn't finish to see the movie. I actually stated that in my last comment and the reason. Your definition is correct, but it is not what banana man was asking. He was asking for actual observation of evolution, he was not asking for evidence. If you thought he was asking for "transitional form" is fine, but it is also a trick for a fallacy. Let me explain. A single fossil can't prove evolution. It is not possible to see a "middle way" between species. So a half reptile/half bird is not possible, at least not in the eyes of creationist who expect exactly half the characteristics. And the most important thing is that every species is a transitional species. So why is he asking that? Because he doesn't understand evolution. What ever we show to him would be recognized as a finished species and not a transitional species. The truth is that every species is finished and transitional. A good analogy I always use is the evolution of language. You can't show me a transitional language between Latin and Spanish without stupid people saying that it is Latin or Spanish and how it "micro evolved", but no... Latin didn't become Spanish. There is no point in the evolution of the languages you can say "HERE, here, guys, we evolved, stop speaking Latin, let's speak Spanish now". Speciation is inevitable, sir. Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, Catalan, etc all come from Latin, and only the evidence can prove that, not the eyes. I recommend you stop watching videos of banana man. Your god can still be real, but evolution is supported the evidence, and it can't be denied.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-06-21T13:02:07.1469574-05:00
Sagey: "Theories in Science are the highest status an Idea can reach." How about a scientific law? "Science never tries to Prove Hypotheses nor Theories, Science is always about Disproving not proving" Not so. Science does not always use reduction ad absurdum, nor does it have to. "Evolution has withstood 160 years of science trying to disprove it. They have tried everything. If any person (scientist or non-scientist) can discover something to disprove Evolution, they would be regarded as among the world's best scientists and would likely receive a Nobel Prize for it. So far, nobody has been able to demonstrate a flaw in Evolution." Not so. "1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. A system that is irreducibly complex is one in which all the components work together and are essential to perform the system’s basic function. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) It is not possible to build such a system gradually, one component at a time, since it cannot function unless all components are present. Many living systems exhibit such irreducible complexity (e.G vision, blood clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to “happen” by chance. Yet living systems are vastly more complex than a watch. Darwin considered this fact one of the most serious challenges to his theory of evolution. The magnitude of this challenge has increased exponentially since Darwin’s time as the details of living systems have been uncovered down to and below the level of the cell. The incredible machinery of life exists in networks so complex and interdependent that they could not have arisen gradually or through random chance – they simply had to be designed and created. 2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. According to information science, information can only be produced by intelligence. Highly complex information must originate from a highly intelligent source. DNA is by far the most compact and complex information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead-sized amount of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive, can contain multiple copies of all the information necessary to build and maintain things as complex as the human brain and body, and is self-replicating. However, the proponents of evolution believe that random chance, not intelligence, gave rise to all of the information found in DNA. Ironically, evolutionary scientists involved in the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project search the sky with massive radio telescopes, hoping to detect even simple patterns in radio signals which might be a sign of otherworldly intelligence, all the while ignoring the clear evidence of intelligence built into the incredibly complex DNA patterns of every living creature right here on Earth. 3. Mutations do not increase information, as required by evolution. Mutations are thought to drive evolution, but they cannot increase information. Mutations can only change DNA by deleting, damaging, duplicating, or substituting already existing information. The vast majority of mutations are harmful or have no apparent effect. Over 100 years of fruit fly experiments have clearly demonstrated that mutations only result in normal, dead, or grotesquely deformed fruit flies – they are still fruit flies! Even mutations which are in some way beneficial (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or wingless beetles on windy islands) result from the loss of information. This is the opposite of the vast increase in information required to get from amoeba to man, as proposed in the theory of evolution. 4. Natural Selection is conservative, not creative. The concept of natural selection was originally developed by natural theologians, who thought that it worked to preserve distinct created types. Darwin argued that natural selection, if given enough time, could actually create new types. However, field and laboratory observations of natural selection in action confirm that it only changes the relative abundance of certain already-existing characteristics, and doesn’t create new ones. For example, Darwin observed that the average beak size of finches increased in dry years, but later observers noted that this trend reversed in wet years. This is very different than the kind of changes that would be required to transform a finch beak into some other structure or a finch into a completely different kind of animal. In other words, scientific studies of natural selection demonstrate, without exception, that Darwin was wrong. 5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true. If evolution were true, we should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don’t see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between every major “kind” of life. Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven’t been. 6. Pictures of ape-to-human “missing links” are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists’ already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be “reconstructed” a hundred different ways. Many supposed “ape-men” are very clearly apes, and most fossils hailed with much fanfare as “missing links” are later quietly reclassified as simply extinct varieties of non-human primates. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called “ape-men” were fully human. The body hair and the blank expressions of the supposedly primitive humans in these models don’t come from the bones, but from the evolutionary assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone’s eyes based on a few old bones. The “missing links” are still missing. 7. The radioactive dating methods that evolutionists use to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are based on questionable assumptions and give unreliable results. Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine a rock’s age assume that the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can be accurately estimated, that no isotopes moved into or out of the rock after its formation (closed system), and that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. However, the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can rarely be estimated with reasonable accuracy. In addition, it is commonly acknowledged that hydrothermal fluids (hot, mineral-rich water) often transport both parent and daughter isotopes from one rock to another, invalidating the closed system assumption. In fact, this process is often cited as a reason for rejecting dates that don’t fit the evolutionary timeline. What is not commonly known is that radioactive dating methods usually give a number of different results for the same formation and often even for the same rock! In practice, geologists choose the “correct” age from among these different results based on the age expected from the evolutionary timeline. This is a classic case of circular thinking! Also, different methods give different results, with heavier isotopes consistently giving older ages than lighter isotopes for the same rock. This pattern should not exist if radioactive decay rates have always been the same. Furthermore, lava flows with known historical ages often date as millions or even billions of years old. If radioactive dating methods can be off by so much for rocks of known age, how can they be considered reliable for rocks of unknown age? 8. “Leftover” body structures are not evidence for evolution. Evolutionists point to vestigial organs (supposedly “leftover” body structures with no know function) as evidence of evolution. However, it’s impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there’s always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. In fact, over 100 organs formerly thought of as vestigial are now known to perform essential functions. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs and only a small number are still considered vestigial. It is increasingly clear that vestigial organs are not the result of evolution but simply examples of scientific ignorance. It’s also worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.G., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. Proponents of evolution need to provide examples of developing organs that are not yet fully functional but can be shown to be increasing in complexity with each succeeding generation. No such examples exist. 9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology. When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called “spontaneous generation.” Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). “Chemical Evolution” is just another way of saying “spontaneous generation”—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible. Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five “heads” in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it’s given, non-life will not become alive. 10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. There are two types of science. Operational science deals with the present, and arrives at conclusions based on repeated observations of existing phenomena. Historical science deals with the past, which is not repeatable. Investigations of origins clearly fall within the scope of historical science, and therefore cannot draw definitive conclusions. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. This interpretation is greatly influenced by one’s prior beliefs. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible’s teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, themselves, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God’s revealed Word." [http://www.Epm.Org/resources/2010/Oct/3/ten-major-flaws-evolution-revised/] Really? Creationists cannot be scientists? Https://answersingenesis.Org/creation-scientists/can-creationists-be-scientists/ "If Creation Scientists were truly Scientific: Instead of Proving God Created The Universe, they should be trying to Disprove it or demonstrate that God Did Not Create the Universe, which is far more scientific." Can you disprove God's existence with valid evidence? ------- Arctimes: "And the most important thing is that every species is a transitional species" Not so. Your presupposition is that evolution is true so then, looking through that lens of reasoning, you must conclude with this. This is not a fact but rather a conclusion based on a critical assumption. Regarding your language analogy; we are talking biological change not linguistic change. As such, this analogy does not apply to the theory. "Your god can still be real, but evolution is supported the evidence, and it can't be denied." All I ask of you is 1 single transitional form that is UNDENIABLY valid.
ArcTImes says2014-06-21T14:49:24.7938955-05:00
"Not so. Your presupposition is that evolution is true so then, looking through that lens of reasoning, you must conclude with this. " No. I'm making the same supposition banana man and you are making. When you ask "where are the transitional species?", you are implying evolution is true for some seconds only to make the question. If the question is not answered, then the first preposition is false. But it is bad logic. The question is wrong because evolution happens all the time. Every species is a transitional species. "Regarding your language analogy; we are talking biological change not linguistic change. As such, this analogy does not apply to the theory."Regarding your language analogy; we are talking biological change not linguistic change. As such, this analogy does not apply to the theory. That's the reason it is called an analogy. I'm not trying to prove the theory with the analogy. I'm trying to make understand why your reasoning is really bad and why the evidence already proposed (fossil record and genetics, as well as countless test and predictions) are more than enough to prove evolution. The reason the analogy work is that there is analogous characteristics for almost everything. Evolution happens when this 2 things happen, imperfect reproduction (variation) and competition. There is this small unit of information in both cases, gene and words. Reproduction and Communication being analogous mechanisms, etc. "All I ask of you is 1 single transitional form that is UNDENIABLY valid." I already told you why it won't matter what I tell you. I asked a "transitional form" between languages. You can find some, just as I can find some biological ones, but you will still deny it. I could mention a lot of them (again, actually all of them are transitional "forms") but you will just say that archaeopteryx is a bird and that tiktaalik is an amphibious. So my recommendation is that you read about it, instead of showing a link about a guy that doesn't know or care about science, making some bad scientific questions, expecting that one for all the gap is big enough to fit their invisible man in the sky. Evolution is supported by the evidence, (which is more than an UNDENIABLY valid transitional form between 2 KNOWN species). Actually this last thing is funny because all that is discovered becomes a known species.
ArcTImes says2014-06-21T14:57:19.4407010-05:00
@DefenderOfTheTruth I'm going to answer this question too. I'm sure Sagey can answer but I was not able to resist lol. "What about law?" The last step of the scientific method is the theory. The law is just a mathematical formula about the explanation. For example the law of gravity is just the mathematical representation of the theory of gravity. But you can't make a mathematical formula of the theory of evolution. So a phenomenon may have an explanation. This explanation could be theory and law, maybe only theory, or maybe theory, law and fact, like evolution. Remember to add "scientific" before each word (eg scientific fact).
Sagey says2014-06-21T17:37:12.7716758-05:00
@ DOT: Scientific Laws are only part of a Theory, a Theory encompasses Laws, Evidences(sometimes called facts) and sub-theories. Theories Explain the Facts (Evidence) and Laws, in other words, Theories explain everything about a particular Phenomenon. Such as the Theory Of Evolution explains how life evolved over time and it includes such laws as the Law Of Biogenesis and the Law of Kreb's Cycle, etc..... Laws are just Patterns discovered while trying to disprove the theory. Thus, if the Theory survives the attempts to disprove it, as Evolution certainly has, all Laws (Patterns Of Behavior) and Evidence used to discredit it, become part of the Theory. Theories are above Laws and Facts.
Sagey says2014-06-21T17:46:30.5331234-05:00
Arctimes is entirely correct: Many laws have been defined mathematically, as these are only principles/patterns within a Theory. Some patterns have a chemical formula such as Krebs Cycle which is the storage of energy in ATP by energy being stored to add the extra Phosphorus atom onto ADP. The Law of Biogenesis has no Mathematical nor Chemical Pattern defined, it is just that only living things can produce life with inherited characteristics. Abiogenesis is the formation of life from non-living molecules, which is not part of Evolution, since evolution is only concerned with inheritance.
Sagey says2014-06-21T18:15:58.1413717-05:00
BTW DefenderofNonsense: All your "Not So!" rebuttals of my previous post are in fact "False", Everything I have stated can be confirmed by reading any truly Scientific Encyclopedia or go Berkeley University's Understanding Science 101 and start from there! http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/guide_to_us.php Then gradually work your way up to Evolution 101: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/ By the time you've read (and understood) all that, maybe you can possibly (probably) make a better argument against Evolution. We don't mind people arguing against any Scientific theory, because CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is what drives Science. Controversy only makes science better, not worse. Scientists deliberately attack theories to not only make a name for themselves, but also to make sure science never becomes complacent and lazy. Evolutionists are always trying to find new ways to attack Evolution, because it is Confrontation and being attacked that makes a Theory stronger. By Creationists attacking Evolution with sound, accurate, scientific criticism, it keeps Evolutionists checking to see if such holes really exist. So far the Creationist attacks have all been unsound and invalid, but, you never know, some day one may succeed. Though all your comments are old school and have been defeated many times. Everything in my earlier statement is Factual. You really need an education in reality.
Sagey says2014-06-21T21:43:20.8453702-05:00
Jaiman107 stated: "If we evolved from apes we would have the same genes but we dont: Wrong Jaiman107, we have 95% the same genes, the differences between us in size, brain capacity and lack of hair is the 5%. The rest is identical. So as far as genetics goes, we are so close that as far as Kinds goes we are still of the Ape Kind.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-06-22T15:19:48.6614214-05:00
Arctimes: "I already told you why it won't matter what I tell you. I asked a "transitional form" between languages. You can find some, just as I can find some biological ones, but you will still deny it. I could mention a lot of them (again, actually all of them are transitional "forms") but you will just say that archaeopteryx is a bird and that tiktaalik is an amphibious" I will deny it only if it is not credible or valid. I will deny that archaeopteryx is a transition between dinosaur and bird because of the lack of conclusive evidence that it is; so far, the evidence of it being truly transitional does not exist. While I am open minded and remain skeptical, I also do not embrace evidence as truth until it has been proven to be truth. Https://www.Apologeticspress.Org/apcontent.Aspx?Category=9&article=918 Tiktaalik. Once again, While I am open minded and remain skeptical, I also do not embrace evidence as truth until it has been proven to be truth. Http://theevolutionproblem.Blogspot.Com/2012/09/tiktaalik-roseae-fish-amphibian-link.Html
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-06-22T15:25:05.8524849-05:00
Sagey: "Theories are above Laws and Facts." Really? "BTW DefenderofNonsense" Please avoid the sarcasm. "We don't mind people arguing against any Scientific theory, because CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is what drives Science." Is asking for valid, conclusive transitional forms as evidence for macroevolution not constructive? "You really need an education in reality." My policy is that "While I am open minded and remain skeptical, I also do not embrace evidence as truth until it has been proven to be truth". Is this not realistic?
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-06-22T15:39:02.6380027-05:00
Sagey: "we have 95% the same genes" True. If you ignore other data, then this seems conclusive. However, 1.23% of the differences between Humans and chimpanzees encompasses 35 million differences. There are 40-45 million ape DNA base codes that differ from humans and roughly the same amount vise versa. Humans alone have 689 DNA genes that chimps do not have and chimps have 86 DNA genes that Humans lack. Recent studies have shown that there are actually a significant number of genes between Humans and Gorillas that are more similar then that between Humans and chimpanzees (contrary to evolutionary thinking which states that humans evolved directly from apes). (The New Answers Book 3, Ham).
Sagey says2014-06-22T17:25:55.9858152-05:00
Wrong DefenderOfTruth: Your source is complete Nonsense, Ham is not a good source of any knowledge on Earth, in fact no Evolutionist has ever stated that humans evolved directly from Apes, we share a common ancestor is exactly what Evolution states. Get yourself a good library. Or learn Evolution 101, which would put your knowledge above that of Ken Ham who would fail Evolution 101. Reading and understanding this site: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/ Would put your knowledge of Evolution way above Ken Ham's, though it is not only important to read it, it is also important to understand what you are reading, which is Ken Ham's failure. His single rational brain cell cannot understand Evolution. We and the apes all branched off a similar branch around 2 million years ago, but we did not come directly from any living ape. Apes have stronger genetic methylation than humans, so they have developed a strong defense against mutational changes, our ancestor had less resistance to such changes, thus we evolved quicker. Some have such strong defenses against mutation and thus gene expression that their evolving has been slowed down to almost a standstill and may never change in another few million years. Yes, evolution has also developed defenses against itself.
ArcTImes says2014-06-22T17:30:55.8788490-05:00
@DefenderOfTheTruth "I will deny it only if it is not credible or valid. " That's false. You are going to deny it because it goes against what you believe. Your username is "DefenderOfTheTruth. You actually believe that you know what's happening. That you already have the answer. How can I believe that you are open minded. As I told you, it's impossible to see changes just picking 2 "known individuals of 2 different species", and then picking one that should be in the middle but doesn't have exactly the characteristics. You need to see all the fossil records and understand how science. Evolution makes predictions. We compare the data with the evidence and the evidence points out that evolution is true. I made an example. We have the history of some languages in writing. We know about the evolution of Latin, but I can't just go and tell you "Dude, this is the language between Latin and Spanish". Why? Because this is not digimon. An individual will ALWAYS have babies of the same species. You can only see 2 different species after a lot of time. Stop trying to see evolution like in pokemon or digimon. We have the fossil records that accurately shows how these variations happen directly related with time. So we don't see humans if we go too much to the past. That's the point and that's how the evidence work. It is not showing the Archaepteryx and saying "yep, that's half bird half dinosaur". Then you show me 2 links with "Apologetics" and "evolution's problem" in its name. Why can't you show me a scientific paper? Because the huge scientific conspiracy and how they agree on that? Right? SIgh. I check the first link and there is a search bar... The title says "Evolution vs Creation" and in the bottom it says "Search by bible verse" ROFL. There is no content dude... Not that I was expecting something from that site anyways. You are not open minded, you are closed to your belief, and it will not get better if you continue visiting those sites. And again, please, understand what I'm saying, you need to learn what species mean, you need to understand that every species is a transitional species, and that one fossil doesn't prove evolution, all the fossil record does. Why? Because it shows the variation. We don't need to link anything, we only need to understand that some characteristics are there in the past, and others appear over time. The links are just a plus that you won't accept because... GAWD.
Sagey says2014-06-22T17:33:08.5395482-05:00
Essentially Ken Ham and the entire Answers-in-Genesis crew are a bunch of useless Drongos, I have forgotten more about science than their entire crew will ever learn. They know nothing about Evolution, which makes it stupid that they keep attacking it. Essentially Answers-In-Genesis arguments against Evolution are simply Arguments From Ignorance Fallacies! Everything ever written on Answers-in-Genesis is Fallacious and False. It's the worst site for any knowledge on planet Earth. You would learn more factual scientific information from reading Superman comics.
ArcTImes says2014-06-22T17:33:43.0463058-05:00
@DefenderOfTheTruth "1.23% of the differences between Humans and chimpanzees encompasses 35 million differences" That's irrelevant. Scientist even use percentages just not to give huge numbers but yeah.... 35 million is a lot right? Rofl Again, if you check the analogy of the languages, you will find huge amount of different between languages. That doesn't matter. We know animals evolve from other specific animals because of more data than just similarities and differences.
Sagey says2014-06-22T17:46:37.0457046-05:00
So True ArcTimes, DefenderOfNonsense cannot understand the number games that AIG play, it is all so fallacious, but convincing to the naive.
Sagey says2014-06-22T18:00:47.5784312-05:00
That is the beauty of Science, it is so dynamic, evidence pops up unexpectedly and tells observers new stories. Creationists make up their own story (Bible) and then force the evidence to tell their story, so the story always remains the same, regardless of what the Evidence is trying to tell. Creationists say: Shut Up Evidence, We Already Know Everything, It is Written In Scripture. Boring: Same Old Same Old. Scientists actually listen to the evidence and stories change almost on a daily basis. That is why science is so great, we are learning something new every day. Scientists unlike Creationists, never say that they know it all, nor that any piece of writing tells everything. The scientists all discover: That The More We Learn, The More We Realize How Little We Really Know!
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-06-22T18:04:40.5579517-05:00
They both offer a different view on how we became to be. Of course, there is conflict but does it matter? We are here, that is what matters. Instead of bickering, which is leading us no where we should be striving for truth. We shouldn't be suppressing, we should be growing. They are just different views on how we got here, so what? Does it really matter how we got here? We should be happy we are here, and finding out how constructively, not fighting.
Sagey says2014-06-22T18:11:54.1131517-05:00
Precisely ArcTimes: The evolution of language is a great similarity to the evolution of organisms, we all know there was a language between the original grunts and noises of the first hominids and early written languages, but we have no evidence for it, only paintings on cave walls which give us no syntactic knowledge. Yet we know that such languages existed, Congo natives that have had the same animistic religion for nearly 60,000 years can give us clues as to their early languages, but even there language has evolved greatly without a trace of the first languages. So like fossil records, there are gaps, but likewise we have a good knowledge that the gaps in no way demonstrate transitional fossils nor languages were not present, indeed they obviously existed.
Sagey says2014-06-22T18:17:11.8557227-05:00
@ Comrade_Silly_Otter: That's the whole point of the bickering: Young Earth Creationists are trying to stifle or destroy the Truth that evidence speaks. While Science is all about understanding and teaching the Truth that evidence brings to us. That's the difference. Science is about honesty and Truth. Creationism is about making money from stifling Truth and preaching nonsense for the purpose of selling books on science written by people who know less science than a middle school student. Enter Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Etc...
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-06-22T18:19:49.6818696-05:00
@Sagey You are what I am talking about... Respect is something you should have as well. Yes, there are some like that, it is ignorant, and somewhat stubborn. But you are being somewhat stubborn yourself.
Sagey says2014-06-22T18:29:01.6618227-05:00
Not stubborn Comrade_Silly_Otter, I'm being deliberately belligerent, for a purpose. :-D~ When you have been involved in and observing the Science vs Nonsense conflict for 20 years you may understand the reason.
ArcTImes says2014-06-22T19:07:41.8340839-05:00
@Comrade_Silly_Otter The problem is that the evidence supports evolution. We know it's true... At least in the way we can possibly know things are true. I mean, sure, it is not perfect, we are at the brink of the known, you could say that anything could be true or false, and I agree, but we prefer to consider true things that are useful, things that are more probable compared to others. Maybe nothing we think is real is real, maybe everything is an illusion... But that's less probable than the axiom of our existence. For that reason the conflict ends when we decide that the best method for knowledge finds evolution as a fact, and I'm talking about science. That's the reason you don't see scientist debating about evolution. Maybe debates about its mechanisms, or accuracies in the data, but right evolution is at least as fact as gravity.
Sagey says2014-06-22T21:12:38.3486331-05:00
That's right ArcTimes, only Creationists debate and attack Evolution, scientists put their disagreements up as hypotheses and then as a group try to disprove them, and if their disagreements stand up to attacks, they are accepted by their peers. That is how Evolution became a theory in the first place and scientists may still attack it by posting an opposing hypothesis, which will be challenged not only by their peers but those who post it. If Creationists worked like Scientists, they would put up their arguments against Evolution and then try and disprove their own arguments, if they cannot disprove their arguments, they they can present them as a hypothesis with the evidence they tried to disprove it with as evidence for it and then have scientists try and disprove it. If scientists cannot disprove it, then it becomes a Theory and their contention against Evolution would be upheld, by Science. Science is extremely democratic. That is the beauty of it.
Sagey says2014-06-23T22:02:34.2880392-05:00
Britain has finally banned teaching Creationism in all public and free schools present and future, including academies throughout the nation; Hopefully the US will eventually follow suit. Though this move was decades too late as ACE classes using the Tennessee curriculum have already been set up for way too long and many children's futures have been damaged by their existence. Though, eventually the ACE will be wiped out of Britain. With a bit of luck, out of Tennessee as well.
ArcTImes says2014-06-23T22:06:43.0625314-05:00
@Sagey :0 really/ Do you have a source? I can't find anything about it.
Sagey says2014-06-23T22:12:55.9670385-05:00
I just had it emailed to me today from my Humanist contacts in Britain: http://www.Huffingtonpost.Co.Uk/2014/06/19/british-government-bans-creationism-schools_n_5511010.Html?Utm_hp_ref=uk
ArcTImes says2014-06-23T22:21:41.3580722-05:00
@Sagey Nice that it happened. As you said, little late but good that it finally did. Btw, your link didn't work until I changed it from "Co.Uk" to "co.Uk". Thanks for the info.
Sagey says2014-06-23T22:24:42.5376336-05:00
Here is a link to the funding agreements that the schools must adhere to, it includes religious schools that get government funding, so only completely self funded schools can teach Creationism. The rest must teach Evolution as the primary, consensus approved and only scientifically valid Theory. Https://www.Gov.Uk/government/publications/academy-and-free-school-multi-model-master-funding-agreement
Stalin_Mario says2014-06-23T22:27:06.6057284-05:00
What great news! So glad Britain was able to finally get rid of this poison from the schools.
Loveshismom says2014-06-24T00:18:43.7575714-05:00
Hey isnt it only fair for creationism to be taught in schools along with evilution?
Sagey says2014-06-24T00:52:26.2510691-05:00
No Loveshismom: Evolution is scientific, it is a proven Theory. Creationism is only an idea religions like to believe, which has nothing to do with Science. So in a Science class, only Evolution is relevant. Creationism is relevant in religious studies, but not science, and evolution is irrelevant in religious studies. They both have their own niche and classes.
Loveshismom says2014-06-24T08:05:23.7082912-05:00
My comment wasn't about it being scientific.
Loveshismom says2014-06-24T08:06:17.3109220-05:00
Also, I saw a YouTube video of evolutionists debunking evolution.
Stalin_Mario says2014-06-24T09:04:41.6381677-05:00
Link us the video. Also if you a going to teach creationism, you are also going to have to teach every other religion's belief on how Earth and/or the Universe was created; And teaching these ideas would have to be in a separate elective class.
Sagey says2014-06-24T17:55:21.2235668-05:00
Ha Ha Loveshismom: Scientists/Evolutionists try and debunk Evolution all the time, as debunking is how science works, scientists don't try and prove theories, they try and debunk them, as the best way to prove anything is to try and debunk it. If you cannot debunk it, then it is likely to be true. But scientists don't debunk evolution by video, they put their debunking claims into an argument or hypothesis and then try and debunk their own claims, to test them. If it is debunking by video, then it is not how Evolutionists work and they are not truly evolutionists. Only Creationists try and debunk by video because their claims cannot be supported by science only pushed as some kind of conspiracy theory. If Creationists were truly scientific, they would try and debunk their own Creationism, as controversy and debunking is how science works. Scientists have been trying to debunk Evolution for 160 years, yet none of them have succeeded. If that youtube video was a real debunking of Evolution, they would be considered as the world's greatest scientists, but they are not, thus their debunking of Evolution is Fraudulent. Science loves a good debunking. It keeps science honest. Ha Ha!
Loveshismom says2014-06-24T18:32:27.6594130-05:00
@ Stalin_Mario, here's the video: http://m.Youtube.Com/watch?V=ApJ-nvNoTSg&autoplay=1 " If you are going to teach creationism, you will have to reach every religion's beliefs on how the earth and the universe were created." Exactly, I would and I'd give the kids the choice between evolution and one of the creationist beliefs, hence the term "only fair." @ Sagey, what the evolutionists in the video say make it clear that they are evolutionists, plus they debunked their theory without knowing it and are shown to concede on anti-evolution arguments... From Kent Honvid!
Sagey says2014-06-24T19:01:17.8904592-05:00
Ha Ha Loveshismom, went to the link and instead got "First Moon Party" about a young girl faking her period. That was a laugh!
Sagey says2014-06-24T19:02:07.4828592-05:00
Not much to do with Evolution, well sort of vague link there!
Sagey says2014-06-24T19:07:10.3880592-05:00
Besides, apart from your Link not working, anything Kent Hovind is connected with is Fallacious, as the man is a walking Fallacy. He knows nothing about Evolution. He even knows less than my 12 year old Niece about it. I'd eat Kent Hovind for breakfast in any argument over Evolution. So would ArcTimes and nearly every other person with more than a middle school knowledge of Science.
Sagey says2014-06-24T19:22:12.8031823-05:00
As I have said to you many times Loveshismom: If any criticism of Evolution is found to be honest and real, those making their criticism would be accepted by science and tested, if found to be a truthful debunking of evolution, it would be accepted as so and Evolution would be officially debunked. Those that debunked Evolution would go into history as great scientists and I'd be here saying that yes, they really did debunk Evolution, and a new Scientific theory is now being devised to replace Evolution. Yes, a new Scientific Theory would replace Evolution, what would we call it. Most likely it would be called Evolution Version 2. > Oh: Did you think for one second Creationism would replace Evolution, if Evolution was destroyed???? Sorry, Creation cannot replace Evolution, as Creation is not a Scientific Theory. Only a Better Scientific Theory can replace a Debunked Scientific Theory. A New Revision or version Evolution would be Devised that fixes the debunking of the Old Theory Of Evolution. So Evolution can be Debunked a million times and a million new Theories Of Evolution will be devised. So we could end up with Evolution version 1,000,001. But Creation will still not be anywhere near being accepted as a replacement for Evolution. First Creation must have evidence, and so far, it has not any evidence supporting it.
Sagey says2014-06-24T19:28:50.1678469-05:00
Creationists cannot ever win, no matter how hard they try and no matter how good their arguments are, because defeating evolution will only produce a newer update of Evolution. Creation cannot ever replace Evolution as the dominant theory of Life on Planet Earth. Ever. Because Creation is not a Scientific Theory. Only a Scientific Theory, (i.E. Updated version of Evolution) can replace a fallen Scientific Theory. Since there are no Scientific Theories available to replace Evolution, we will simply have to Mend The Damaged Theory, as there is no other option.
Jingram994 says2014-06-25T01:23:23.2219767-05:00
"If you are going to teach creationism, you will have to reach every religion's beliefs on how the earth and the universe were created." Exactly, I would and I'd give the kids the choice between evolution and one of the creationist beliefs, hence the term "only fair."" While I might be okay with various creationist myths as being part of assorted optional classes, with the proviso that they are taught *strictly* AS MYTHS and in an intellectual fashion (no, you cannot teach children that X creation story is LITERALLY true, because that is PURELY religious belief with no evidence to back it up) I am very much NOT okay with them replacing the teaching of evolutionary theory; evolution is a scientific theory, with a HUGE amount of evidence and proof to back up its claims. It is as close to FACT as you can get in the real world. You can't just not teach it because your religion doesn't agree with it. ALL schools (NOT JUST PUBLIC SCHOOLS, which I am aware may be a point of contention) should HAVE to teach evolution as science, regardless of whether or not the religion of any person or organization in/running the school is 'okay' with that and regardless of whether or not they additionally teach creation myths as part of their curriculum. Even specifically religious private schools absolutely should not be allowed to teach myth as fact and deliberately ignore actual scientific evidence just because it contradicts their beliefs.
ArcTImes says2014-06-25T08:33:35.0437486-05:00
@Loveshismom The reason they can't teach creationism in some schools there anymore is because they affect children education. Now you say it is unfair and you want to give them "options". Sorry but that's exactly the reason their education was being effected in the first place. You can't give a religious story as an option to a scientific theory. In other words, beliefs affect education. You should always learn the fact. I was not able to see your video because there seems to be problems with links changing lowercase to uppercase letters (so the video about the girl faking her period is something you saw or is recommended to you @Sagey lol) but it is totally, absolutely impossible that what you say is true, not because evolution is impossible to debunk. Everything in science is falsifiable, but it's because you mentioned Kent Hovind. He doesn't know anything about evolution, he doesn't understand it. I just hope you are not trying to show me one of his debates because they are really really bad and usually are not made against evolution biologist, not even biologist, NOT EVEN SCIENTISTS. I remember some with economists, lawyers and a computer science guy. He just knows how to talk really fast and use a lot of fallacies to make his point. You can find a video about him talking with a graduate biology student and you can see for a fact that he doesn't know his science and it's impossible that he is the guy that finally "debunks" evolution...Lol
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-06-28T10:04:18.2620299-05:00
Sagey: "Creationists cannot ever win, no matter how hard they try and no matter how good their arguments are, because defeating evolution will only produce a newer update of Evolution." Would this not make evolution unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific?
ArcTImes says2014-06-28T10:17:03.3808873-05:00
@DefenderOfTheTruth I think he is talking about a change of paradigm. Like what happen with Newton and Einstein.
Sagey says2014-06-29T08:50:18.1850029-05:00
@ DefenderOfStruth: As ArcTimes pointed out, Einstein's gravitational theory has vastly more scope than Newton's and to disprove Einstein, humans would have to go beyond human capabilities, such as go into a Black Hole and be able to report what gravity is doing inside it. This is almost impossible. No Theory is totally Infallible, but science knows of no test that they can use on Evolution that has not been tried to its limits. So, at the current time, humans don't have the technology to make any more elaborate tests on Evolution. In Summary: 1: Evolution has extended itself beyond Current human ability to disprove it. We need better technology to do so, 2: Creationism has never truly tested Evolution properly, most of the current house of Creationism, haven't a clue about Evolution, nor how to test it properly. All arguments presented thus far are Arguments From Ignorance Fallacies. Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort know less about Evolution than an average middle school student in my region. None of them understand it at all, yet they attack it. That is Arguing From Extreme Ignorance. 3: Even if Evolution was found to be false, it will not advance Creationism any further than just an Argument From Ignorance Fallacy. Instead, science would have to devise a more scientifically sound replacement for Evolution and since there are no Theories even close to Evolution, Likely they would have to produce a Revised Version Of Evolution with the problems/errors completely Fixed (not patched up but properly fixed), Maybe this would end up being Evolution Version 2. Because there is no Theory competing with Evolution. It must be a Scientific Theory (verifiable) to replace a Scientific Theory. Creation nor I.D. Can ever become Scientific Theories they are only Theological Concepts.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-06-29T09:27:09.7636664-05:00
Sagey: I understand what your saying. However, when it comes to it, the bottom line is that you with continue to have faith in evolutionary ideas no matter how revised (and perhaps ridiculously revised) it becomes. "All arguments presented thus far are Arguments From Ignorance Fallacies. Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort know less about Evolution than an average middle school student in my region. None of them understand it at all, yet they attack it." This is not true. Ken Ham and the AIG team have studied evolution thoroughly and pose logical arguments against the theory. Many from AIG have PhD's in various fields including biology and thus know their stuff. Your right by saying that some creationists don't understand evolution in its differences from the original theory; still, most have as much a comprehensive grasp of it as Dawkins or Hawking.
evangambit says2014-06-29T11:06:57.5590537-05:00
"Would this not make evolution unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific" -- on the contrary, the ability of a theory to adapt doesn't make it unfalsifiable. Adapting to new information is simply what science is. If the current view of evolution "evolved", that actually DOES prove the current view false. What it does NOT do is prove creationism true. Science is likely to never support creationism because an omnipotent being who does not want to be discovered by scientists and/or anyone is impossible to falsify and the age of the Earth is practically undisputed in the scientific community as greater than 1 million years. All other evidence aside, creationism, in the form that many believe in it, must prove that all evidence that the earth is vastly older than they claim is either tremendously flawed or just God trying to mess with scientists (which is unfalsifiable if God doesn't want them to prove that).
evangambit says2014-06-29T11:09:01.8442537-05:00
"Would this not make evolution unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific" -- on the contrary, the ability of a theory to adapt doesn't make it unfalsifiable. Adapting to new information is simply what science is. If the current view of evolution "evolved", that actually DOES prove the current view false (simply not the more advanced view); by the same line of thinking, Newtonian physics of gravity was proven false (or incomplete) by Einstein when our knowledge of gravity was advanced by Einstein. Newton's theory of gravity was certainly falsified! What it does NOT do is prove creationism true. Science is likely to never support creationism because an omnipotent being who does not want to be discovered by scientists and/or anyone is impossible to falsify and the age of the Earth is practically undisputed in the scientific community as greater than 1 million years. All other evidence aside, creationism, in the form that many believe in it, must prove that all evidence that the earth is vastly older than they claim is either tremendously flawed or just God trying to mess with scientists (which is unfalsifiable if God doesn't want them to prove that).
evangambit says2014-06-29T11:09:54.8866902-05:00
Oops, posted twice it seems. My apologies.
ArcTImes says2014-06-29T11:49:35.0121602-05:00
"This is not true. Ken Ham and the AIG team have studied evolution thoroughly and pose logical arguments against the theory. Many from AIG have PhD's in various fields including biology and thus know their stuff. " If 2 people with phd in the same field disagree on something, who of them "know their stuff'? Sorry but that's a fallacy, and it doesn't matter how phd's they have, AiG right now doesn't know their science, they don't understand evolution. And Ken Ham is a clear example of that, he just don't understand how basic science work. You just need to see the debate against Bill Nye. He loves arguments from ignorance.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-06-29T19:32:18.5216834-05:00
"Adapting to new information is simply what science is." There is a difference between a theory scientifically adapting to new evidence and a theory that becomes more and more faith-based due to its problems being continually revealed. I recommend a reading this short article http://www.icr.org/article/biggest-problems-for-evolution/
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-06-29T19:38:23.3421973-05:00
"Science is likely to never support creationism because an omnipotent being who does not want to be discovered by scientists and/or anyone is impossible to falsify and the age of the Earth is practically undisputed in the scientific community as greater than 1 million years." Where did you get that God does not want to be discovered? You are welcome to attempt to falsify God's existence. The last claim is an ad populum fallacy.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-06-29T19:46:41.2960673-05:00
"AiG right now doesn't know their science, they don't understand evolution. And Ken Ham is a clear example of that, he just don't understand how basic science work. You just need to see the debate against Bill Nye. He loves arguments from ignorance." Just because AIG and Ken Ham happen to disagree with evolution, and thus your worldview, does not mean they are, from an objective perspective, genuinely ignorant. I watched that debate. You only say that he is 'ignorant' because he is one of few who happens to question the now 'highly-accepted' theory of evolution. But, just because he is in the minority does not mean he is ignorant; all people should be given equal consideration for their claims.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-06-29T19:48:13.2567255-05:00
Unless you can show me, ArcTimes, an example that demonstrates why he is ignorant, your argument falls.
ArcTImes says2014-06-29T19:56:25.2133203-05:00
@DefenderOfTheTruth The article uses a lot of fallacies and the old argument of design based on complexity. It is already debunked and it is not a problem for evolution. "Where did you get that God does not want to be discovered? You are welcome to attempt to falsify God's existence."Where did you get that God does not want to be discovered? You are welcome to attempt to falsify God's existence. Here you are implying too much about something that has no evidence. It reminds me to the dragon of Carl Sagan. "Just because AIG and Ken Ham happen to disagree with evolution, and thus your worldview, does not mean they are, from an objective perspective, genuinely ignorant." Nope, they are truly ignorant about what they are talking about. There might be people that don't believe in evolution that know their science, but AiG and Ken Ham DON'T KNOW THEIR SCIENCE. Again, just watch the debate, if you are honest and know basic things about science you will find their mistake, BASIC MISTAKES. "But, just because he is in the minority does not mean he is ignorant; all people should be given equal consideration for their claims." He doesn't know his science. He just used fallacies, lies, and everything that could open the holes enough so his god could fit. The god of the holes. He doesn't deserve equal consideration unless he can understand basic things instead of saying the first thing that come from his head so "everything make sense". Even the Occam Razor would destroy his "model".
Sagey says2014-06-29T19:58:03.9632155-05:00
Wrong DOT: Ken Ham and AIG have not studied Evolution properly at all. I read their blogs and their knowledge of Evolution is so wrong that they are considered a Joke even in middle school science classes. Every argument they have presented against Evolution so far, and I've been reading them since AIG started, is an Argument From Ignorance Fallacy. Not once have they ever posted a valid argument against Evolution. Everything they argue is Naive and has been disproven by Science. Their record is 0 valid arguments so far and with their knowledge of science, it will likely remain 0 forever. Ken Hams comments on his Facebook and AiG blogs demonstrate an extremely poor understanding of Evolution. They are so stupid that they are actually hilarious, he gives us a great laugh, which is why we read them for amusement. Science would welcome Ken Ham to discover a fault in Evolution, where scientists have failed so far. But, so far it looks extremely unlikely he will ever be able to achieve that. We are still waiting??
Sagey says2014-06-29T20:07:09.0301103-05:00
Also DOT: I've already read that article, it is Fallacious to the Extreme: It still tries to use William Paley's argument for God from perception of Design. Even Darwin debunked Paley in his "Origin Of Species" book. It also tries to use the failed "Irreducible Complexity" argument of Michael Behe, which itself has been proven to be an Argument From False Analogy Fallacy. Irreducible Complexity and God by Design are both Fallacious arguments and that article simply combines both Fallacies and thus tries to pretend they are not Fallacious. It is a Fallacious web page.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-06-30T19:25:09.6175744-05:00
ArcTimes: You continually call Ken Ham and AIG ignorant but have yet to give an example. Until you provide one, your argument is completely opinioned-based and therefore invalid.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-06-30T19:26:38.3288340-05:00
"Again, just watch the debate, if you are honest and know basic things about science you will find their mistake, BASIC MISTAKES." Example?
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-06-30T19:38:17.7756574-05:00
Sagey: "Argument from ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam in its most formal definition is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not been proven true." [http://rationalwiki.Org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance] -------------------------------------------------- Example of AIG and/or Ken Ham committing this fallacy, please? ---------------------------"Not once have they ever posted a valid argument against Evolution. Everything they argue is Naive and has been disproven by Science. Their record is 0 valid arguments so far and with their knowledge of science, it will likely remain 0 forever. Ken Hams comments on his Facebook and AiG blogs demonstrate an extremely poor understanding of Evolution. They are so stupid that they are actually hilarious, he gives us a great laugh, which is why we read them for amusement. Science would welcome Ken Ham to discover a fault in Evolution, where scientists have failed so far. But, so far it looks extremely unlikely he will ever be able to achieve that." This is completely based on your opinion of his views and you fail to base this off example(s). All you are doing is attacking the AIG team for challenging your presuppositions; and because this is unsettling to you, you resort to ad hominem attacks. Am I wrong? ----------------------------------- "I've already read that article, it is Fallacious to the Extreme: It still tries to use William Paley's argument for God from perception of Design. Even Darwin debunked Paley in his "Origin Of Species" book. It also tries to use the failed "Irreducible Complexity" argument of Michael Behe, which itself has been proven to be an Argument From False Analogy Fallacy. Irreducible Complexity and God by Design are both Fallacious arguments and that article simply combines both Fallacies and thus tries to pretend they are not Fallacious. It is a Fallacious web page." So many attacks; no evidence or example.
Sagey says2014-06-30T20:12:25.2479667-05:00
@DOT: The classic argument from ignorance is arguing for an Assertion (not proven true), because the person making the argument refuses to acknowledge ( is Ignorant Of) the opposition which has been proven true. Evolution has been proven true as far as humans can possibly prove anything, the disproof of evolution is beyond current human capabilities. Creationist fallacious NutJobs (like Ken Ham and Ray Comfort) continually assert that Evolution is false and Creation is True, through total ignorance of the actual facts that the Opposite is true. Evolution has proven by all standards to be Truth, Creation has no evidence of any truth backing it. Ken Ham is arguing from ignorance of reality. So are all Creationists. Thus an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy.
Sagey says2014-06-30T20:23:14.5381548-05:00
Promoting Arguments from Ignorance in science is unproductive, thus Creationism is banned from science classes in all highly intelligent education system. This is why Britain has finally banned the teaching of creation in science for every public funded school in Britain, including religious schools that receive government funding. They can teach it in religion specific classes, providing they do not teach it as a scientific concept, nor that it opposes Evolution. This law is already established in Australia and likely China which draws a lot of it's teachers and standards from Australia, so likely China has the same ruling regarding Creation as Australia and now Britain. Some day, possibly soon, the United States may make the same mandate. For the sake of the US education system and to stop the US being a laughing joke to the rest of the Educated world, they may have to move soon on banning Creation. Since their scientific literacy ranking is by world standards, Pathetic. The only way to get back to being a world leader in scientific education is to remove Creationism from science classes nationally, for Good. In Australia and China, Creationist literature is banned from public libraries, except for attacks on Creation by Richard Dawkins and other scientists, the anti-Creationist literature is available in public libraries, but Creationist literature itself is not. This is the way the Western and now Eastern world is turning. Education systems and Libraries the world over are becoming Anti-Creationist.
evangambit says2014-07-01T00:16:57.6508249-05:00
@DefenderOfTheTruch I agree, there is a difference between a theory scientifically adapting to new evidence and a theory becoming more and more faith-based. As a defender of one such "faith-based" theory, this doesn't seem to be an argument in your favor (unless this is as non-sequitur in which case: yes, I agree). The article you linked to says that life's complexity indicates an intelligent designer. I'm not sure I believe this in the context of a enormous universe filled with countless (in the non-infinity sense) galaxies with even more stars and planets (particularly if there are infinite universes, but I'm not well-versed enough to know how credible this is). But regardless of whether or not God or chance yielded the first life-form, evolution is focused on what happened afterwards. That "no undisputed chain of in-between forms has ever been discovered" depends on how you define "chain" (e.G. Every mutation between the first bird and the eagle, just distinct species, etc.). The extreme similarities in DNA between species (or even the fact that all animals use DNA) seems to strongly suggest that they share common ancestry. Of course, the use of DNA could also be attributed to intelligent design ("if it works, use it") but why such a vast diversity of strikingly similar species (e.G. Different types of birds)? Of course, nobody knows what God was thinking, but until there is scientific evidence for God it seems prudent to use the best theory thus far promoted as a means to interpolate the data points (so to speak). Finally, regardless of "gaps", the argument for why evolution works (e.G. Mutations, survival of the fittest, etc.) seems to be valid, so regardless of what occurred to get to the current state of the world, how can one claim that evolution is not occurring now? You are correct that I cannot factually prove that God does not wish to be discovered, but when an omnipotent being has actively shaped this world in defiance of what mainstream science has discovered (e.G. Parted the Red Sea, flooded the earth, killed every first-born in Egypt), this seems to be the most obvious conclusion to jump to. If God did not not want to be discovered, why is there no concrete, indisputable scientific evidence of his existence now? If he is not actively defying the laws of physics now, why not? If he is omnibenevolent, why not save those suffering (or, while we're on the topic of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being: why send people to hell at all (if you believe in hell))? I accept we cannot hope to understand such a being, but that no such evidence has arisen (to my knowledge) in the past millennium to a community dedicated to discovering odd anomalies seems to indicate that no such evidence will arise in the future (certainly not proof, but a strong indication). An argument is not "ad populum" simply because most people believe it. "Ad populum" concludes something is true because people believe it; the correlation between evidence and belief does not imply causation; I apologize if I suggested this.
evangambit says2014-07-01T00:24:07.2919438-05:00
Expanding on that last: I say that the earth is older than a million years is undisputed fact. It should be noted that I did not indicate how we know this, but unless carbon dating is 230 million years off (admittedly a bias way to present the information given that it deals in logs/exponents) this seems proof enough (or the age of Sun, etc.). Again, unless God is trying to deliberately deceive the scientific community, which, accepting his existence, is possible. Again, I don't pretend to try to comprehend such a being or his/her motives.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-01T07:51:15.5698662-05:00
Sagey: You really did not give me an example of genuine ignorance from the Creationist community; only examples of them disagreeing with the well-accepted agenda of evolution. You feel very strongly against creationism so much so that you want it banned in public schools. Please read this http://listverse.com/2013/02/07/10-reasons-creationism-should-be-taught-in-school/ ------------------
Sagey says2014-07-01T08:00:11.0066770-05:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7_lhfUhrHY#t=1036 This video demonstrates the differences between Creationism, I.D. And Evolution battle in the U.S. It demonstrates such ignorance of Creationists. ICR and many Creationist groups, like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind keep claiming that the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's Flood. This is logically and Rationally preposterous, every genuine geologist knows that such argument is an Argument From Ignorance. The I.D. Argument for Irreducible Complexity, where they use bacteria flagellum as an example is an Argument From Ignorance. The I.D. Polystrate Fossil arguments for the Global Flood are Arguments From Ignorance Of Geology, where the real reason for the formation of Polystrate fossils was explained practically over 100 years ago.
Sagey says2014-07-01T08:16:13.9946446-05:00
@ DOT: You cannot give me an Argument Against Evolution that is not Fallacious. They are either Arguments From Complete Ignorance, which 99% of Ken Ham's arguments are. The rest are Either, Arguments From False Analogy:( i.e. Paley's failed watchmaker argument, you know it, if you strolled on a beach and found a watch, would it not depict a designer.) or Appeal To False Authority: Many Creationists cite the Bible as being of Scientific Authority, when it definitely is not, and many Creationists cite the books by John Morris, Duane T. Gish (late head of ICR), or even Answers-in-Genesis as being Authoritative, when they indeed are Definitely Not. The Bible, Answers-in-Genesis, ICR, Creation.Com and Discovery Institute have no authority at all and never will have when it comes to Evolution questions, apart from not having any peer recognized Scientists in such fields, the scientists they do have, don't understand how the scientific process actually works. That is why they constantly get their arguments Wrong. They have lost the ability to do science properly.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-01T08:17:38.4218446-05:00
Evangambit: "The extreme similarities in DNA between species (or even the fact that all animals use DNA) seems to strongly suggest that they share common ancestry." It, on the contrary, suggests that the Intelligent Designer used a common blueprint when creating the various species. ------------------------------- "but why such a vast diversity of strikingly similar species (e.G. Different types of birds)?" I am not God so i cannot answer this. What I do know is that "God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds." [Genesis 1:25] The Hebrew word used here for kind means the modern-scientific classification 'family'. ------------------------------------------ "If God did not not want to be discovered, why is there no concrete, indisputable scientific evidence of his existence now?" There is much. I encourage you to do some research on this topic because God's existence is backed-up vastly ----------------------------------------------- Dating Methods? Very unreliable http://www.ucg.org/science/serious-problems-dating-methods/
Sagey says2014-07-01T08:34:48.0267469-05:00
@ DOT: If God created all creatures according to their kind, then how come we have now proven beyond any doubt that Birds evolved from Dinosaurs. Yes, M8! This is now proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. Fossil Records and now even Dinosaur Tissue and DNA confirm this. They were able to remove the iron from the Dino DNA and discovered it is Bird DNA. The bone tissue is also identical to Bird Tissue. They have been able to get bird embryos to grow dinosaur tales and teeth. Now we know that the nearest common relatives to all birds are Alligators and Crocodiles. Birds, Alligators and Crocodiles are all that remains of the Dinosaurs. The genetic blueprint of complete velociraptors exist still inside birds and scientists now believe that they can make birds devolve back into velociraptors by simply turning back on the genes that Evolution has turned off. Evolution doesn't necessarily create new DNA, it simply modifies existing DNA for developing a different function. Thus entire velociraptor DNA exists inside birds. Ostriches still carry the useless front legs of the velociraptor as vestigial limbs. Yes the arms still exist, just as the hind legs of whales are still evidence that they once walked on land as amphibians and the genetics demonstrate specific lines of inheritance, these lines of inheritance are not always visually obvious. Your DNA is evidence of design is again An Argument From Ignorance Fallacy, Just as most I.D. Arguments are.
Sagey says2014-07-01T08:45:42.2330308-05:00
People who are making the claim that DNA is evidence of a designer are Ignorant of the real knowledge of how DNA inheritance works, they are not highly regarded scientists in the fields of Genetics, thus Ignorant of real knowledge in the subject. They are not even remotely qualified to make such claims, thus they are making claims from Ignorance. Which is what their arguments are based on, Ignorance.
Sagey says2014-07-01T08:50:52.3705573-05:00
Here is an article on Intelligent Design's Pet Arguments From Ignorance: Especially the DNA Design Inference. Http://pandasthumb.Org/archives/2004/11/icons-of-id-arg.Html
evangambit says2014-07-01T13:23:05.5537593-05:00
If I already say that "DNA could also be attributed to intelligent design", there isn't really a reason to also point it out. And yes, an omnipotent being can be an answer to literally any quandary. Quoting this act from Genesis doesn't qualify as evidence anymore than quoting from any religious text. Could you link me to some of this evidence of God's existence (this would lend great legitimacy to your use of the Bible as a source)? This is honestly the first I've heard of it. Finally could you resolve some other issues I voiced that you seem to have overlooked: Ignoring the source of the first living organism, how can one argue against the workings of evolution currently? Where is the flaw in the reasoning that characteristics favorable to survival and reproduction will tend to become more popular? Or that such variations could/are produced by mutations? Such mutations are obviously among us (e.G. Hereditary cancers are hereditary because certain mutations are passed from parent to child). How can God be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent and still not do anything to prevent the widespread suffering on earth (e.G. Eradicating malaria). How can such a being justify sending people who have committed a finite amount of evil to eternal damnation in Hell? Sending literally anyone to eternal suffering seems to be an inherent contradiction to "omnibenevolent" and God certainly has a choice (being omnipotent). It just seems that these 3 attributes literally cannot exist in a single being without that being VERY obviously altering Earth to reduce suffering and, since this, to the best of my knowledge, is not the case, this points to an inherent contradiction. Can an omnipotent being exist in our universe? Yes. Can an omnibenevolent being exist? Yes. Both? No. No matter what miracles or evidence have occurred, the very fact that AIDs, malaria, cancer, (even resource scarcity) exist imply this is a contradiction.
evangambit says2014-07-01T13:27:11.9542252-05:00
Leaving aside the inaccuracies of Carbon dating (and the dating techniques of stars, rocks, meteorites, etc.), doesn't the mere distance of things greater than a few thousand light years away indicate that those objects are older than your model of the universe?
ArcTImes says2014-07-01T16:07:43.7926597-05:00
@DefenderOfTheTruth Are you kidding right? All and everyone of his arguments. I picked a random youtube video with highlights of the debate. You can do that yourself and you will have good chances to find that everyone of this arguments are unscientific, fallacious, lies, etc. The video I saw starts discussing the Noah's ark. Bill Nye shows how illogical this is considering the amount of "species" in the planet. Ken Ham says "The bible doesn't say species, it says kinds". The problem here is that he doesn't know what kinds means either. In other words it doesn't have an actual definition. First, it should not matter what the bible says about reality anyways, but let's suppose it does and it is right. It is still bad science is you are going to take a random word with an unknown definition and define it based on the result you want. Species would make evolution way easier if it was defined differently, but it isn't because it needs to be useful, it needs accuracy, it needs truth. Then they discuss the age of the earth. He just mention some guys in the bible and says that everything must be 6k yo... Really? This is also unscientific. And the last of the video is question to both. The guy made some question that are unknown to science right know. What happened? The old argument from ignorance of course. And if you didn't notice where the argument from ignorance were, let me quote Ham: "Bill, I just want to let you know that there is actually a book out there that actually tells us blah blah". This is not an answer, this is just fitting god in the hole of ignorance. And he did it several times. That's where the video ends. Why is it also a lie the last fallacy? Because they can't say the truth. The "I don't know" that should be said.
Sagey says2014-07-01T16:57:19.2104583-05:00
I know what the Bible states about reality: The Earth Is A Flat Circular Disk, like a coin. There Is A Dome called Heaven over this Flat Earth, with stars stuck underneath (possibly using silly putty), And the Sun and Moon are suspended under this dome so they can move from one side to the other. The Earth and the Dome (heaven) are supported by pillars. As even in Revelations 16 it states naively that if the Heavens (dome) is shaken, then stars will fall to earth like that camera on "The Truman Show". Imagine being hit on the head by a star. The term Circle in the Bible does not mean a sphere, or ball, no such term is used in the Bible, as the Bible considers the Earth as a Flat Circle. Just ask the Flat Earth Society, as their concept is also based on the Bible. We basically live in a Snow Globe where our space ships should crash into Heaven (dome). That is how stupid the Bible's version of reality. It wasn't so Stupid when the bible was written, as there were no scientists, just goat, camel and sheep herders who wondered about the universe, it is their wondering and concepts that filled the Bible. There is no science in the Bible, just ideas of men who had an extremely limited perception of reality.
ArcTImes says2014-07-01T16:59:11.5148583-05:00
Lol I just read a mistake on my last comment. It should be "All and every of..." in the first line. That's why it sounded funny. Sorry, English is not my first language and sometimes I make mistakes without noticing in the first read.
Sagey says2014-07-01T17:06:45.1790044-05:00
I still laugh at the "Insects with 4 Legs" in Liviticus. Such is the knowledge of the Bible. Insects only ever have 6 legs, in case DefenderOfTruth doesn't know this. If he only reads the Bible, he wouldn't.
ArcTImes says2014-07-01T19:11:47.4821091-05:00
When was the word insec, at least for those languages, coined?
Sagey says2014-07-01T23:55:40.1389286-05:00
Leviticus 11: 19-21 "19and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat. 20All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. 21Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth" This is reasonably clear that the Bible is referring to insects as no winged creatures have 4 legs and birds only have two and insects 6. If it is referring to bats, they still only have 2 legs, but winged claws for arms.
ArcTImes says2014-07-02T00:00:18.0373286-05:00
http://www.zappwildlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/MM278_3.jpg haha nah, that was a really good point. So the problem is not with the word or semantics but actually thinking that insects have 4 legs.
Sagey says2014-07-02T00:34:03.1080413-05:00
It is also amusing considering the Locust plague, where in some countries locusts are considered a delicacy and when God sent them the plague, it would be like Manna From Heaven. The people would likely be crying out for more locusts and thanking God. Locust stew, locust soup, they would be having a feast.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-02T14:02:08.1297299-05:00
Sagey: "If God created all creatures according to their kind, then how come we have now proven beyond any doubt that Birds evolved from Dinosaurs." Problems with this hypothesis: "1. Warm-blooded vs. Cold-blooded Seemingly forgotten in all the claims that birds are essentially dinosaurs (or at least that they evolved from dinosaurs) is the fact that dinosaurs are reptiles. There are many differences between birds and reptiles, including the fact that (with precious few exceptions) living reptiles are cold-blooded creatures, while birds and mammals are warm-blooded. Indeed, even compared to most mammals, birds have exceptionally high body temperatures resulting from a high metabolic rate. The difference between cold- and warm-blooded animals isn’t simply in the relative temperature of the blood but rather in their ability to maintain a constant body core temperature. Thus, warm-blooded animals such as birds and mammals have internal physiological mechanisms to maintain an essentially constant body temperature; they are more properly called “endothermic.” In contrast, reptiles have a varying body temperature influenced by their surrounding environment and are called “ectothermic.” An ectothermic animal can adjust its body temperature behaviorally (e.G., moving between shade and sun), even achieving higher body temperature than a so-called warm-blooded animal, but this is done by outside factors. In an effort to make the evolution of dinosaurs into birds seem more plausible, some evolutionists have argued that dinosaurs were also endothermic,1 but there is no clear evidence for this.2 One of the lines of evidence for endothermic dinosaurs is based on the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones. Fossil dinosaur bones have been found containing special microscopic structures called osteons (or Haversian systems). Osteons are complex concentric layers of bone surrounding blood vessels in areas where the bone is dense. This arrangement is assumed by some to be unique to endothermic animals and thus evidence that dinosaurs are endothermic, but such is not the case. Larger vertebrates (whether reptiles, birds, or mammals) may also have this type of bone. Even tuna fish have osteonal bone in their vertebral arches. Another argument for endothermy in dinosaurs is based on the eggs and assumed brood behavior of dinosaurs, but this speculation too has been challenged.3 There is in fact no theropod brooding behavior not known to occur in crocodiles and other cold-blooded living reptiles. Alan Feduccia, an expert on birds and their evolution, has concluded that “there has never been, nor is there now, any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic.”4 Feduccia says that despite the lack of evidence “many authors have tried to make specimens conform to the hot-blooded theropod dogma.” 2. “Bird-hipped” vs. “lizard-hipped” dinosaurs All dinosaurs are divided into two major groups based on the structure of their hips (pelvic bones): the lizard-hipped dinosaurs (saurischians) and the bird-hipped dinosaurs (ornithiscians). The main difference between the two hip structures is that the pubic bone of the bird-hipped dinosaurs is directed toward the rear (as it is in birds) rather than entirely to the front (as it is in mammals and reptiles). But in most other respects, the bird-hipped dinosaurs, including such bizarre creatures as the armor-plated ankylosaurs and the horned ceratopsian dinosaurs, are even less bird-like than the lizard-hipped, bipedal dinosaurs such as the theropods. This point is rarely emphasized in popular accounts of dinosaur/bird evolution. 3. The three-fingered hand One of the main lines of evidence cited by evolutionists for the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs is the three-fingered “hand” found in both birds and theropods. The problem is that recent studies have shown that there is a digital mismatch between birds and theropods. Most terrestrial vertebrates have an embryological development based on the five-fingered hand. In the case of birds and theropod dinosaurs, two of the five fingers are lost (or greatly reduced) and three are retained during development of the embryo. If birds evolved from theropods, one would expect the same three fingers to be retained in both birds and theropod dinosaurs, but such is not the case. Evidence shows that the fingers retained in theropod dinosaurs are fingers 1, 2, and 3 (the “thumb” is finger 1) while the fingers retained in birds are 2, 3, and 4.5 4. Avian vs. Reptilian lung One of the most distinctive features of birds is their lungs. Bird lungs are small in size and nearly rigid, but they are, nevertheless, highly efficient to meet the high metabolic needs of flight. Bird respiration involves a unique “flow-through ventilation” into a set of nine interconnecting flexible air sacs sandwiched between muscles and under the skin. The air sacs contain few blood vessels and do not take part in oxygen exchange, but rather function like bellows to move air through the lungs. An avian lung The air sacs permit a unidirectional flow of air through the lungs resulting in higher oxygen content than is possible with the bidirectional air flow through the lungs of reptiles and mammals. The air flow moves through the same tubes at different times both into and out of the lungs of reptiles and mammals, and this results in a mixture of oxygen-rich air with oxygen-depleted air (air that has been in the lungs for awhile). The unidirectional flow through bird lungs not only permits more oxygen to diffuse into the blood but also keeps the volume of air in the lungs nearly constant, a requirement for maintaining a level flight path. A reptillian lung If theropod dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, one might expect to find evidence of an avian-type lung in such dinosaurs. While fossils generally do not preserve soft tissue such as lungs, a very fine theropod dinosaur fossil (Sinosauropteryx) has been found in which the outline of the visceral cavity has been well preserved. The evidence clearly indicates that this theropod had lung and respiratory mechanics similar to that of a crocodile—not a bird.6 Specifically, there was evidence of a diaphragm-like muscle separating the lung from the liver, much as you see in modern crocodiles (birds lack a diaphragm). These observations suggest that this theropod was similar to an ectothermic reptile, not an endothermic bird." [https://answersingenesis.Org/dinosaurs/feathers/did-dinosaurs-turn-into-birds/]
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-02T14:35:22.2663094-05:00
Evangambit: Evidence for God: You are welcome to enlighten yourself by reading the whole thing but if you want evidence for God, skip to "The Revelation of the Existence of God" and read from there. ---------------------------------- "how can one argue against the workings of evolution currently? Where is the flaw in the reasoning that characteristics favorable to survival and reproduction will tend to become more popular? Or that such variations could/are produced by mutations?" I argue against the theory not because any specific person or group has brainwashed me, but because I have made a personal, educated decision that it is unscientific. Darwin stated that if no transitional form fossil was found in the next 100 years after he created the theory, then evolution should be discredited. More than this time range has passed and there is a serious lack in validly conclusive transitional forms. Mutations work on existing genetic information and it has never been observed of a mutation ADDING information to a genetic code; only substituting and/or abolishing. --------------------------- "How can God be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent and still not do anything to prevent the widespread suffering on earth (e.G. Eradicating malaria). How can such a being justify sending people who have committed a finite amount of evil to eternal damnation in Hell? Sending literally anyone to eternal suffering seems to be an inherent contradiction to "omnibenevolent" and God certainly has a choice (being omnipotent)." 1st question: Your absolutely right; why won't He do anything about it? The answer is He will. Delayed does not equal denied. For now, and for all of earth history, it has been a fallen, sinful world because of our sin and we have suffering because of it. 2nd question: God is morally perfect. Therefore, things that we, as sinners, consider mild evils are abhorrences to God. He is a judge and we are the criminals. We broke and continue to break His law, and thus deserve punishment. Because He is perfectly just and moral, His punishment must be ultimate justice. The great thing is, He provided a way for us to have to face our due punishment. Like in a court of law, if a criminal is there for speeding on the highway, and therefore owes a fine, an innocent person can PAY HIS FINE IN FULL; this is exactly what Jesus did for us on the cross.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-02T14:37:32.6667094-05:00
" He provided a way for us to have to face our due punishment" My mistake! See how imperfect I am because of sin! HE PROVIDED A WAY FOR US TO AVOID OUR DUE PUNISHMENT.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-02T14:47:24.2651756-05:00
ArcTimes: "The video I saw starts discussing the Noah's ark. Bill Nye shows how illogical this is considering the amount of "species" in the planet. Ken Ham says "The bible doesn't say species, it says kinds". The problem here is that he doesn't know what kinds means either. In other words it doesn't have an actual definition." The Hebrew word used for Kind is MIN, meaning family in our modern classification system [The New Answers Book 3, 41] This means that Noah did not have to take a pair of poodles and wolfs on the ark but just one pair of the DOG KIND (i.E, two wolves) When you keep this in mind, it becomes perfectly possible for two of EACH KIND (family) of animals to fit on the ark. --------------------------- "He just mention some guys in the bible and says that everything must be 6k yo... Really? This is also unscientific." The Bible never actually claims an age of the earth; this is only a proposed Biblical theory based on the Genesis genealogy. Is millions/billions of years scientific? Is using extremely fallible and unreliable dating methods and then placing faith in the fallible hypotheses of men scientific? ------------------------------- ""Bill, I just want to let you know that there is actually a book out there that actually tells us blah blah"." To quote Napoleon, "Man will believe anything as long as its not in the Bible."
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-02T14:59:43.7230364-05:00
Sagey: Most all of those claims are wrong because you misinterpreted the context. "The term Circle in the Bible does not mean a sphere, or ball, no such term is used in the Bible, as the Bible considers the Earth as a Flat Circle." In fact it does. The Hebrew word is chuwg which, depending on the context, means spherical or rounded [Scientific Facts in the Bible, Comfort]. --------------------- "4 walking legs + 2 hind hopping legs = 6 total legs" The Verse in Leviticus is referring to the walking legs which are the easily recognizable ones. [https://answersingenesis.Org/bible-characters/moses/contradictions-two-missing-legs/] This is a short article that explains this seeming contradiction.
ArcTImes says2014-07-02T15:49:31.2034074-05:00
@DefenderOfTheTruth No sir, you are wrong. If you continue watching the video after he says that the bible mention "kinds" he says that his team is studying to know what a kind is. Why? Because they need a definition that fit their "model". There are still a lot more families than the number he proposes, which even in that case would be a lot for an ark made of wood. I mean, even fodging titanic would have problems with that. "The Bible never actually claims an age of the earth; this is only a proposed Biblical theory based on the Genesis genealogy." I'm not discussing what the bible says. The bible has its own problems already. I'm discussing what Ham said. And yes, this is retarded. "Is millions/billions of years scientific?" Yes, it uses methods and knowledge, studied and verified a lot of times. There are several dating methods that makes all this topic scientific. "To quote Napoleon, "Man will believe anything as long as its not in the Bible."" I will start using that quote. The bible may be one of the less credible (group of) stories I have ever read. Napoleon got one right. Specially after his TIFU on Russia.
ArcTImes says2014-07-02T15:54:31.9160075-05:00
@DefenderOfTheTruth Relevant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8h-xEuLfm8 This is not what Ken Ham is not doing, but you have the opportunity to do it.
evangambit says2014-07-02T17:54:27.7202327-05:00
First, I'd like to apologize if I sounded like I was trying to imply your own decision was imposed on you (i.E. You were "brainwashed") — this was not my intent and you certainly seem like an intelligent person who came to this conclusion after a significant amount of research. Darwin stating that the lack of founding should discredit the theory is irrelevant. The correctness of a theory does not rest directly on assertions made by scientists; the validity of any theory doesn't (shouldn't) rest on the ethos of the scientist who proposed it, but on its own merit. Even accepting that the current level of evidence for evolution is not great enough to lend it the credibility it claims, lack of evidence supporting a theory is far different from evidence contradicting it. If you believe that mutations can substitute or abolish genetic code, does this mean you accept that, at the very least, such mutations may result in advantageous traits that help creatures pass on their DNA? I'm trying to get a handle on where you stand on this issue. Delaying the elimination of suffering is not omnibenevolence. Essentially any legitimate ethical system will say that eliminating AIDs today is better (more ethical) than eliminating it in 100/1000 years. If God has an ethical system not currently proposed in which allowing millions to die IS ethical, wouldn't those be in the 10 commandments? Or in one of Jesus' sermons? I haven't Bible in its entirety, but from what I have read and the sermons I have attended, I cannot recall ever seeing something that I so intrinsically disagree with. I must apologize, because here I think we must agree to disagree. I cannot claim a being who sentences people to burn in eternal damnation for acts of finite evil on Earth is ethical to any degree — let alone omnibenevolent. Because God is perfectly good, S/He is allowed to be infinitely evil to people? If I kill someone, spend the rest of my life saving people's lives and sacrificing myself for others, but don't believe in that the son of God lived and died for my sins 2,000 years ago (despite that I know of no real reason for me to believe this), I deserve to burn for eternity in the fires of Hell? What kind of ethical system permits this? How can you accept that system as just?
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-03T19:22:41.5818220-05:00
ArcTimes: "If you continue watching the video after he says that the bible mention "kinds" he says that his team is studying to know what a kind is. Why? Because they need a definition that fit their "model"." "Current baraminological research suggests that the created kind most closely corresponded to the family level in current taxonomy." [The New Answers Book 3, 50.] ----------------------- "There are still a lot more families than the number he proposes, which even in that case would be a lot for an ark made of wood." Keep in mind that there were likely no where near the amount of animal families as there are today, considering that this was several thousand years ago. Genesis 6:15- "...450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high." That is a massive ark. As such, there would not have been any problems with fitting the animals on the ark. ------------------------- ""Is millions/billions of years scientific?" Yes, it uses methods and knowledge, studied and verified a lot of times. There are several dating methods that makes all this topic scientific." In Most All of the dating methods, the prerequisite is making critical assumptions. "Using an hourglass to tell time is much like using radiometric dating to tell the age of rocks. There are key assumptions that we must accept in order for the method to be reliable." [https://answersingenesis.Org/age-of-the-earth/dating-methods/] It seems to me that basing interpretations of evidence off very critical assumptions (of which, if one happens to be wrong, the entire conclusion is drastically off) is less scientific than basing it off conclusive, assumption-minimal evidence.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-03T19:40:14.1313451-05:00
Evangambit: "The correctness of a theory does not rest directly on assertions made by scientists; the validity of any theory doesn't (shouldn't) rest on the ethos of the scientist who proposed it, but on its own merit." I completely agree. One of the many problems with evolution is that it lacks evidential merit to be based on. ------------------- "Even accepting that the current level of evidence for evolution is not great enough to lend it the credibility it claims, lack of evidence supporting a theory is far different from evidence contradicting it." There is much of both types of evidence. --------------------- "If you believe that mutations can substitute or abolish genetic code, does this mean you accept that, at the very least, such mutations may result in advantageous traits that help creatures pass on their DNA?" Mutations have never added genetic information to a genetic code, which is a necessary factor of evolution. ------------------------ "I cannot claim a being who sentences people to burn in eternal damnation for acts of finite evil on Earth is ethical to any degree." You can't? Perhaps instead, you won't. "God created humanity to have fellowship with himself and humanity defied God and is still defying God to this day. In defying God we leave ourselves open to be taken captive by the lesser powers (Devil and his angels). Throughout the history of mankind God has made means and ways to draw humanity back to himself. So in essence God is trying to save humanity from being taken captive by the lesser powers. His saving grace is available to everyone who wants it. A bully would not give you the option to choose, to have free will, whether you reject his saving grace or except it is entirely up to you and both options have consequences that you are responsible for." [http://christiancontroversy101.Blogspot.Com/2013/11/is-god-giant-bully-in-sky.Html] The Bible literally says that God does not want to humanity to perish in Hell but to come to repentance in Christ. While He loves you and expresses grace to you and all of humanity, His just nature and moral perfection (meaning He has never sinned) demands that He punish liars, thieves, murderers, etc. Part of the reason we have trouble understanding His justice system is because we are, morally, polar-opposites of Him. He is perfect; we are imperfect. Because we are imperfect, our way of thinking about things is imperfect. Therefore, we have trouble understanding that which is perfect because our minds are tainted with imperfection. Do you understand? I hope I explained this well for you.
Sagey says2014-07-03T19:56:46.1840682-05:00
@ DOT: Totally Wrong in your Naive Assertion that Evolution requires additional genetic code. That is a Myth made up by dumber than doggy doo Creationists, where you get all your stupid wrong information from. Answer-in-Genesis nor icr.Org have any real knowledge about Evolution. Science has proven, in the study of from Dinosaurs to Bird evolution that increasing genetic code is not needed for evolution. In fact an evolved species may have even less genetic code being active than it's ancestor. How evolution often works is simply by applying existing genetic code differently or applying a protein switch. Such as from scales to feathers, there is no extra genetic code, only a switch which when applied produces feathers and when inhibited produces scales. The same for tails of dinosaurs, keeping the tail protein from being inhibited in bird embryos produces dinosaur tails on birds, same goes for teeth. The environment (Evolutionary Pressures) favors one expression of the same gene and that gene will adopt the new expression as dominant. No New Genetic Material required, just same old genes doing something different.
Sagey says2014-07-03T20:03:13.5008682-05:00
It is now believed that the Genetic code of an Ostrich is the same Genetic code of the Velociraptor from which it evolved. All that has occurred is many protein switches have turned off the dinosaur qualities and asserted the bird qualities, i.e. beaks and no teeth and no tail. So they now believe by reversing and removing these protein switches that switch off the dinosaur features, we can once again have velociraptors living on our planet. Sort of a modern real Jurassic Park.
Sagey says2014-07-03T20:07:32.5396581-05:00
Preliminary tests have demonstrated that turning Ostriches back into Velociraptors is likely possible, such as producing tails and dinosaur teeth on chicken embryos by allowing existing genes to do their work by removing or blocking the suppression proteins. They believe they will achieve a velociraptor from an ostrich within the next 50 years. Thus putting another nail into the Creationists Coffin Of Delusion.
ArcTImes says2014-07-03T21:28:09.5157346-05:00
@DefenderOfTheTruth "Current baraminological research suggests that the created kind most closely corresponded to the family level in current taxonomy." And that's exactly what I said. They didn't know any of that, they just got something that may satisfy his "model" on some points. "Keep in mind that there were likely no where near the amount of animal families as there are today," Lol, so you agree with evolution? Oh no, of course, god created more families... Sigh. You know what's the problem with that? Kinds meaning families would make evolution necessary for that model. Why? Because the only way to get the other species based on this basic animals that represent different families is with speciation, which is basically what evolution is about, origin of species. You really need to review your beliefs again lol. "450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. That is a massive ark. As such, there would not have been any problems with fitting the animals on the ark." Are you kidding right? The titanic was way bigger than 10 times of that ark, it had less than 4000 people, and with food for some weeks. And it fodging sank in less than a week. Are you really saying that it is enough for a pair of animals for each family, that are going to reproduce and have all the variety we have now. For you, when did this happen? 6000 years ago? Impossible. Wait, there is a possibility! Http://youtu.Be/I225Vcs3X0g?T=3m37s "In Most All of the dating methods, the prerequisite is making critical assumptions." You don't need to make any guess. We can test all the knowledge used to create those methods. And yes, having accurate knowledge of the science that makes this methods possible is enough. Just like it was enough for other things like going to space. Imagine that they believed that we could not make assumptions because they were never there. That's not how science work. " Using an hourglass to tell time is much like using radiometric dating to tell the age of rocks. There are key assumptions that we must accept in order for the method to be reliable." lol what? Dude, you need to stop vising those sites, really. They are bad for your knowledge. Go research this for yourself. Learn which are the methods, how do we know they work, and what are the things you need to know before using that method. This is important because there are methods that you can't use in all the cases. And they are commonly used in sites like that one you are posting here so they "show" when they didn't work, which is just a mistake of them because they ignore these known facts. "is less scientific than basing it off conclusive, assumption-minimal evidence." There is no assumptions. It is like saying that we can't be sure who is the killer in a murder scene because we can't make the assumption that there is a murder scene just because there is a gun in the house. THE GUN MAY COME FROM THE SKY! YOU DON'T KNOW THAT!! That last sentence is not scientific, and the site you are posting is full of those sentences, Really, I would recommend you to read a science book, or some scientific papers instead of those creationist sites. And if you are going to still visiting those sites (well, it's your right), please, please, don't think they are scientific, because they are the opposite of that. Thanks.
evangambit says2014-07-04T01:16:51.4058695-05:00
@DefenderOfTheTruth Oh boy did you give me a lot to type. Haha, well, here it is. I wish Debate.Org would let one format their comments better. Hope this turns out okay/legible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Mutations have never added genetic information to a genetic code, which is a necessary factor of evolution." I was not talking about evolution on the large scale when I asked you that question. Allow me to rephrase it: do you believe that a given creature can have its DNA changed in a way that is advantageous for its probability of reproduction, and that, when it reproduces, those same advantageous traits can be passed on? Do you believe that, over enough generations, such new traits might become majority traits? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ evangambit: "I cannot claim a being who sentences people to burn in eternal damnation for acts of finite evil on Earth is ethical to any degree." DefenderOfTheTruth: "You can't? Perhaps instead, you won't." In answer to your somewhat rhetorical question, I neither can nor won't accept a being who condemns anyone to eternal damnation as ethical. Any system I can fathom as ethical would not attempt to make vast majority of the populations' utility as low as possible for eternity (you might gather, not incorrectly, that I'm a Utilitarian). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If God is truly trying to save humanity, the most direct way is to simply appear before every human and tell them "I exist, here is proof" *impossible feat that proves His/Her to be God* "I am offering you eternal salvation if you believe that Jesus Christ is my son and that he died for your sins and rose again". Why is this ridiculous? Suddenly a exceedingly vast majority of people are saved from eternal damnation — of their own free will no less. Are there better solutions? Probably -- I'm not omniscient. But I believe there are certainly far superior ways than what is currently proposed to be happening (namely, sending people to Hell). You say God literally doesn't want "humanity to perish in Hell but to come to repentance in Christ", but this seems to imply an omnipotent being can't figure out a way to get what S/He wants? Instead God just twiddles His/Her metaphorical thumbs? If God loves us, why not tell the murderers to stop killing — saving them from Hell, their victims from death, and their loved ones from grief? If God is omnipotent, why do "the Devil and his angels" exist and/or why are they allowed to take humans "captive"? I could go on, but I think my point has been made: an omnipotent being has literally infinite resources to accomplish what s/he wants; almost by definition what s/he wants becomes reality. And reality is not what an omnibenevolent being would desire.
evangambit says2014-07-04T01:18:41.5388000-05:00
Hey, all things considered, that turned out alright.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-04T11:34:13.3932849-05:00
Sagey: What would make your arguments more convincing is 1). You quoted reliable sources, and 2). You avoided your ad hominem attacks. --------- Please explain how evolution, on the large scale, for molecules-to-man does not require at least a minimal addition of genetic information---let alone a massive one. Please Don't Dismiss the question with ad hominems against AIG and/or Creationists; just answer it.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-04T12:00:49.7835032-05:00
ArcTimes: "They didn't know any of that, they just got something that may satisfy his "model" on some points." An easy way to understand this is to think in terms of the dog kind or the horse kind. Many species of dog in the dog family; likely a pair of wolves on the ark since they are considered the ancestors of all dogs. ------------------------ "Keep in mind that there were likely no where near the amount of animal families as there are today," Lol, so you agree with evolution? Oh no, of course, god created more families... Sigh." My apologies. I meant 'species' implying that only ONE PAIR of each kind (dog kind, etc.) was necessary to populate the rest of modern species. This only requires microevolution which is proven and valid; not the unproven and invalid macroevolution. Speciation is not macroevolution. --------------------- "The titanic was way bigger than 10 times of that ark, it had less than 4000 people, and with food for some weeks. And it fodging sank in less than a week. Are you really saying that it is enough for a pair of animals for each family, that are going to reproduce and have all the variety we have now. For you, when did this happen? 6000 years ago? Impossible." Animals, even in amounts in the thousands, do not require nearly as much space for proper living conditions as humans do; only 8 people on the ark and "as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark." [http://www.Cbn.Com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/Discipleship/Noah-HowManyAnimals.Aspx] --------------------- "You don't need to make any guess. " Faith "is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion." [http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Faith] How do you NOT have to exercise faith when you trust the conclusions on fallible dating methods? The truth is that you must, whether you admit it or not. -------------------- "Go research this for yourself. Learn which are the methods, how do we know they work, and what are the things you need to know before using that method." I have. I am not convinced. ----------------- "don't think they are scientific, because they are the opposite of that." So, anything that is contrary to the evolutionary/atheist agenda is unscientific. So, why are you arguing with some ignoramus like me? My stupidity might rub off on you.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-04T12:10:27.1584868-05:00
Evangambit: "do you believe that a given creature can have its DNA changed in a way that is advantageous for its probability of reproduction, and that, when it reproduces, those same advantageous traits can be passed on?" Yes. But extremely unlikely. Mutations, for the vast majority of the time, result in disadvantageous effects. ---------------- "I neither can nor won't accept a being who condemns anyone to eternal damnation as ethical." So you value morality and life? If you believe in evolution, we are primates resulting from cosmic accident, so why is morality/life important to you? Here is why you don't want to accept God: You are a sinner. The thought of a morally perfect God condemning you, justly, to separation from Him is an unsettling thought; so you dismiss it. Make sense? ----------------------- "If God loves us, why not tell the murderers to stop killing — saving them from Hell, their victims from death, and their loved ones from grief? If God is omnipotent, why do "the Devil and his angels" exist and/or why are they allowed to take humans "captive"?" If God controlled our every activity and forced our decisions, we would be robots with no free will and therefore everything, namely us worshipping and loving Him, would be completely involuntary and therefore insincere and meaningless. He did not make this universe to be meaningless but with purpose. Therefore he gives free will to everyone.
evangambit says2014-07-04T14:44:17.8081432-05:00
Thank you; I agree that a vast majority of mutations result in disadvantageous effects. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are correct, I do value morality and life. You are correct in saying that I cannot pretend that my ethical compass stems from an omnibenevolent being or has any universal significance (whatever "universal significance" means in the absence of God). Not believing in God (actually a rather recent phenomenon for me) means that I have rejected the belief that a supernatural being grants my ethical system validity. Rather I draw its validity from its consistency and symmetry. For instance "all people's utility is equal" is symmetric in the sense it applies, in some ways, universally. But it is NOT symmetric in the sense that it doesn't apply universally to all living things. Thus a ethical system that said "all living things' utilities are of equal importance" would be more symmetric. And in some sense this forms the foundation of my ethical philosophy: we should try to maximize utility for all sentient things. Since a fish has, on average, less utility than a human (it is capable of feeling far less happiness, pleasure, joy, etc.), killing a fish is "better" than killing a human (though truly both should be avoided and I am thus a vegetarian). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maybe I'm a little idealistic. I use symmetry as a foundation partially because our observation so the world prove and are based of symmetries themselves (e.G. The laws of physics are independent of a system's rotation). Thinking this can apply to ethics isn't justified in the sense that an omnibenevolent being supports it or that I can prove it correct in a lab (but then, you can't prove anything ethical in a lab, so it hardly seems fair to judge an ethical system by such criteria!). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ultimately, to answer your question, life is good because it maximizes utility. Maximizing utility is good by definition within my system. I have chosen this system because it fits well with ethical systems widely accepted as "good" and it is a system that is (I like to think) about as culturally independent as one can get with ethics. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This leads me to the conclusion that eternal damnation is the ultimate evil because it minimizes utility for as long as possible. Naturally if you don't make my assumptions about basing a system of of symmetries or with my somewhat vaguely-defined "utility" is, we're going to have differing opinions on the ethicality of sending people to Hell. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't get me wrong, I'd love to accept that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent being is omnipresent in my life (I did for almost two decades). But if such a being is omnibenevolent (as I define it) S/He definitively does not exist (proof by contradiction; see reality). I can, however, accept that a "omnibenevolent" being (as you've described Him/Her, which is, if I understand, as a Being who refuses to do anything substantial to reduce the suffering of the living) is irrefutable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think there is a exceedingly large slope to slide down before we go from "showing undeniable proof of his existence" and "controlling our every activity". And regardless of whether or not my particular example would be viable, my point was this: God has literally an infinite number of ways to show Herself/Himself to us without violating our free will, but chooses not to. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally: I'm still waiting for proof of the existence of God. Could you please post a link?
Sagey says2014-07-04T17:26:20.1201053-05:00
BTW DOT: My attacks at AiG and Creationist Anti-Science organizations are not Ad-Hominem, they are Factual to the nth degree. They preach Anti-Science and their Evidence is Stupid Nonsense, that is not supported by Scientific Investigation, that is FACT. Here is some information on Switch genes/proteins: "Similarly, organismal form can be influenced by mutations in promoter regions of genes, those DNA sequences at which the products of some genes bind to and control the activity of the same or other genes, not only protein-specifying sequences. This finding suggested that the crucial distinction between different species (even different orders or phyla) may be due less to differences in their content of gene products than to differences in spatial and temporal expression of conserved genes. The implication that large evolutionary changes in body morphology are associated with changes in gene regulation, rather than the evolution of new genes, suggested that Hox and other "switch" genes may play a major role in evolution, something that contradicts the neo-darwinian synthesis." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology Humans essentially have no more genes than the apes we shared our heritage with, as far as Kinds nonsense goes we are still of the Ape Kind, but our genes behave differently. The only mutation that I know of in the human genome that added extra genetic material is the Chromosome Duplication (doubling chromosome material) of our Inferior Parietal Lobe, that produced two structures apes don't have, the Supramarginal Gyrus and the Angular Gyrus, these mutation formations assist in giving humans their advanced mathematical and language abilities. Size does not equate to extra genetic material. Even Gould discovered organisms that have the same number of parts (structures) as humans now have. Very likely the number of structures in humans and our ancestors, right back to the Jurassic era, had very little difference in the number of structures, thus genes. It's only the external representation (structure size and function) or as is often termed "Expression" has altered, not the number of Genes. Modern Genetics has proven that to create a Human from a lungfish (our early ancestor) does not require extra Genes, just different Expressions of the very same Genes. Your knowledge of Genetics is Extremely Pitiful, that is because of the Junk you read.
Sagey says2014-07-04T17:44:18.5199642-05:00
@ DOT: Tell me Why every scientific organization on planet Earth is trying to remove the nonsense AiG and ICR teach from children's minds, especially their education material? Britain has banned it from all schools that accept public funding recently, Australia banned it a decade ago, which is why Ken Ham moved to the U.S. because he couldn't spread his nonsense in Australia and U.S. still allows such nonsense. There is a world wide movement by Scientists to have it banned, hopefully the U.S. will follow Britain's lead. I know Obama has been having meetings with David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins, discussing how the U.S. could go about destroying the nonsense regime that exists in the U.S. U.S. May have to bring the sledgehammer down on Creationism if it wants to get into the top 20 most scientifically literate nations, It used to be in the top 10 before Creationism became prominent. Why do you think Scientific Establishments and Universities want Creationism Banned? No, it is not a conspiracy by scientists against a different way of looking at science, because Creationism is actually Anti-Science and Anti-Knowledge, which is why it destroys the Scientific Literacy of the U.S. It is science trying to get rid of complete and utter nonsense that only serves to line the pockets of Creationist leaders like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort. That is all Creationism is about, lining the pockets of Lying Rogues. There is no scientific Information nor Knowledge in Creationism. It's just for the Usurpers writing Creationist nonsense to print their own money by selling Anti-Knowledge.
Sagey says2014-07-04T17:52:10.3854572-05:00
Here is some information on the History of Creationism. Firstly from renowned Biologist PZ Myers: http://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=ruBjWkVKyRo Secondly from the USs own National Center For Science Education, stating the history of Creationism since the famous Scope's Trial. Http://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=XpNvA8NX4Bg Anybody watching these videos with a Rational, Critical Mind should realize that Creationism is only another way of spelling "Garbage". And as DefenderOfStruth has been demonstrating in his Posts so far: Garbage In = Garbage Out.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-05T08:57:12.2282415-05:00
Evangambit: "Not believing in God (actually a rather recent phenomenon for me) means that I have rejected the belief that a supernatural being grants my ethical system validity." Why do (or did) you reject God? ---------------------------- "Thinking this can apply to ethics isn't justified in the sense that an omnibenevolent being supports it or that I can prove it correct in a lab." I Highly recommend you read Mere Christianity by C.S Lewis. It starts from a fairly non-bias perspective and gradually infers that our innate morals we have point to God. -------------------------- "life is good because it maximizes utility." But, what is the purpose of life? You cannot say maximizing utility is the purpose because that is like saying 'the purpose of soccer is to score goals', when scoring goals is a result, not a purpose. ------------------ "This leads me to the conclusion that eternal damnation is the ultimate evil because it minimizes utility for as long as possible." I want to get to the root of this topic: what is ultimately good and what is ultimately evil? If you say maximizing utility is goodness, who has the objectively final say on whether this is true or not? Also, why is maximizing utility a good thing to you? If our life on earth is ultimately meaningless (as the atheistic view states), then all aspects of life, including maximizing utility, is ultimately meaningless. ------------------ Regarding omnibenevolent God sending people to hell: "God doesn't send anyone to Hell. You send yourself there. God has done everything He possibly can to keep you out of Hell and still leave you as a person with free will and not just a robot. That's the way He made us--after His image, after His likeness, the power to say “yes” or the power to say “no,” the power to reject our own Creator, and of course to take the consequences. Across the road to Hell he has placed the cross of Christ. In one sense you can say He doesn't send anybody to Hell, because across the road to Hell he has placed the cross of Christ. There are also the prayers of parents, pastors and Sunday school teachers, and all the other things that God brings into our lives to stop us on our selfish way and to bring us to the Savior. We have to go wandering on past it all and put ourselves in Hell. Sometimes you hear people say, "God wouldn't send His children to Hell." God certainly doesn't send His children to Hell because when we're His children we're in the family of God. We're born again and part of our salvation includes deliverance from judgment. We're not all children of God except through faith in Christ Jesus. Can a God of love send anyone to Hell? You might as well ask some other question to make just as much sense. Does God allow disease in the world? Does God allow jails and prisons for some people? Does God allow the electric chair sometimes? Does God allow sin to break homes and hearts? Does God allow war? All of these things are the consequences of sin entering into the world, and in some cases the direct result of man's rebellion, and the result of greed and pride and egotism and hunger for power that doesn't have any use for people--only the desire to get ahead. This is the incredible fruit of sin. Sin brings suffering into the world." {http://www.Christiananswers.Net/q-grace/hell-and-god.Html} --------------- Evidence for God: https://bible.org/seriespage/evidence-gods-existence ---- I encourage you to read the entire thing, but if you are short on time start with "The Revelation of The Existence of God"
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-05T09:17:55.1439843-05:00
Sagey: "The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes." "In fact, the only way any species could have evolved to become a more complex organism is to increase its Gene Count." [http://www.Darwinconspiracy.Com/article_2_rev2.Php] ---- You used Wikipedia as a source; not the most reliable. ----------- "Tell me Why every scientific organization on planet Earth is trying to remove the nonsense AiG and ICR teach from children's minds, especially their education material?" Because Creationism is a threat to the educational monopoly of secular humanism that the evolutionists are so desperately trying to indoctrinate children with. Ultimately, people do not like Christian Creationism because it's true. And humans would rather accept outrageous lies then humble themselves and accept truth; it is all rooted in the sin of pride. ------------ "Creationism is actually Anti-Science and Anti-Knowledge" So, why are you arguing with me if I am an anti-scientist? Obviously, there is a deeper root of the issue: pride. You do not want to even consider that the evolutionist agenda you so strongly believe is wrong, so your cop-out is to abolish and silence the opposition.
ArcTImes says2014-07-05T11:02:22.6418244-05:00
"And humans would rather accept outrageous lies then humble themselves and accept truth" This is true. That's the reason some people believe in the afterlife. They don't want to accept that they only have one life. #YOLO
evangambit says2014-07-05T13:48:52.6181171-05:00
"Why do (or did) you reject God?" There is no substantial evidence that God exists. To me, saying that God exists is similar to saying that there is a 20 pound diamond orbiting Pluto. While it could, strictly speaking, be true, this is not a substantial enough reason for me to believe it actually is. And infinite number of things could be true and there is really no sense trying to pick one over when evidence points to neither. Then there is the inherent contradiction (I believe) in the existence of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent being and the state of reality. Those, I would say, formed the two pillars of my rejection of belief in God. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I Highly recommend you read Mere Christianity by C.S Lewis. It starts from a fairly non-bias perspective and gradually infers that our innate morals we have point to God." I have not read Mere Christianity (though you are the second Christian to suggest it so I may have to pick it up), but from what my twin has told me of it (which is actually a fairly substantial amount), Lewis begins with the assumption that moral law is absolute/universal. That is "there exists some ethical system that is right, regardless of societal context, that should be applied universally". He points to certain actions that are pretty much universally condemned as evidence that suggests this assumption has some basis. I actually have no problem with this. Assuming ones own ethical system to be correct is something that, in some sense, we have to do (though it is worth pointing out that my own ethics seem to be far removed from this "natural system" since my "omnibenevolent" (omnibenevolent in my own ethical system) being cannot exist and also be omnipotent). But his claim that the human desire of "joy" (utility?) cannot be satisfied in the physical world, thus God exists (because humans can desire something that doesn't exist). This seems like a leap to me. Humans are perfectly capable of desiring a too-perfect partner/house/job/day, but the claim that they must therefore exist seems almost like a reversal of the is-ought fallacy (ought-is?). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "You cannot say maximizing utility is the purpose because that is like saying 'the purpose of soccer is to score goals', when scoring goals is a result, not a purpose." Purpose is something we assign to life. Some people thing the purpose of life is reproducing. Some say it is education. Some say it is contributing to society. Even if God exists, an inventor can invent an instrument with one purpose in mind, but if I find another purpose, this can be valid as well. Certainly if we were to choose a single purpose to life, an omniscient being's belief would likely be more valid than mine as "right" (though I have no idea on what criteria we're judging "rightness" in this case). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I want to get to the root of this topic [(morality of sending people to Hell)]: what is ultimately good and what is ultimately evil? If you say maximizing utility is goodness, who has the objectively final say on whether this is true or not? Also, why is maximizing utility a good thing to you? If our life on earth is ultimately meaningless (as the atheistic view states), then all aspects of life, including maximizing utility, is ultimately meaningless." I am guessing that your beliefs claim that God has the ultimate say on whether or not my ethical system is "true" (correct). But from my stance nobody has any greater a say than anyone else. If someone, whether a native in the Amazon jungle, the Dalai Lama, or you approached me with arguments or inconsistencies in my system, I would listen to their criticism. But without believing in God, there really is nobody who could be considered a universal judge of ethical systems. That being said, one basic test every system has to pass is that it can contain no logical contradictions. Maximizing utility is a good thing for me partially by definition and partially because, as I stated before, I think there is something to be said about symmetry and its appliance in morality. This is an assumption; all moral systems rest on them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "God doesn't send anyone to Hell. You send yourself there. God has done everything He possibly can to keep you out of Hell and still leave you as a person with free will and not just a robot." God is omnipotent. The very fact that you do not know S/He exists (let alone the fact that you are going to Hell) means S/He has no done "everything He possibly can". God is not the victim of some law that says he cannot change reality. He is not under any law that says he must send certain people to Hell. As an omnipotent being he is above all of that — by definition there are no restrictions to what he can do. There is no violation of free will in God appearing before humanity, proving he exists, and asking us all to be good (perhaps along with a description of what "good" is). Saying "yes" or "no" to the existence of something we have no way of knowing exists isn't a test. It's chance. "Were you born in a Christian household or has anyone successfully converted you?" There are people on Earth who have literally never heard of Christianity; what being would make belief in Jesus the worst sin if there are people who have literally never heard of Him/him? Judging people by that criteria only makes sense if judging their ethical nature is not the true purpose of your "test" (or however you want to describe the selection process for Heaven) (incidentally, does this mean practically everyone before the death of Christ is going to Hell?). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If God cannot merely appear before us and suggest we change, then why should we expect prayers to have any impact on reality in any way, let alone to literally change our "selfish way" (if anything is a violation of free will, isn't responding to prayers for you to do good a violation)? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The page you linked to says that "Sin brings suffering into the world… and the greatest sin in the world is to reject the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior" Is this implying that something is a sin IF it causes suffering? Or that all sins must cause suffering? Regardless, I think one would struggle to prove that rejecting Jesus Christ as the Savior brings "suffering into the world". Religions in general often function as good moral compasses, but there is nothing inherent about rejecting Christianity that causes suffering in the world. At best this is a poorly/incorrectly defined definition of sin. Sorry, I know this is a tad off topic, this was one of my predominant thoughts reading the page you linked to. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Can a God of love send anyone to Hell? You might as well ask some other question to make just as much sense. Does God allow disease in the world... All of these things are the consequences of sin entering into the world". How is disease a consequence of sin entering the world? Are diseases divine punishment for the original sin? And regardless of why this suffering "entered the world", whenever removing it does not constitute a infringement on free will, what argument is there for God letting it prevail? Case in point? Disease. Or, perhaps even more telling: disease among Christians (the children of God). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One "The Revelation of God": ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The argument that "Man's conscience, which is a law to man, necessitates a Law-Giver", but our current understanding of the universe suggests that our "conscience" arose either from evolution (e.G. Groups of animals who condemned murderers tended to prosper) or mere from your societal context (e.G. Some would argue there is nothing inherently good about monogamy, despite the fact that western culture condemns other familial structures). I give priority to this because there is clear evidence that people's ethics change depending on their society (e.G. Cannibalism is accepted in some societies). If God truly constructed all of our consciences, why is there such a disconnect between societies? The Tupí eat their dead relatives to honor them and, I'd hazard to guess, feel no regret or ethical unease from doing this. In other words, I believe that "the only logical explanation is the existence of a God whose ways are holy, just, and good" is a false statement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The argument that the universe's "infinite complexity" implies that it "had a designer" is quite interesting, but it must be noted that the size of universe demands complexity in its features. And ultimately, this "large sample size" argument proves to be difficult to surmount. There are clearly planets of every size — from Mercury to Jupiter — throughout the universe. That the earth happens to be large enough to support an atmosphere yet small enough to not be gaseous is hardly evidence of intelligent design — indeed, we have only to look to Venus to see another such example in our own solar system. The moon itself is a wonderfully unlikely phenomenon, but hardly on the order of a watch. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One measure of complexity I enjoy is to measure how linguistically short a description one needs to describe something. For instance the string "11111111" can be described as "8 1s", where as there is no way to represent the string "10011010" as anything shorter than itself. Thus, it is about as complex as a byte of computer memory can get. Using this as a bench mark, it becomes clear that the complexity of any celestial orbit is likely orders of magnitude lower than a watch. The uniqueness of the moon's orbit can literally be modeled by a few points (and, depending on how technical you want to get, the laws of gravity). The watch seems (to me) far more complex. And reality reflects this: there are no watches that appear in nature (though there are things that keep track of time remarkably accurately, for the sake of argument, "watch" here refers to something similar to a 1800s pocket watch). It is worth pointing out that, though there is an undeniable link between something's complexity and its probability of appearing in nature, they are not directly linked. The obvious case in point is that life is exceedingly complex but appears in nature. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the cause-effect argument, in my opinion, it is sort of ridiculous to ask "how can the universe exist without a creator". How can God exist without a creator? If the answer is that "God has always existed", why cannot this be an answer for the universe? If the answer is that God created God, this contradicts the original premise ("every effect must have a cause") is incorrect. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The uniqueness of the ability of humans to appreciate beauty in a difficult claim to support. Particularly since we are not sure if intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. Regardless, given the fact that humans are likely intellectually and culturally the must advanced creatures on the planet seems to be lurking beneath this claim of our uniqueness and the claim that such a uniqueness supports the existence of God. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our ability to imagine God does not imply or even suggest his existence. I can imagine any number of hypothetical objects or beings that are universally agreed to be not true. The argument that "we can not think of the relative without also thinking of an absolute" maybe be true, but the assumption used in conjunction with it to prove God is not. That this being does actually exist dies/would not make our thinking "null and void". Negative one doesn't "actually exist" but that does not make all mathematical thoughts (or even all mathematical thoughts that use negative numbers) meaningless. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The argument that the "innateness in the human mind" of a belief proves its existence. The Earth is not flat. Prayer does not increase the probability of rain. The sun does not orbit the Earth. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-06T14:08:54.6011742-05:00
Arctimes: "This is true. That's the reason some people believe in the afterlife. They don't want to accept that they only have one life." Prove to me there is no afterlife and I'll consider these claims. Otherwise, your logic can easily backfire: Atheists don't want to accept the afterlife because the thought of them going to hell is unsettling.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-06T14:33:34.8288963-05:00
" Prove to me there is no afterlife" That's like saying "Prove to me that the Flying Turd Monster does not exist". You're the one who makes the claim (that there is an afterlife), so you're the one who has to show us the evidence supporting it. If we went with your logic, then everything (unicorns, turd monsters, aliens, Thor, spider man, force, death star, etc) are real, unless proven not, which is impossible.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-06T15:03:37.0548756-05:00
Evangambit: "But his claim that the human desire of "joy" (utility?) cannot be satisfied in the physical world, thus God exists (because humans can desire something that doesn't exist)." It is much more profound then the simple 'joy' we desire. He is discussing that intuitive void for fulfillment that cannot be filled by anything of this world; He then infers that if it cannot be filled by something in this world, and because some people of this world have this void filled (i.E. Christians, like myself), only things of another world or dimension can fill it. ---------- "an inventor can invent an instrument with one purpose in mind, but if I find another purpose, this can be valid as well." God designed us with a purpose it mind; to fear Him, love Him, glorify Him, and keep His moral law. Anything besides these is irrelevant and subjective. --------- "But without believing in God, there really is nobody who could be considered a universal judge of ethical systems." Exactly. And, is atheism not therefore a recipe for moral disaster, considering that if there is no objective standard of morals, everything is subjective and up for opinion? ------------ "The very fact that you do not know S/He exists (let alone the fact that you are going to Hell) means S/He has no done "everything He possibly can"." Sure, He could have done more. But, He offers salvation through Jesus Christ; and because He gives us free will, we are free to accept or reject that plan for salvation. Omnipotence does not imply that He SHOULD abolish all evil immediately; just that He could. Omnibenevolence implies that He, according to His will, would find it right to abolish all evil, WHICH HE WILL DO. Omnibenevolence does not imply that if acts of benevolence are delayed, than they are denied. ---------- "He is not under any law that says he must send certain people to Hell." He is perfectly just; something hard for us to understand because we are tainted with sin. Because of this, He MUST (no exceptions) punish all immoral people for their choices, UNLESS they repent of their ways and trust in the Savior Jesus Christ. Like in a court of law, a judge must punish the rapist or murderer because that is just. But, if an innocent person pays the punishment or fine for the criminal, the criminal can be set free and thus the judge can legally dismiss his/her case, which is exactly what God can do to us criminals because Jesus paid our fine. -------------- "There is no violation of free will in God appearing before humanity, proving he exists, and asking us all to be good (perhaps along with a description of what "good" is)." He did all three. He appeared to humanity (Jesus), proved His existed (Jesus' resurrection), and provided a description of good in the Bible. --------- "There are people on Earth who have literally never heard of Christianity." That is one reason I am on this site. ------- "what being would make belief in Jesus the worst sin if there are people who have literally never heard of Him/him?" Because it is Denying the Being who gave you life. All know He exists (Romans 1:20); but some deny Him because of moral accountability, that is they do not want to feel guilt for their sin and consider a possible post-death judgment. -------- "If God cannot merely appear before us and suggest we change, then why should we expect prayers to have any impact on reality in any way, let alone to literally change our "selfish way" (if anything is a violation of free will, isn't responding to prayers for you to do good a violation)?" He did. It is not a violation of free will because we are exercising faith in Him by prayer, and rewards us because of that. We still have to make the choice to have faith by prayer; It is not like He is forcing us to pray. -------- "Is this implying that something is a sin IF it causes suffering?" Not at all. Sin is merely the breaking of God's moral law. ------ "but there is nothing inherent about rejecting Christianity that causes suffering in the world." It is not so much 'rejecting Christianity' as it rejecting Jesus Himself. I can say with all confidence that the world would be a much better place, not perfect but better, if everyone humbled themselves and accepted the Savior Jesus Christ. America was founded by men with Christian-Judeo worldviews and it is the most prosperous, blessed nation in all history. ---------- "what argument is there for God letting it prevail?" He did not and won't let it prevail. He has a plan to abolish it once and for all, as described in Revelation. He enables us to prevail over evil and suffering when we surrender our lives to Him and accept the Savior Jesus Christ. --------- "our "conscience" arose either from evolution." Read Mere Christianity and understand how even if evolution were true, it cannot explain our intuitive sense of morality ingrained in us by birth. ----------- God's existence: The Transcendental argument: The laws of logic are immaterial; but, if everything must be material to exist (naturalism), the laws of logic cannot exist because they are immaterial. Thus, the most conclusive evidence for God is that without Him, the is no explanation for the origin of the Laws of nature/logic.
derplington says2014-07-08T15:33:35.7873349-05:00
This whole poll pretty much depends on who got to it first... You should go see the Is God Real poll.
Sagey says2014-07-08T17:49:37.9087796-05:00
@ DOT: Bacteria does not evolve into humans directly, the evolution from the first cells to humans took around at least 3 billion years, so even if you duplicated one chromosome every couple of years, you would easily arrive at an even more complex organism than humans. So your contention is insignificant. From the behavior of monomers an polymers in reducing atmospheres as existed while the first bacteria formed, such accumulation of genetic matter and proteins is highly likely and possibly formed far quicker than first thought, thus the Pre-Cambrian Explosion of life forms (complex forms). Such accumulation of self organizing molecular formations diminished as the earth became oxygen rich, thanks to the cyanobacteria. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Creationists like to pretend that Evolution faces a Crisis and that it is wrong to only teach one side of a Controversy. Problem there is that There Is No Controversy in Evolution among Scientists. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Media and books reporting contentions in Evolution, such as the writings of Ken Ham, Lee Strobel and other loonies does not demonstrate any real controversy in Evolution only a pretense of Controversy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Since no Controversy exists in Evolution, There is absolutely no reason for Creationism to Exist in Scientific Discussions as Creationism is Not An Alternative Scientific Theory To Evolution anyway. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scientists all discuss their ideas among other scientists and if they have an issue they get other scientists to test their contention for validity, so the public never see actual scientific contentions at work, since they are resolved only among scientists. Public reporting of Contention in Evolution are always False. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trial By Media is Not a Scientific Method. True contentions in Theories are never public affairs. There is no controversy in Evolution, so there is no reason for Creationism to Exist. Simple Isn't It!!!
Sagey says2014-07-08T17:52:40.0247358-05:00
Here is a National Center For Science Education showing us the Evolution Of Creationism. Http://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=XpNvA8NX4Bg
ben671176 says2014-07-08T18:07:08.2743027-05:00
Both intertwine.
Sagey says2014-07-08T20:44:56.1942723-05:00
Evolution is often a numbers game, say for example Mosquitoes, every season billions of mosquitoes are created in a single pond, humans sprayed the pond with DDT to rid the pond of mosquitoes to try and stop malaria outbreaks, but every single mosquito hatched in that pond has a different Genetic Code, so if one mosquito survives the DDT, then it's genetic code has a property that makes it immune to DDT, so the next generation produced by that mosquito (thousands) will also have the immunity code. So a couple of generations later the pond is then producing billions of DDT immune mosquitoes. That is how the numbers game in Evolution, when I worked in Horticulture we used the same technique to find disease resistant varieties of plants. We would plant millions of seeds and then expose the seedlings to the disease, if a few survived, then we have a variety that is resistant to that disease, so we breed from them and eventually produce an entirely disease resistant crop. This is why Sexual Reproduction dominated Asexual Reproduction, Because Sexual reproduction combines two sources of genetics, which makes it more disease resistant than reproducing (cloning) asexually. There is a greater variation of characteristics in the sexually reproduced offspring and thus a disease will find it harder to attack some of those offspring. Where in Asexually Reproduced offspring, their genetics is so similar to the parent that any disease that kills the parent will also kill the offspring. So sexual reproduction is superior to asexual reproduction when it comes to survival. This is why most creatures on planet earth reproduce sexually.
Sagey says2014-07-08T20:51:13.7946928-05:00
The Mosquito analogy for Evolution is exactly the same process where bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. It's the same numbers game. The overuse of antibiotics in society only speeds up the process of producing resistant strains of bacteria. Such is a simple principle of evolution.
Shockice says2014-07-08T21:07:49.9345185-05:00
You don't need to believe in evolution. There is no belief required in something where there is scientific evidence.
Sagey says2014-07-08T21:17:02.8132641-05:00
Another evolutionary pressure is sourcing nutrition/food and since every creature in a particular gene pool has slightly different genetics to every other, especially if through sexual reproduction. Then say in a small lake full of thousands of fish where the food supply is running out, then those with the ability to seek food in more places will have an advantage. Some will have slightly longer and even stronger fins than the other fish, and if they also have a increased number of brain cells, possibly an increase in intellect. So out of a million fish, several may have such advantages, and, if they use this advantage of stronger fins to assist them to move in shallow water that the other fish cannot navigate for food, they have a better survival prospect than the other fish. So they survive due to their increased intelligence (more courageous) and stronger fins, that enable them to seek food in shallows. So we end up with many such stronger more intelligent fish, which some will be stronger and more intelligent than others, and they can now even venture into shallower regions. This cycle and production of freaks that can source food and are more courageous in doing so, thus increased intelligence goes on and on, generation after generation. Eventually the fins through multiple successions of strengthening are so strong that the fish is capable of walking. And now it is an amphibian which is capable of walking and behaving like a fish, but it is also exposed to air frequently and like the Mosquito analogy adapting to DDT, the amphibians also adapt to Air and eventually sourcing it's oxygen from the air (breathing). So, not only are their biological parts evolving but also their overall intelligence. So on and so on, amphibian to lizard, lizard to mammal, etc... That is basically Evolution in a paragraph! I've deliberately left out mutation, but concentrated simply on genetic variation through reproduction.
Sagey says2014-07-08T21:24:22.0943033-05:00
So Trew Shockice: Evidence for science is there, everywhere, we are using it right now, we play with the principles of evolution every day, Broccoli, Brussell Sprouts, Cabbage all came from Wild Mustard, through applying the principles of evolution. It's in front of us everywhere we look, No Belief Necessary. It is Reality. Science is essentially Reality describing itself to Us. Science is Not, humans trying to invent reality to suit a preconceived belief, which describes Creationism in a sentence.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-09T13:38:34.0908804-05:00
Sagey: "Bacteria does not evolve into humans directly." I am well-aware of this. ------------------- "Problem there is that There Is No Controversy in Evolution among Scientists." There is no controversy among EVOLUTIONARY scientists. There is a vast amount of very intelligent people who have yet to accept it and/or are creationists. -------------- "Creationists like to pretend that Evolution faces a Crisis." Sir, with all respect due to you and all evolutionists, evolution does face many problems. I highly encourage you to read this article, or as much as you have the time for: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html ------------------------ "Public reporting of Contention in Evolution are always False." Depends what you mean by 'contention'. If you mean disagreement between evolutionary biologists, then this claim has some truth (however, there is still some contention between them regardless of their agreements). If you mean contention to mean literal problems with the theory, then this claim is false. ------------------ "There is no controversy in Evolution, so there is no reason for Creationism to Exist." So, because a theory does not currently does not have its own problems (evolution has them, but for the sake of this, I am assuming your view), all alternative oppositions should be debunked regardless of any evidence for the opposing point of view? This does not sound scientifically fair. --------------------- "but every single mosquito hatched in that pond has a different Genetic Code, so if one mosquito survives the DDT, then it's genetic code has a property that makes it immune to DDT, so the next generation produced by that mosquito (thousands) will also have the immunity code. So a couple of generations later the pond is then producing billions of DDT immune mosquitoes." This is all true. But, it is only micro, not macro, evolution. This is adaptation within a family. ----------------- "The Mosquito analogy for Evolution is exactly the same process where bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. It's the same numbers game. The overuse of antibiotics in society only speeds up the process of producing resistant strains of bacteria. Such is a simple principle of evolution." This is adaptation; not macroevolution. This kind of 'evolution' is completely valid and proven; but assuming that this can translate into changes between animal phylum and kingdom requires faith in what is unobservable. --------------- "Eventually the fins through multiple successions of strengthening are so strong that the fish is capable of walking. And now it is an amphibian which is capable of walking and behaving like a fish, but it is also exposed to air frequently and like the Mosquito analogy adapting to DDT, the amphibians also adapt to Air and eventually sourcing it's oxygen from the air (breathing). So, not only are their biological parts evolving but also their overall intelligence. So on and so on, amphibian to lizard, lizard to mammal, etc..." This is completely faith-based because there is no conclusive evidence for such a hypothesis. David Coppedge once said, "Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there." Most evolutionists, including yourself, are very intelligent people; however, logic demands that you are exercising pure faith in the unobservable. ------------------ "Science is essentially Reality describing itself to Us. Science is Not, humans trying to invent reality to suit a preconceived belief." Very true! However, evolutionists are doing just that: conforming Darwin's original theory to the problems it faces today so that it fits their preconceived belief, and can always adapt to new evidence, regardless of how much the evidence or logic contradicts the theory.
Sagey says2014-07-09T18:14:30.6180284-05:00
@DOT: "There is a vast amount of very intelligent people who have yet to accept it and/or are creationists." Their contentions mean nothing at all, 99.5% of the World's Scientists in all fields support Evoluton, a few intelligent people have no bearing on the case. They are not Intelligent at all, if they think Creationism is Scientific. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adaptation eventually leads to Macroevolution, all Macroevolution is, is many successions of successful Microevolution, any intelligent person who understands Evolutionary principles should know this fact. The stronger and stronger fins will eventually produce legs, but if they end up moving back into the water they will retract back to fins, but have bone structures that resemble legs like the hind leg vestiges in whales. This is evidence of evolution that went to the Amphibian stage but returned to the water, after evolving to being mammals (air breathing) and no longer fish. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trial by Media is not a Scientific Method. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "evolutionists are doing just that: conforming Darwin's original theory to the problems it faces today so that it fits their preconceived belief, and can always adapt to new evidence, regardless of how much the evidence or logic contradicts the theory." Totally and Stupidly Wrong! ....... Science has no protected, (pet) theories, science is all about controversy and attacking Theories, Evolutionist are always trying to defeat Evolution, not defend it. Creationists are welcome to find faults in Evolution, science welcomes that, but so far, all Creationist evidence has been Fallacious and not valid. Scientists try to validate all evidence against evolution, but Creationist evidence is mostly nonsensical. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because many pretentiously intelligent individuals may oppose some idea or Theory is never evidence against it, this is an Appeal to Popularity Fallacy. Once everybody thought the world was as described in the Old Testament, Flat and inside a snow globe as center of everything. One man, Galileo proved the entire world Wrong. Because it is a popular belief (only in the US) that Creationism holds some truth, doesn't mean it is right. In fact Creationism is entirely Nonsense.
Sagey says2014-07-09T19:53:28.5649050-05:00
Scientific Reasoning is Inductive, the Premises are each Validated and The Conclusion is drawn from the Premises. Creationist Reasoning is Circular Deductive, The Conclusion is Pre-Determined and the Premises are continually Adjusted to meet this Pre-Determined Conclusion. Every time a Scientist has been discovered Pre-Determining an Outcome/Conclusion and adjusting results/Evidence to meet the Pre-Determined Conclusion, they have been Declared as Frauds and their evidence is dismissed as Fraudulent. Since Creationism follows the same method as Scientific Frauds, Creationism is Fraudulent. Thus all evidence Creationists produce is Scientifically Fraudulent. There is no excuse for supporting Scientific Fraud in science classes.
Sagey says2014-07-09T19:59:19.7217666-05:00
Creationist's Methodology is Fraudulent. Pre-Determining a Conclusion (God did it) and adjusting evidence to fit this circular reasoning is fraudulent. Scientists who have been caught out attempting this have been charged with fraud and their evidence dismissed. Creationism practices scientific-fraud, so there is no reason to include it as scientific.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-09T20:15:45.2689418-05:00
Sagey: "Their contentions mean nothing at all." If our contentions are meaningless, why do you devote so much time trying to debunk our claims? Are you not wasting your time by trying to disprove the meaningless and ignorant claims of us Creationists? -------------- "Adaptation eventually leads to Macroevolution" How do you know that? Upon what evidence do you base this off? ---------------- "The stronger and stronger fins will eventually produce legs, but if they end up moving back into the water they will retract back to fins." Seems like you believe natural selection/blind nature has a mind of its own. Is this claim speculation or evidence-supported fact? ------------------ "science is all about controversy and attacking Theories, Evolutionist are always trying to defeat Evolution, not defend it." I may be wrong; but, with all due respect, I do not remember ever seeing you attacking evolution, let alone admitting it has problems. ---------------- "all Creationist evidence has been Fallacious and not valid." -- "Creationist evidence is mostly nonsensical." Asking for transitional forms to conclusively prove macroevolution seems to me like a reasonable postulation. Asking why evolution should be considered scientific seems reasonable to me. Asking for conclusive evidence that microevolution can translate to macroevolution seems reasonable to me. Asking for explanations for evolution's problems seems reasonable to me. You said 'mostly' nonsensical; are you admitting that there are some evidences against evolution that are valid? If so, why and how do you conclude with: "their contentions mean nothing at all"? -------------------- "Flat and inside a snow globe as center of everything." References, Please? -------------- "Because it is a popular belief (only in the US) that Creationism holds some truth, doesn't mean it is right. In fact Creationism is entirely Nonsense." I agree entirely with the first claim: validity of a theory is not dependent on the popularity of its acceptance. If creationism is nonsense, why do 46% of Americans (which includes many highly intelligent people) adhere to it? {http://www.Huffingtonpost.Com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.Html} ---------- "Creationist Reasoning is Circular Deductive, The Conclusion is Pre-Determined and the Premises are continually Adjusted to meet this Pre-Determined Conclusion. Every time a Scientist has been discovered Pre-Determining an Outcome/Conclusion and adjusting results/Evidence to meet the Pre-Determined Conclusion, they have been Declared as Frauds and their evidence is dismissed as Fraudulent." Very interested in examples of those logical fallacies that the Creationist community commits. Second claim: Not so. Darwin's idea of evolution was much different than the adapted Neo-Darwinian and Punctuated Equilibrium views. Those who came up with these new views pre-determined and assumed evolution, while speculating different methods by which could work (because Darwin's original speculation of the method was insubstantial). --------- "Pre-Determining a Conclusion (God did it) and adjusting evidence to fit this circular reasoning is fraudulent." We do not need to 'adjust' evidence; if God is omnipotent, it is not contradictory or circular to say that He can work outside of the realm of nature's law which He created.
Sagey says2014-07-10T03:11:09.7392741-05:00
@ DOT: I Don't need to debunk your claims, they were debunked decades ago. But Creationists are too stupid to realize they were beaten years ago. The Dover Trials should have sent a strong message home to Creationists that they are Beaten. But, they are Far Too Ignorant to concede Defeat. You were beaten years ago and simply refuse to acknowledge your defeat. The British decision to remove Creationism should also send alarm bells flashing. But Creationists are not only Deaf, and Blind, they are also Extremely Dumb, but also extremely Arrogant.
Sagey says2014-07-10T03:50:29.1712762-05:00
BTW: Evolution pre-existed Darwin, most of The Theory of Evolution was Wallace's work, not Darwin, Darwin just penned it. Evolution knowledge dates almost back to Leonardo da Vinci. The principles of Evolution were known and being practiced before Darwin was born.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-11T09:28:27.2157100-05:00
Sagey: You resort to name calling in an attempt to make your points. It appears that you are not confident to stand on the merits of your arguments, therefore, resort to calling people names. You also use blanket claims that Creationism has been defeated because the "British decision to remove Creationism." If Creationism "has been defeated," why are you adamantly and obviously angry in purporting evolution's propaganda? ----- Please, watch this short movie: http://www.evolutionvsgod.com/ --- If evolution is true, you have nothing to lose.
Max.Wallace says2014-07-11T09:39:49.4858588-05:00
I believe the known facts support both evolution and God, but the truth is that neither can be proved without a doubt. True believers, closed minded fools, will swear to one or the other.
ArcTImes says2014-07-11T16:42:40.2566448-05:00
@Max.Wallace Proven without a doubt? I hope this is not an "Maybe everything is an illusion!" argument. If it's not, then you are talking about science, and yes, evolution has been proved by science. And no, there are no evidence for god. And I hope that when you are talking about "the facts" that support god, you are not talking about the universe and then call it "creation".
Sagey says2014-07-11T17:28:29.8868637-05:00
@ DOT: Stupid is not a name (noun), it is a condition (adjective) , a condition that Creationism fits into precisely.
Sagey says2014-07-11T17:38:45.8058660-05:00
The reason for the Britain bill and anger over Creationism is that they are destroying children's education and future prospects with their nonsense. Creationists don't realize that not only is teaching their children nonsense from a young age destroying their chance of understand Truth, It is indoctrinating them minds into complete irrationality, many such students as I have had train and gave up on them, because they cannot even understand simple scientific principles are a direct result of being indoctrinated into Creatard nonsense. Indoctrinating young minds into Creationism has completely destroyed their Intelligence and ruined that child's prospects of ever understanding science or truth for life. It used to be a case of Ignore Creatinism, for they know not what they do. But Britain now has a large population of extremely dumb morons (Creationist Retards, or Creatards) , because they ignored it. So Britain is not ignoring Creationism any more, they are stomping on it for the sake of protecting young minds from Irrational Nonsense.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-12T08:20:35.2475901-05:00
Sagey: Here are some "extremely dumb morons" who had their minds indoctrinated "into complete irrationality" with "Irrational Nonsense." (i.E., Creationist Christians) 1. Roger Bacon, 2. Copernicus, 3. Leonardo Da Vinci, 4. Johann Kepler, 5. Galileo, 6. Blaise Pascal, 7. Robert Boyle, 8. Isaac Newton, 9. Louis Pasteur, 10. Gregor Mendel, 11. George Washington Carver (How Christianity Changed The World, Schmidt, pg. 240-241). -------------- Here are some "Morons" who adhered to Christian Worldviews and the Bible and/or were theists: 1. George Washington, 2. John Adams, 3. Thomas Jefferson, 4. John Hancock, 5. Ben Franklin 6. Sam Adams, 7. Patrick Henry, and 8. Roger Sherman. Even Barack Obama and Bill Clinton believe in God. -------- In addition, how about the following excerpt: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (Declaration of Independence) Who endows us with our rights according to all 56 signers of the Declaration? ------- Furthermore, all 50 state constitutions mention God in their preamble. Where the writers of these state constitutions all "stupid?" It appears I am in good company of "smart" people. -------- Remember something: if I am wrong I have nothing to lose. I die one day and cease to exist, and never would know that I was wrong. If you are wrong, you will spend eternity in hell separated from God. Thankfully, God is patient and will not give up on you. He provided a way for you I to avoid hell: Jesus Christ. Seek after God; He will reveal Himself to you. I say that with all confidence and seriousness.
Drewbuscus says2014-07-13T00:27:50.9259026-05:00
I believe that god planned evolution so I guess kinda both.... I don't know.
Sagey says2014-07-13T07:16:23.9516201-05:00
Well DOT, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were Deists who did not like the Bible at all, they did not consider the Bible relevant to the United States, thus they wanted separation of church and state, in fact they considered the Bible to be an abomination. Leonardo da Vinci also questioned Genesis, in particular the flood. Because religion wrongly held itself to be the source of all knowledge for thousands of years, doesn't mean there was any truth in it. Yes Galileo was a Christian, but he proved the Christian worldview that Earth was the primary entity of the Universe wrong. Since then science has taken over as the primary source of knowledge for the world, and religion has been placed where it belongs as just another superstition like Astrology and Numerology. The world is becoming more scientifically savvy and superstitions such as religions are now being seen in a more Rational light. The world is beginning to realize that humans have been conned by religious superstition into considering them as being truthful and a measure of reality. When truth is that religions are entirely Irrational and their knowledge springs from extreme naivety, not wisdom as once thought. Anselm and Aquinas were not wise men, they were Extremely Delusional and totally Irrational. Behavioral Evolution is now demonstrating that human ethics/morality are all products of Evolution. The game play and Ethics that make us think we are superior, exist in many species to a greater or lesser extent. We are simply animals that are half way between being a Tournament Species and a Pair Bonding Species, thus we exhibit rules and morals related to both.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-13T16:39:07.9179827-05:00
Sagey: John Adams said, "I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world." He also said, "Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!" He also said, "The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity." Thomas Jefferson said, "I am a Christian in the only sense in which He [Jesus] wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others." He also said, "I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ." [http://www.Wallbuilders.Com/libissuesarticles.Asp?Id=8755] --------- "they did not consider the Bible relevant to the United States, thus they wanted separation of church and state." They wanted separation of church and state because they feared the state would impose or dictate a religion on the citizens; not because they disregarded the Bible. Religious freedom was their goal; not discrimination or degradation of Christianity. In fact, the Declaration is signed 'In The Year of Our Lord'. Also, for the first 75 years of America's existence, Church services were held at the Capitol in Williamsburg. Also, Washington began the tradition of the President placing his hand on the Bible when he was sworn into office. ------- "Leonardo da Vinci also questioned Genesis." His most famous painting is that of God's hand stretching out to Adam; an account of Genesis. Just because he questioned some portions of the Faith, does not imply he was against it or not one of it. --------- "the Christian worldview that Earth was the primary entity of the Universe wrong." Please validate this by naming the passage of the Bible. ----------- "The world is becoming more scientifically savvy and superstitions such as religions are now being seen in a more Rational light. The world is beginning to realize that humans have been conned by religious superstition into considering them as being truthful and a measure of reality." Yes: Christianity is being seen in rational light; and more are coming to Christ because it is rational. Could evolution/atheism be included in this "superstition" you speak of? If so, perhaps you have been conned into accepting that propaganda; but you claim it to be scientific so it cannot be included in the realm of "religion". Am I wrong?
ArcTImes says2014-07-13T18:25:59.8275118-05:00
Why is it important that those people were religious? I mean, you are trying to defend religion from making people "dumb and moronic" mentioning people that made good things, at least most of them lol. You could think of examples that are opposite to those, but even on the examples you said, there are a lot of dumb sheet over there. Sure, Sagey exaggerated, not all creationists are dumb, at least not when they don't use creationism when talking about other stuff. Newton is a funny example. When you read about Newton and science, everything is great, HE IS A GENIUS!!, but then, he reach things he is not able to know and understand, and then his dumb part appears and starts talking about the god of the holes and alquemy, and blah blah. Why am I calling that his dumb part? Because right know scientist don't do that, they prefer to say "I don't know". Now, the reason is simple. In the past, people were more religous than now, even in the scientific community, most of the people were religious. So you would expect this kind of stuff. Right now, this doesn't happen, not even the believers like Francis Collins combine science and religion. The point is that people don't get dumb just because they are believers or religious. But religion tends to be a placeholder for knowledge and sometimes people do dumb sheet because of it. And of course, it ruins the education of those kids.
Sagey says2014-07-13T18:35:04.6309608-05:00
@ DOT: Like most creationists, they take quotes out of context, especially quotes from people living so long ago that they mean nothing these days. Such as John Adams, the "Bible is the best book in the world" was only when sections of it could be used to support his pet philosophy in an argument, so he considered as the best book to support his philosophical argument against Joseph Priestley. I've read the entire letter and he is not stating that the Bible is the best book for anything else other than his argument against Priestley. Taking ancient quotes out of context is a typical Creationist ploy. This is how they attack science, by fraudulent deception of quote mining and taking quotes out of context. In this modern era, the Bible has been proven Fraudulent, such as my current argument about Jesus not really being the Son of King David as Matthew 1 claimed. That was a Lie which is not supported by any evidence. It is also very dumb for the Bible to make such a claim as it destroys the Virgin Birth myth, because a virgin birth lends no Lineage to any King, nor any Human as according to Judaism, lineage can only come from the Father. Virgin birth = no human lineage. If Mary was no a virgin as in Matthew, then the father is unknown, likely a Roman Soldier and thus no lineage can be confirmed. Either way, Jesus was no an heir to the Throne of Israel, and thus according to the Messianic Prophecies, never a Messiah.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-14T09:59:50.1975042-05:00
Sagey: Those quotes are quite straightforward, clear, and self-explanatory. The context is obviously clear. ------- For the apparent flaw of Jesus genealogy, I recommend you read this short article: http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/why-are-there-different-genealogies-jesus-matthew-1-and-luke-3 ----
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-14T10:12:54.3615225-05:00
ArcTimes: If you scroll up a bit and see Sagey's original message, you will see that I was showing him that Creationists have been and are very smart people; not moronic or dumb, as he claims. ------ "In the past, people were more religious than now, even in the scientific community, most of the people were religious. So you would expect this kind of stuff. Right now, this doesn't happen, not even the believers like Francis Collins combine science and religion. The point is that people don't get dumb just because they are believers or religious. But religion tends to be a placeholder for knowledge and sometimes people do dumb sheet because of it. And of course, it ruins the education of those kids." Religion is "an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence." [http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Religion] Please show me how evolution does not fit into this definition, and is thus not a religion. Otherwise, your argument falls; because it would not be true to say that we have replaced 'religion' with 'science', but instead that we have replaced Christianity with the religion of secular evolutionism/atheism.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-14T10:17:55.2304410-05:00
"And of course, it ruins the education of those kids." Right, in that many religions can ruin a child's education, such as satanic religions like Jihadist Islam. Christianity, on the other side of the spectrum, was the religion of many of the founding fathers in the child and adult stages of life; the question then rises, were these founding fathers' education ruined? I think not, considering that they formed the foundation for the most prosperous nation on earth.
ArcTImes says2014-07-14T13:56:30.7277997-05:00
@DoT Now I remember the reason I stopped answering you lol. I mean, I had to stop when you defended Ken Ham, which to my eyes is a shame, even inside YECreationists. Well, whatever. Evolution is not religion because it is not an organized collection of beliefs, cultural system or world views... This is a better definition, so you can understand the difference: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. " http://dictionary.Reference.Com/browse/religion I recommend to avoid wikipedia at all costs. It's not because its wrong, it could be right in a lot of topics, but it's way preferable to use other sites, even the sites that are in the sources of wikipedia. Btw, Evolution doesn't fit near the half of that definition. Evolution is the phenomenon, it's not a belief or cultural system. The theory of evolution is the explanation of the phenomenon, at it reached the status of theory after following the scientific method. Observation, hypothesis, experimentation and prediction testing, theory. Predictions are still being evaluated, and there is no step in that method that is related to belief, not even hypothesis, so yeah, YEC is not even an hypothesis. "Right, in that many religions can ruin a child's education, such as satanic religions like Jihadist Islam. Christianity, on the other side of the spectrum, was the religion of many of the founding fathers in the child and adult stages of life; the question then rises, were these founding fathers' education ruined? I think not, considering that they formed the foundation for the most prosperous nation on earth." Are you kidding? Of course religion affects their education. Stop thinking that they were good people because of religion, I mean, most of the rest of the people, even those against them were probably religious too. DUDE, RELIGION WAS MASSIVE IN THE PAST! STOP USING THAT ARGUMENT, IT'S RETARDED!! I just can't imagine how their education would be without religion. If they were taught all the facts and not just a tale. And "the most prosperous nation on earth" is like that not because of religion, and not because of the founding fathers. Remember that most of the power a nation gains over the rest comes from politics, economics and wars. WARS. I'm not sure if the founding fathers were of the idea of bully other nations with military power, if they were, then good for them, they are awesome. And please, stop thinking that they were good because of Christianity. You even mention Islam. If Islam were your religion, then you were talking about the great things muslim people did, you know algebra, instrument for surgery, chess!! Chess dude, I love chess.. And then you would be talking about the Israel vs Palestine and how other religions are evil. ROFL. ROFL DUDE ROFL Your arguments are really bad. If you still think evolution is a religion, we can debate that. I don't have any problem.
ArcTImes says2014-07-14T14:02:03.6483981-05:00
@DoT Now I remember the reason I stopped answering you lol. I mean, I had to stop when you defended Ken Ham, which to my eyes is a shame, even inside YECreationists. Well, whatever. Evolution is not religion because it is not an organized collection of beliefs, cultural system or world views... This is a better definition, so you can understand the difference: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. " http://dictionary.Reference.Com/browse/religion I recommend to avoid wikipedia at all costs. It's not because its wrong, it could be right in a lot of topics, but it's way preferable to use other sites, even the sites that are in the sources of wikipedia. Btw, Evolution doesn't fit near the half of that definition. Evolution is the phenomenon, it's not a belief or cultural system. The theory of evolution is the explanation of the phenomenon, at it reached the status of theory after following the scientific method. Observation, hypothesis, experimentation and prediction testing, theory. Predictions are still being evaluated, and there is no step in that method that is related to belief, not even hypothesis, so yeah, YEC is not even an hypothesis. "Right, in that many religions can ruin a child's education, such as satanic religions like Jihadist Islam. Christianity, on the other side of the spectrum, was the religion of many of the founding fathers in the child and adult stages of life; the question then rises, were these founding fathers' education ruined? I think not, considering that they formed the foundation for the most prosperous nation on earth." Are you kidding? Of course religion affects their education. Stop thinking that they were good people because of religion, I mean, most of the rest of the people, even those against them were probably religious too. Religion was massive in the past, stop suing that argument. I just can't imagine how their education would be without religion. If they were taught all the facts. And "the most prosperous nation on earth" is like that not because of religion, and not because of the founding fathers. Remember that most of the power a nation gains over the rest comes from politics, economics and wars. WARS. I'm not sure if the founding fathers were of the idea of bully other nations with military power, if they were, then good for them, they are awesome. And please, stop thinking that they were good because of Christianity. You even mention Islam. If Islam were your religion, then you were talking about the great things muslim people did, you know algebra, instrument for surgery, chess!! Chess dude, I love chess.. And then you would be talking about Israel vs Palestine and how other religions are evil. Your arguments are really bad. If you still think evolution is a religion, we can debate that. I don't have any problem.
ArcTImes says2014-07-14T14:04:48.7753228-05:00
@DoT Now I remember the reason I stopped answering you lol. I mean, I had to stop when you defended Ken Ham, which to my eyes is a shame, even inside YECreationists. Well, whatever. Evolution is not religion because it is not an organized collection of beliefs, cultural system or world views... This is a better definition, so you can understand the difference: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. " http://dictionary.Reference.Com/browse/religion I recommend to avoid wikipedia at all costs. It's not because its wrong, it could be right in a lot of topics, but it's way preferable to use other sites, even the sites that are in the sources of wikipedia. Btw, Evolution doesn't fit near the half of that definition. Evolution is the phenomenon, it's not a belief or cultural system. The theory of evolution is the explanation of the phenomenon, and it reached the status of theory after following the scientific method. Observation, hypothesis, experimentation and prediction testing, theory. Predictions are still being evaluated, and there is no step in that method that is related to belief, not even hypothesis, so yeah, YEC is not even an hypothesis. "Right, in that many religions can ruin a child's education, such as satanic religions like Jihadist Islam. Christianity, on the other side of the spectrum, was the religion of many of the founding fathers in the child and adult stages of life; the question then rises, were these founding fathers' education ruined? I think not, considering that they formed the foundation for the most prosperous nation on earth." Are you kidding? Of course religion affects their education. Stop thinking that they were good people because of religion, I mean, most of the rest of the people, even those against them were probably religious too. Religion was massive in the past, stop using that argument. I just can't imagine how their education would be without religion. If they were taught all the facts. And "the most prosperous nation on earth" is like that not because of religion, and not because of the founding fathers. Remember that most of the power a nation gains over the rest comes from politics, economics and wars. I'm not sure if the founding fathers were of the idea of bully other nations with military power, if they were, then good for them, they are awesome. And please, stop thinking that they were good because of Christianity. You even mention Islam. If Islam were your religion, then you were talking about the great things muslim people did, you know algebra, instrument for surgery, chess!! Chess dude, I love chess.. And then you would be talking about Israel vs Palestine and how other religions are evil. Your arguments are really bad. If you still think evolution is a religion, we can debate that. I don't have any problem.
ArcTImes says2014-07-14T14:08:16.9105228-05:00
Damn you comment system, Y U DO DIS TO ME.
DefenderOfTheTruth says2014-07-15T08:50:52.6505550-05:00
ArcTimes: Evolution is a belief. You have to use faith to accept scientific speculation, no matter how logical they tell you it is. You do not know what happened a billion or so years ago, so you accept their speculations and base it off of faith. God bless you, Sir. It has been an honor to debate you. I hope to debate you in the future again. Romans 1:20-22--- "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools."
ArcTImes says2014-07-15T08:57:06.6361800-05:00
@DoT Sigh.. Evolution is not a belief... So for you all sciences are beliefs. Because all sciences, and evolution use the same method with a really easy name "Scientific Method", I bet you can remember. And again, I gave you a better definition, even if it was a belief, all beliefs are not religion. Evolution is not a religion. Religion are separated of sciences. Your religion will not be science, never, ID without religion could be, but it's very very very unlikely. And this is not a debate. I would not repeating stuff in a debate, or at least I would try not to. Here I'm repeating stuff because I'm not talking to a public, I'm talking to you. And I guess you can understand why lol. If you want an actual debate in this site, I'm ok with that. Challenge me to whatever you want. Depending on the resolution, I will accept. No, even better, I will challenge you. I'm not expecting you to accept because you know you can defend "Evolution is a religion".
Sagey says2014-07-15T09:03:27.1529363-05:00
@ DOT: Scientific Speculations are based on observable Evidence, not dreamed up by Theologians and Apologists like Religious concepts. Science has tested observable evidence by measurements and comparison with other observable evidence, thus it is scientifically testable and verifiable. This is is another form of the Scientific Method. Scientific Method does not just mean using equipment in a Laboratory, it is the systematic and confirmed consistency in measurements and Observations. This is Testing things scientifically.
Sagey says2014-07-15T09:09:11.3045363-05:00
Creationists on the other hand make Assertions, based on No Verifiable Evidence. Which is not only Unscientific, it is also extremely Fallacious, because no Creationists were witnesses to the events. So it is more rational to make Speculations based on Evidence than to make unsupported (fallacious) assertions based on No Evidence at all, Making assertions, because a book written a few thousand years ago is extremely Irrational, because nobody writing that book can demonstrate that they were witnesses.
Sagey says2014-07-15T09:26:28.4567375-05:00
@ DDO, Speculating past events based on Evidence is Science. This is not an exercise of Faith, it is simply basing assumptions on what can be observed, such as all bodies in the universe moving away from a central region, which in all rational analysis, can only confirm, that at one time, the universe has expanded from that region. It is totally obvious to any person with a rational brain cell in their head. No Faith is required, it is simply straight forward Inductive Reasoning. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Making a Positive claim or an Assertion based entirely on having Faith in manuscripts written a few thousand years ago, is definitely an Act of Faith. It is circular Deductive Reasoning based on a Premise of Faith in "God Did It". So the Creationist position is the only position of Faith. The Scientific position is Evidence Based Inductive Reasoning. So the Creationists are the only ones basing their claims on Blind Faith.
ArcTImes says2014-07-15T09:28:14.6764566-05:00
@DoT You can accept whenever you want http://www.debate.org/debates/The-theory-of-Evolution-is-a-Religion/1/
Masterfrogger says2014-08-03T05:39:29.6203494-05:00
I believe in both I believe a omnipotent being most likely had started the Big Bang and set the universe in motion wether it be god Krishna Muhammad or whoever else
Sagey says2014-08-03T22:06:51.6602849-05:00
@ Masterfrogger: Believing that God started the Universe, but Evolution is the way life evolved sort of makes you either a Deist or an Agnostic. Deists believe God created everything and nicked off to pursue other interests, and Agnostics consider God as possibly starting everything, but God is beyond human's ability to know of God, so it is similar to Deism.
Chase226 says2014-08-04T00:44:17.7079334-05:00
Both, God created the earth and evolution is how he did it.
stretchfer says2014-08-04T19:17:32.5352615-05:00
Actually evolution is not logical, because there is no evidence, ever, of a species "turning into" another species. Believing in God takes a lot of faith, true, but not as much faith as it does to believe in evolution.
Sagey says2014-08-06T20:13:32.5232065-05:00
@ stretchfer : There is a massive amount of evidence for evolution and one kind changing to another kind is not how evolution actually works. You are only showing us how poorly educated you are. While there is no evidence for God did it, so on the basis of Evidence alone, Evolution is true, and there is no evidence for God in any of it. God requires Faith, Evolution is obvious to those who know what to look for so it does not require faith to believe Evolution. You really don't understand Evolution so you are arguing from Ignorance. Learn Evolution 101 first and then you may be able to comment rationally.
Preston says2014-08-08T08:46:12.0844400-05:00
Both
Sagey says2014-08-16T01:11:45.1405198-05:00
Belief in Evolution takes no Faith at all. As Evolution is evidence based, Evolution is entirely Evident. Creationism is entirely Faith Based, no Evidence exists for it. So it is Not Objectively Evident. Science is about Predictability. We can produce predictions on Evolution, we cannot base predictions on Creationism. So Creationism is unscientific and Useless in science because we cannot base any predictions on it at all. To base predictions on Creationism, we would have to ask the magician/creator what it intended to do next. Which is also unscientific.
flowersarenice777 says2014-08-20T13:23:15.9368570-05:00
Evolution, but God used evolution as a way to create us.
flowersarenice777 says2014-08-20T19:21:41.6528326-05:00
Evolution, but God used evolution as a way to create us. Evolution and Christianity don't have to conflict, it just depends on how you interpret the bible.
sarahmay77 says2014-08-22T04:44:17.5587488-05:00
Why not both? Why not the idea that some being created the universe through the big bang and basically set evolution in motion? Who can prove otherwise?
sarahmay77 says2014-08-22T04:45:08.8993361-05:00
Why not both? Why not the idea that some being cr byeated the universe through the big bang and basically set evolution in motion? Who can prove otherwise?
sarahmay77 says2014-08-22T04:47:11.9062784-05:00
Why not both? Why not the idea that a being created the universe through the big bang and set the process of evolution in motion? Who can prove otherwise?
Sagey says2014-08-22T05:16:57.7839342-05:00
The problem becomes then, how did God evolve. I know that answer, through the evolution of the human mind. Monotheism came from the minds of war like Pastoralists, which is why it is so full of hatred, violence and bloodshed.
Commondebator says2014-09-05T18:27:25.6567644-05:00
Its obvious
Commondebator says2014-09-05T18:28:01.4431644-05:00
Its obvious. Not scientifically flawed, has more evidence, and more accepted.
XSOLDIER says2014-09-14T07:26:47.7193199-05:00
Both.
funnycn says2014-09-16T14:17:21.3012296-05:00
http://www.debate.org/debates/Christianity-V.S.-evolution/1/
The-Holy-Macrel says2014-09-24T08:30:50.7584839-05:00
God could have made the big bang (not that i belive in it i only belive in him) so they can coexist.
The-Holy-Macrel says2014-09-24T08:31:21.5376785-05:00
God could have made the big bang (not that i belive in it i only belive in him) so they can coexist.
Student4Life1975 says2014-09-25T17:31:17.2497740-05:00
Evolution, as not a lot of people are aware its no longer just a "Theory" but a fact.
Student4Life1975 says2014-09-25T17:32:28.0779667-05:00
Evolution, as not a lot of people are aware its no longer just a "Theory" but a fact.
BobCampus says2014-09-30T14:33:12.1511638-05:00
If you have solid proof that God doesn't exist, email me at cgreen@dayrep.Net and I will see if what you say makes sense when I apply it to either science or the Bible
Nathan.apologetics says2014-10-04T13:16:07.6697409-05:00
Science:"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws". The only part of this definition that matches evolution is "A branch of... Study". Therefore evolution does not fit in the category of science. Evolution goes in the category of pseudoscience. I dare you to show me any facts that support evolution! Any supposed evidence evolutionists use is outdated and/or unreliable. In fact a tons of scientific evidence proves that the process evolution is could not have taken place.
SE2 says2014-10-15T21:36:36.1243177-05:00
I dont understand why it has to be one or the other. There can be a God even with evolution. But to blatantly deny evolution is asinine as if you still believe the world is flat.
lamooregalore says2014-10-17T11:13:15.6232279-05:00
I personally agree with the Creationists. But at the same time, can we all agree to disagree? None of us has to prove our theories are correct, and we both will hold to our beliefs. Evolutionists, you're not going to dissuade any Creationists into your theory, because most Creationists are religious. Creationists, don't try to persuade the Evolutionists, because they want to back their theories up with science and logical quotes. I'm not saying that Creationism isn't backed up by science, either. There are several plausible arguments that can be made for the universe being created by a benevolent God.
AnonymousAthiest says2014-10-17T13:37:36.5394844-05:00
Bigots lose brain cells every day. The brain cells don't die, they just give up, because they realize how stupid the rest of the body of these people is.
AnonymousAthiest says2014-10-17T13:44:30.0647975-05:00
Leojm, FOX news gets paid of. Plus they're bigots (well most of them are. Just look at some of their shows!)
AnonymousAthiest says2014-10-17T13:47:57.3145804-05:00
There are solid connections between humans and simpler animals. For example, Humans have gill slits, but no gills (your skin covers them, but if you JUST observe the raw muscle and bones of a human w/o skin, you would be able to see this). If we didn't evolve from something that evolved from a fish, than why would we have gill slits? If God is perfect, why would he/she recycle parts from another animal?
AnonymousAthiest says2014-10-17T13:51:23.0071729-05:00
We humans have gill slits, but no gills. If we never evolved from a fish, than why would we have gill slits.
AnonymousAthiest says2014-10-17T13:55:07.2630253-05:00
We humans have gill slits, but no gills. If we never evolved from a fish, than why would we have gill slits?
Saruul624ASU says2014-11-05T06:47:45.9057788-06:00
Of course we involved not suddenly created
AnonymousAthiest says2014-11-05T12:46:14.0339053-06:00
@rabia. Actually your half-right, rabia! Humans didn't directly evolve from apes. We actually evolved from homo erectus, which evolved from simpler creatures in the homo genus (we are the only one left in the genus, Homo Sapiens). Then those simpler organisms in the homo genus evolved from orangutans, which evolved from monkeys, dating all the way back to non-living biomolecules, like viruses and prions (viruses contain either RNA (in simpler forms) or DNA (in its more complex forms).
megawatcher88 says2014-11-23T21:43:43.6259484-06:00
Evolution has tons of evidence. Yes there are gaps in the fossil record but there are so many conditions required for something to fossilize that it's amazing we have the amount of fossils we do. Creationism has no proof whatsoever, and even if neither of them sounds logical to you, we have undeniable proof that the Earth is older than 6,000 years. Tracing the drifting of the continents, using the light from other stars, and implementing carbon dating are some of the many ways that we know how old Earth really is. Creationism doesn't make sense in the light of dinosaurs and many other extinct species. If species were perfect then they wouldn't need to evolve or go extinct. Also, don't assume that someone who believes in evolution is an atheist! Many of them are, but not all
GarretGarland says2014-11-25T10:48:38.3892850-06:00
Evolution is an over hyped theory that was disregarded by Darwin himself in his latter years. There are to many missing links in the evolutionary progression. Creationism cannot simply be proved, neither can evolution, but is something that people have faith in and should be respected.
GarretGarland says2014-11-25T10:52:56.7814033-06:00
There is actually very little proof that we evolved from the early humans and ape like creatures. It is and over hyped theory that has for some reason been accepted as truth for too long. There are too many missing links in the evolutionary chain to prove that we came from ape like creatures. Now I'm not saying that you can just go out and prove creationism but I think it is a valid point to say that everything was created by something.
gomergcc says2014-12-03T22:50:43.3549132-06:00
:( no answer for us that believe in both God and evolution :(
roblinb says2015-01-01T20:01:18.9402938-06:00
Despite what many scientists say, evolution is a theory with serious flaws. First, there is no physical evidence of "missing links" living today, and second the fossil records are questionable at best. Creationism has problems scientifically as well, but intelligent design is far more believable than the theory of evolution in my opinion.
roblinb says2015-01-01T20:07:49.0469931-06:00
Intelligent design is much more believable than the theory of evolution. Just look at our own bodies. Things work in certain ways, for a reason. You mean to tell me that this is all by accident? Come on, man. As far as evolution goes, there has been zero proof found of "missing links" and nothing is alive today that represents anything that's in the midst of evolving. The fossil records are highly inconclusive, as is DNA evidence. Creationism is not scientifically proven either, but in my personal opinion it makes more sense.
roblinb says2015-01-01T20:15:55.9354720-06:00
Intelligent design is much more believable than the theory of evolution. Just look at our own bodies. Things work in certain ways, for a reason. You mean to tell me that this is all by accident? Come on, man. As far as evolution goes, there has been zero proof found of "missing links" and nothing is alive today that represents anything that's in the midst of evolving. The fossil records are highly inconclusive, as is DNA evidence. Creationism is not scientifically proven either, but in my personal opinion it makes more sense than man evolving from a monkey.
shadows2000 says2015-01-10T03:27:36.4907561-06:00
1)Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang” 2)Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen 3)Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds 4)Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter 5)Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one kind into another 6)Micro-evolution: variations form within the “kind” ONLY number 6 is scientific. As a creationist I am not rejecting scientific evidence, If you seriously believe that a frog can turn into a prince then you would have to back it up with science. ALL WE HAVE EVER OBSERVED is frogs make frogs, chickens make chickens, dogs produce dogs, humans produce humans, fish produce fish, bacteria produce bacteria. The further away from the original you get the more that genetic infor mation is lost or spread out. For the varieties to regain that genetic material they would have to breed with a variety that had other information that had been spread out. Each of the other 5 have their own problems. The main reasons that people accept the teaching of evolution are... 1)Thats all they have ever been taught. 2)They like the freedom from absolute authority. 3)If you find information that goes against the theory then you are fired or at the very least told to stop persuing research, therefore some people may fear losing their job. 4)Some people believe that they can become "gods" A good example of this would be the push towards transhumanism. By the way if some people went out and got all of these enhancements because they could pay big money for it wouldn't that create an imbalance of power? 5)The constant propaganda that is everywhere doesn't help. 6)Some organisations filter out information that goes against the theory. 7) The theory was taught using lies to support it. When those children leave school they will pass the teaching on to their own children. For example some people still believe that the embryo has gill slits. Proven wrong over 130 years ago. 8) Both sides aren't presented fairly not just on creation and evolution but on other topics. If anyone would like a discussion on the topic then that would be fine.
PhoenixFlyer says2015-01-11T21:24:04.7618152-06:00
Both; Our Loving Creator is responsible for both creationism and evolution (which are both relevant).
cagystorm says2015-01-12T11:42:41.5683784-06:00
You must study evolution before you even think about calling it a scientific theory. You'll notice that religion doesn't change, but evolution does.
Johnnydude14 says2015-01-15T11:29:19.2207163-06:00
Evolution has very little proof. Micro-Evolution is completely possible, it is also known as adaption. Macro is idiotic.
Leo.Messi says2015-01-24T08:10:45.4952171-06:00
How is evolution logical? And how is creation not logical? This is something I would like to know. Personally for me-its more logical for a omnipotent creator to make everything than for everything to randomly explode from nothing...And then somehow, SOMEHOW, make what is needed for life, water, this almost perfect system we have...Its a bit of a stretch...
joshua_stucki says2015-02-13T23:39:22.4755637-06:00
My problem with evolution from the beginning is that no matter how hard anyone tries to artificially create or breed "evolution", all that ends up happening is different versions of the same thing. We can have hundreds of different varieties of peppered moths, dozens of different varieties of finches, etc. but they are all still moths and finches. As well, there's still no settled explanation (and never likely to be) for life coming from non-life. There are just no examples, natural or artificial, that have shown this to be a sustainable reality. The explanation for this is always the same: "Evolution across kinds is not observable in our lifetime." No doubt, I agree.
Heraclitus says2015-02-16T09:58:17.3069846-06:00
Creationism is stupid
Anonymous says2015-02-25T08:48:24.8886336-06:00
Where do I start.... Hmm.... Oh yeah, IT'S NOT TRUE!!! Where in do you think the big bang came from, huh. We have the one thing that can't be made, manufactured, or evolutioned, SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS. People seriously... SAD. LOOK IT UP
Anonymous says2015-02-25T08:49:26.6755431-06:00
Where do I start.... Hmm.... Oh yeah, IT'S NOT TRUE!!! Where in do you think the big bang came from, huh. We have the one thing that can't be made, manufactured, or evolutioned, SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS. People seriously... SAD. LOOK IT UP. This is not about logic. Its about truth, heck your right.. It is about logic. READ^
DInsight says2015-02-25T12:36:53.1983739-06:00
One does not disproof the other.
Ankita_1931 says2015-02-28T05:44:07.8911178-06:00
I dont want an argument, although its all about one. Before i support my point, Evolution is a continued process, it never stops. Well then if it was an evolution, why isnt it continuing? Why aren't organisms developing further? No its not going to happen because its a creation, once created can be destroyed. No further than that.
Ankita_1931 says2015-02-28T05:46:42.3655138-06:00
I dont want an argument, although its all about one. Before i support my point, Evolution is a continued process, it never stops. Well then if it was an evolution, why isnt it continuing? Why aren't organisms developing further? No its not going to happen because its a creation, once created can be destroyed. No further than that. If it was an evolution then why arent monkeys developing into humans? Therefore my point, its clearly a creation.
JuanM1031 says2015-03-10T22:09:10.2179470-05:00
It is the most reliable explanation to our origin. Atheist say they cannot prove the existence of God, which they are correct, but they cannot disprove his existence. However, evolution can easily be disproven. Explain to me, evolutionists, how did a unicellular organism give rise to multicellular organisms? There could not have been any reproduction because so many other factors that are need for reproduction were missing. Thus disproving evolution.
DarkDarling says2015-03-23T12:59:39.4568855-05:00
What I know is that it's possible for something or someone to have greater logic than the human mind. So people tryna figure it out. You will lose.
madscimike says2015-03-29T01:39:41.0258151-05:00
I study biology every day and at one point was a devout Catholic. The two are not mutually exclusive. Also, creationists also typically believe that God loves and cares for us which would support the concept of biological fitness anyway. Also evolution is, you know, observable fact.
talismanhero says2015-03-29T22:34:40.8989107-05:00
Imabench, creationism actually is more logical than evolution. Take, for example, the cell theory. It states that all cells come from pre-existing cells. Evolution cannot explain how cells came from a soupy mixture of chemicals and lightening.
Chuckles1234 says2015-04-04T12:27:38.0135462-05:00
Evolution. To believe otherwise is endlessly ignorant.
arthurjeremypearson says2015-04-12T13:05:11.4405020-05:00
It would be nice if people defined these incredibly vague terms once in a while. If by evolution you mean the scientific theory that describes the diversity of life from the first earliest forms of life (aka what some call micro-evolution) then yes. Evolution. If by creationism you mean the whacked out nutjob extremists who think the world is 6000 years old, then no.
B0HICA says2015-04-18T18:40:30.1550108-05:00
I find it hilarious, how atheists often refuse to discuss the facts of evolution. In another forum, I listed ten scientific reasons for a young earth. I got many replies. They were all insults, or attempts at deflection. Not one of the cowards would debate me.
A2 says2015-04-21T19:39:54.6567402-05:00
Can't you believe in both?
Mike.2015 says2015-04-22T10:19:10.2403576-05:00
Science has only "discovered" what God has already created. Science has not once "created", only discovered. Atheist, World Renound Quantum Physicist, Stephen Halking openly admits an equal amount of positive and negative energy dispersed at 3 trillionths of a second from the condenced cavity still requires a trigger. "It has to be triggered", yet dose not know how. Though Since the Bible and the Tannakh are 100% Historically, Mathematically, Scientifically, Archeologically, Prophetically, accurate, there should be no doubt to everyone who actually reads and understands what's actually happening. Science simply mixes items together and puts lable on it. To those who understand the Bible, believe in it.
Mike.2015 says2015-04-22T10:21:40.9124601-05:00
Science has only discovered what God has already created. Science has not once created, only discovered. Atheist, World Renound Quantum Physicist, Stephen Halking openly admits an equal amount of positive and negative energy dispersed at 3 trillionths of a second from the condenced cavity still requires a trigger. "It has to be triggered", yet dose not know how. But since the Bible and the Tannakh are 100% Historically, Mathematically, Scientifically, Archeologically, Prophetically, accurate, there should be no doubt to everyone who actually reads and understands what's actually happening. Science simply mixes items together and puts lable on it. To those who understand the Bible, Believe in It.
Mike.2015 says2015-04-22T10:22:12.5806631-05:00
Science has only discovered what God has already created. Science has not once created, only discovered. Atheist, World Renound Quantum Physicist, Stephen Halking openly admits an equal amount of positive and negative energy dispersed at 3 trillionths of a second from the condenced cavity still requires a trigger. "It has to be triggered", yet dose not know how. But since the Bible and the Tannakh are 100% Historically, Mathematically, Scientifically, Archeologically, Prophetically, accurate, there should be no doubt to everyone who actually reads and understands what's actually happening. Science simply mixes items together and puts label on it. To those who understand the Bible, Believe in It.
Mike.2015 says2015-04-22T10:23:51.3760964-05:00
Science has only discovered what God has already created. Science has not once created, only discovered. Atheist, World Renound Quantum Physicist, Stephen Halking openly admits an equal amount of positive and negative energy dispersed at 3 trillionths of a second from the condenced cavity still requires a trigger. "It has to be triggered", yet dose not know how. Now since the Bible and the Tannakh are 100% Historically, Mathematically, Scientifically, Archeologically, Prophetically, accurate, there should be no doubt to everyone who actually reads and understands what's actually happening. To those who understand the Bible, Believe in It. Science simply mixes items together and puts label on it.
Mike.2015 says2015-04-22T10:24:29.6587418-05:00
Science has only discovered what God has already created. Science has not once created, only discovered. Atheist, World Renowned Quantum Physicist, Stephen Halking openly admits an equal amount of positive and negative energy dispersed at 3 trillionths of a second from the condenced cavity still requires a trigger. "It has to be triggered", yet dose not know how. Now since the Bible and the Tannakh are 100% Historically, Mathematically, Scientifically, Archeologically, Prophetically, accurate, there should be no doubt to everyone who actually reads and understands what's actually happening. To those who understand the Bible, Believe in It. Science simply mixes items together and puts label on it.
Mike.2015 says2015-04-22T10:25:50.4840281-05:00
Science has only discovered what God has already created. Science has not once created, only discovered. Atheist, World Renowned Quantum Physicist, Stephen Halking openly admits an equal amount of positive and negative energy dispersed at 3 trillionths of a second from the condensed cavity still requires a trigger. "It has to be triggered", yet dose not know how. Now since the Bible and the Tannakh are 100% Historically, Mathematically, Scientifically, Archeologically, Prophetically, accurate, there should be no doubt to everyone who actually reads and understands what's actually happening. To those who understand the Bible, Believe in It. Science simply mixes items together and puts label on it.
Bonetoy says2015-04-30T09:55:19.1967450-05:00
If you truly believe that evolution is 100% true then you should watch this video. More and more people believe evolution for the simple fact that nothing else is taught in schools today. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. Simple as that. Any theory that fails to pass just one test is false. If you refuse to learn the opposite viewpoints of evolution then you are keeping yourself ignorant of all the facts. You can not claim that evolution is the only way if its the only way you know. Learn everything you can before making a decision. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnVR3JzAENg
reissalvin1998 says2015-05-04T00:10:55.1653775-05:00
Trolls are the world's greatest hypocrite. Everything they say is a reflection of themselves. :)
ahiscocks17 says2015-05-14T11:37:50.0862655-05:00
I don't believe that religion should be forced on people.
Epicerdanu says2015-06-06T17:48:17.5163990-05:00
I can understand why you'd argue about this when you're backed by your religious leader, but, Pope Francis doesn't seem to agree with you. If evolution didn't happen, wouldn't the bible mention the giant, man-eating dinosaurs that according to creationism, existed alongside humanity? Also, the Bible wasn't written by Jesus' disciples, considering that the Bibles scriptures were passed on orally for about a century or so. Or, are you going to tell me that the the direct disciples of Jesus were so holy that they lived for more than a century? Let me reiterate, Pope Francis openly said that evolution happened. But, I guess I can't convince you, since creationists are too blinded by faith.
myk97 says2015-06-15T18:57:08.0952506-05:00
If you do some research, you'll discover that evolution is just a theory. There is NO scientific evidence to proof this theory, whereas Creationism has been proven correct in a great number of instances. In fact, it has never been proven wrong. You don't have to be a believer to see the facts.
myk97 says2015-06-15T18:58:03.8414804-05:00
If you do some research, you'll discover that evolution is just a theory. There is NO scientific evidence to proof this theory, whereas Creationism has been proven correct in a great number of instances. In fact, it has never been proven wrong. You don't have to be a believer to see the facts.
Pretzelz says2015-06-24T12:16:00.9957547-05:00
I find creationism a very, childish idea, in which people believe that god, or a god, created everything. There just seems to be to many holes in the idea. The basic idea is just too reliant on a bunch of "ifs" and doesn't seem to care much on hard facts.
TyroneShelton says2015-07-04T22:41:26.2631773-05:00
If you do some research (and by research I mean look at the name and ignore the case for it) you will find that gravity is just a theory. And because it is just a theory, me and all the other "just a theory" people will go jump off a bridge.
TyroneShelton says2015-07-04T22:46:40.6675927-05:00
I like creationism. Its the only place where the phrase "Stoneage men believed in it" is not an insult. In fact that is the basis of it.
Cmcgloin3 says2015-07-08T23:30:42.6412119-05:00
Let me know when creationism has ANY evidence whatsoever.
ChaseNeiz says2015-07-09T22:32:05.9833005-05:00
Can someone tell me how to vote please? It never checks off my opinion and It is very annoying.
wertyas66 says2015-07-21T23:00:07.9147674-05:00
I believe God and science is true
TheOpinionist says2015-07-29T06:51:01.1939519Z
"I need more popcorn mom!" "Why can't you get it?" "RELIGION WAR TOO INTENSE"
Sauerkraut says2015-08-12T07:15:14.4260441Z
Evolution has astounding evidence. Also, I have to facepalm whenever someone says "Then why are there still apes der der der" Because apes evolved into homo erectus and they evolved faster then apes did. Also about Noah's ark- only 2 of each animal? Ever heard of inbreeding?
Blazzered says2015-08-16T21:19:16.1514001Z
Evolution is simply proven fact. Creation isn't.
DudeWithAName says2015-08-19T06:35:21.8326252Z
Please explain the origin of live evolutionist ;]
PericIes says2015-08-24T21:33:49.8827353Z
*life
mdmark says2015-08-26T14:19:05.3362230Z
Dear God people! We didnt evolve from apes! Both apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor called the "homoerectus". Saying that humans evolved from apes is like saying that you were born from your sister!
mdmark says2015-08-26T14:19:39.9223098Z
Dear God people! We didnt evolve from apes! Both apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor called the "homoerectus". Saying that humans evolved from apes is like saying that you were born from your sister!
mdmark says2015-08-26T16:56:31.9449588Z
That is my biggest pet peeve for people who dont know anything about Evolution.
Max.Wallace says2015-08-29T01:49:01.1963116Z
Evolution is as imaginary as creationism.
Max.Wallace says2015-08-29T01:49:51.3818333Z
Evolution is as imaginary as creationism. So be it then eh. Cheers to you rat tailed scienticic religion ists.
mdmark says2015-09-01T13:35:41.3654551Z
And I suppose you have a better answer?
Aran55633 says2015-09-16T19:56:36.2222195Z
Chimps are not derived from Homo erectus, and we don't even know for sure if our own species is derived from Homo erectus. But species are mutable. There is no debate anymore, there's just a few groups of ignorant, religious holdouts.
CinnabarManx421 says2015-09-23T16:47:30.9794446Z
Evolution. Not enough solid proof for Creationism.
the_monster says2015-09-25T18:23:09.6912492Z
Can everyone understand that Creationism and Christianity are not the same thing? Christianity is the belief that everything happened as in the Old and New Testaments. Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by God.
Spartanmc117 says2015-10-08T16:55:27.9281643Z
As scientific studies are showing more and more that we evolved, and we're not created. (You are always right in your beliefs, if you believe in creationism, that's fine by me).
PetersSmith says2015-10-19T22:45:38.7763554Z
http://www.debate.org/opinions/polls/what-is-your-position-on-the-creation-evolution-controversy
renoneshawn says2015-10-25T02:52:02.4255449Z
@leojm, your comments are amusing. That dinosaur claim you make has been debunked yet you dishonestly keep using it as evidence against evolution. It's also interesting how you never actually give any evidence to credit Creationism. http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
Unwiseman says2015-10-26T04:54:23.0289693Z
There is design in the world.
Unwiseman says2015-10-26T04:56:01.9167354Z
There is design in the world.
Unwiseman says2015-10-26T04:57:36.5145290Z
There is design in the world.
OnurArakiyeci says2015-10-30T23:34:39.7679895Z
Why can't it both be present as a scientific fact ? Allah c.C. Created everything and there is conversion or evolution of things in their nature which doesn't contradict Allah c.C.'s law. Why does it contradict ?
OnurArakiyeci says2015-10-30T23:37:34.0857417Z
Why can't it both be present as a scientific fact ? Allah c.C. Created everything and there is conversion or evolution of things in their nature which doesn't contradict Allah c.C.'s law. Why does it contradict ? I want to pick both options.
Max.Wallace says2015-10-31T00:05:06.3291150Z
The majority of humans are stupid, and this poll proves it.
Max.Wallace says2015-10-31T00:05:38.4299511Z
The majority of humans are stupid, and this poll proves it.
Max.Wallace says2015-10-31T00:06:09.8169499Z
The majority of humans are stupid and this poll proves it.
kaleb_johns says2015-11-07T22:27:27.1883715Z
Evolution is real
Wwskaf says2015-11-11T20:45:19.7438603Z
If I had to choose one answer, I would pick evolution... But my favorite answer would be: evolution guided by a supreme force. In our universe, laws of physics are immovable, they are fact and not up for debate in my opinion. But these laws are so so perfect and from all the possibilities in this universe, things have worked perfectly for humans to exist. Every coincidence in this universe has contributed to our existence here and now. How can that all be attributed to luck?
Wwskaf says2015-11-11T20:46:11.9580644Z
If I had to choose one answer, I would pick evolution... But my favorite answer would be: evolution guided by a supreme force. In our universe, laws of physics are immovable, they are fact and not up for debate in my opinion. But these laws are so so perfect and from all the possibilities in this universe, things have worked perfectly for humans to exist. Every coincidence in this universe has contributed to our existence here and now. How can that all be attributed to luck?
Wwskaf says2015-11-11T20:50:11.1886649Z
If I had to choose one answer, I would pick evolution... But my favorite answer would be: evolution guided by a supreme force. In our universe, laws of physics are immovable, they are fact and not up for debate in my opinion. But these laws are so so perfect and from all the possibilities in this universe, things have worked perfectly for humans to exist. Every coincidence in this universe has contributed to our existence here and now. How can that all be attributed to luck?
Soldier_4Christ says2015-11-18T05:03:46.5499281Z
Evilution is bogus. It actually defies all science as we know it but people cling to it despite that because they don't want to accept that there is a God (and therefore rules to follow, punishments, etc.).
hellypad says2015-11-19T21:35:29.4648220Z
Created by something not sure what
hellypad says2015-11-19T21:36:23.4418600Z
Something created earth not sure what
PradaGirl12 says2015-11-21T23:38:38.4622061Z
Honestly- yeah you can provide me with an explanation, which I heard a few times backing evolution- however. When push comes to shove, your heart, mind, body and soul tell you creation.
PradaGirl12 says2015-11-21T23:39:39.8181860Z
Honestly- yeah you can provide me with an explanation, which I heard a few times backing evolution- however. When push comes to shove, your heart, mind, body and soul tell you creation.
mmartinez36 says2015-11-22T21:01:01.4935537Z
Evolution is a scientific fact. We can, for instance trace the divergence of hominids from chimpanzees to about 6 million years ago. We have fossil and Genetic evidence that proves the gradual change and adaptations of a species. To believe creationism is to not believe the following: homo sapiens are in no way related to homo habilis or the neanderthal. You want proof? Through the study of the human DNA we have discovered humans TODAY who have neanderthal DNA in them. It's quite common actually. If God created man than shouldn't we have an unlinkable and unique strand of DNA? We don't, are Genetic code illustrates the gradual change of our species...Some of them are still present in our genomes today. 99.9% of the scientific community believes in evolution..That's for a reason.
mmartinez36 says2015-11-22T21:02:21.7258966Z
The Theory of Evolution is more true than a fact. We can, for instance trace the divergence of hominids from chimpanzees to about 6 million years ago. We have fossil and Genetic evidence that proves the gradual change and adaptations of a species. To believe creationism is to not believe the following: homo sapiens are in no way related to homo habilis or the neanderthal. You want proof? Through the study of the human DNA we have discovered humans TODAY who have neanderthal DNA in them. It's quite common actually. If God created man than shouldn't we have an unlinkable and unique strand of DNA? We don't, are Genetic code illustrates the gradual change of our species...Some of them are still present in our genomes today. 99.9% of the scientific community believes in evolution..That's for a reason.
Appel-Yoon says2015-11-25T11:08:01.9306989Z
Evolution doesn't make sense than Creationism. Actually, i agree with evolution in species, it happens to our society such Darwin's pinch birds. However, species to species evolution can't improve by scientific method. Their can't explain "Missed-link" by their's proud science.
Appel-Yoon says2015-11-25T11:20:38.3854498Z
Evolution doesn't make sense than Creationism. Actually, i agree with evolution in species, it happens to our society such Darwin's pinch birds. However, species to species evolution can't improve by scientific method. Their can't explain "Missed-link" by their's proud science.
Zexcoiler_Kingbolt says2015-12-01T05:50:22.4426062Z
Okay, leojm, suppose evolution was fake. For now, let's just throw it out of the window, pretend it never existed. Now, care to explain to me just *how* Creationism/Intelligent Design works?
Zexcoiler_Kingbolt says2015-12-01T05:53:31.1701964Z
Okay, leojm, suppose evolution was fake. For now, let's just throw it out of the window, pretend it never existed. Now, care to explain to me just *how* Creationism/Intelligent Design works?
AMG says2015-12-08T19:35:28.7827627Z
It takes incredible faith to believe in the Evolution Theory, meanwhile it's a lot easier to believe we were created by "Intelligent Design". We couldn't have evolved from just one "smart bug" that was able to create millions of species of plants and animals, and the planets, galaxies and all the other celestial bodies.
WhineyMagiciann5 says2015-12-21T18:43:08.2297228Z
@AMG so your saying you believe creationism simply because it is easier???
tiltonb says2015-12-26T15:24:28.3021593Z
The big bang states everything came from nothing. This is impossible without a creator.
Mistystar90 says2016-01-05T21:10:54.5067252Z
I always think it's kind of funny when creationists state that evolution = humans evolved from monkeys, and since there are monkeys, evolution is false. That's. Not. How. Evolution. Works. While I don't pretend to be an expert, I can tell you that we are not descended directly from monkeys. All primates, humans included, are descended from a common ancestor that was not a monkey. Little is known about it's appearance, although it's existence is factual. Each type of primate branched off, evolving differently from the rest. In conclusion, we are not descended from monkeys. We are distant cousins instead. And btw, we are closer to apes than monkeys. (Homosapien (human) is actually a kind of ape.) If you want to argue against science, at least do the research. Geez.
Mistystar90 says2016-01-05T21:12:33.6765609Z
I always think it's kind of funny when creationists state that evolution = humans evolved from monkeys, and since there are monkeys, evolution is false. That's. Not. How. Evolution. Works. While I don't pretend to be an expert, I can tell you that we are not descended directly from monkeys. All primates, humans included, are descended from a common ancestor that was not a monkey. Little is known about it's appearance, although it's existence is factual. Each type of primate branched off, evolving differently from the rest. In conclusion, we are not descended from monkeys. We are distant cousins instead. And btw, we are closer to apes than monkeys. (Homosapien (human) is actually a kind of ape.) If you want to argue against science, at least do the research. Geez.
blackrose156 says2016-01-13T16:56:35.2178143Z
I'm a christian but the thing is that there is more evidence for evolution then for the world and humans just appearing. You could say that God made a mistake with the first humans and thats why bodies exist but God doesn't ever make mistakes (according to the bible.) Also, God just went poof and we were created (according to the bible), there was no trial and error.
spamhunta12 says2016-01-17T04:34:23.1618274Z
Evolution has been witnesses numerous times in modern day... Bacteria evolving to resist antibiotics, rats evolving to be immune to poisen,etc
spamhunta12 says2016-01-17T04:37:47.1041003Z
Evolution has been witnesses numerous times in modern day... Bacteria evolving to resist antibiotics, rats evolving to be immune to poisen,etc
spamhunta12 says2016-01-17T04:39:11.8298727Z
Evolution has been witnesses numerous times in modern day... Bacteria evolving to resist antibiotics, rats evolving to be immune to poisen,etc
Ethanator360 says2016-01-19T23:06:11.4131512Z
I believe in both- that God created what would eventually be us, and then guided the creature- whatever it was, it might not have even been the Primates- into what it is today- the might Human Race!
Stonehe4rt says2016-01-20T03:36:33.8323000Z
Wait who says Evolution disproves God? I was thinking it could very well be HOW God made us Lol
sakiusa says2016-02-15T16:54:52.9640732Z
Where's the one for both?!
Galaca says2016-03-01T02:28:17.4637324Z
I think anyone who does not believe that a loving God reated and loves us all, but rather believes that we are here by chance(and there is a very,very,very, slim chance that we are here) is trying to run away from God. The logical explanation here is to believe in intelligent design.
Galaca says2016-03-01T02:32:37.2415932Z
I think anyone who does not believe that a loving God created and loves us all, but rather believes that we are here by chance(and there is a very,very,very, slim chance that we are here) is trying to run away from God. The logical explanation here is to believe in intelligent design.
rcavlytle says2016-03-03T02:25:56.3819387Z
Is this a serious question? All logic points to evolution. Creationism is complete bullshit, and is obviously so. You don't need much to see how flawed the logic behind creationism is. Seriously, though, is this serious? Who actually said creationism?
rcavlytle says2016-03-03T02:35:18.8855615Z
Is this a serious question? All logic points to evolution. Creationism is complete bullshit, and is obviously so. You don't need much to see how flawed the logic behind creationism is. Seriously, though, is this serious? Who actually said creationism?
semra says2016-03-06T16:43:19.7997149Z
You don't BELIEVE in science. It's either a fact or needs re tested/evaluated. This poll is like saying "do you believe earth is in cube form or spheric form or any other shape?". You don't believe in something like that! You find out the fact and accept it as it is. Either the creator of the poll is a some religious type who thinks logical people are like him (acting on beliefs) or it was deliberately formulated this way to create a stronger reaction. No matter which one, I did not vote because of the way it was formulated. But I bet religious people jumped it just because it says BELIEVE.
DidiSterne says2016-03-22T01:09:42.4153064Z
I recommend that you all visit http://creation.com/ It answers basically any question you have, and many of the writers have Ph.D.'s, so they know what they're talking about. This website is the reason I'm so convinced of Creation.
Godiswithus says2016-04-14T01:51:52.4208405Z
To believe in evolution is to believe that explosions cause intelligence
PoisonIvy323 says2016-05-12T04:59:09.7093322Z
There is no evidence whatsoever to support creationism. Oh, the Bible you say? HOW DO PEOPLE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, WHEN THEY WERE'NT EVEN THERE?!?!?!
124275 says2016-05-12T21:24:30.6208624Z
There is less evidence for evolution that there is for creationism.
124275 says2016-05-12T21:25:51.1329785Z
There is less evidence for evolution that there is for creationism.
Beananator says2016-05-21T01:05:51.5899336Z
There is no scientific evidence that creationism is true, but there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports evolution.
makdu says2016-06-03T11:56:48.4367400Z
If evolution is true your parents must be more monkey than you. And their parents are more monkey than them. So it goes like that... Finally you can find a "monkey dad" ;) If you believe in evolution you must go and say to your parents "I believe you are more monkey than me". Please think yourself. The God says in Qur'an "It is He who created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then from a clinging clot; then He brings you out as a child; then [He develops you] that you reach your [time of] maturity, then [further] that you become elders. And among you is he who is taken in death before [that], so that you reach a specified term; and perhaps you will use reason." Why don't you think? Think... Think.... Think.... Finally you will find the truth not the apes...
makdu says2016-06-03T11:57:41.7110815Z
If evolution is true your parents must be more monkey than you. And their parents are more monkey than them. So it goes like that... Finally you can find a "monkey dad" ;) If you believe in evolution you must go and say to your parents "I believe you are more monkey than me". Please think yourself. The God says in Qur'an "It is He who created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then from a clinging clot; then He brings you out as a child; then [He develops you] that you reach your [time of] maturity, then [further] that you become elders. And among you is he who is taken in death before [that], so that you reach a specified term; and perhaps you will use reason." Why don't you think? Think... Think.... Think.... Finally you will find the truth not the apes...
EagleTalonTim says2016-06-16T04:33:24.3408828Z
Do you know simple math? Figure this one out... The sun shrinks roughly 1ft per year from burning off the gases it is made of. The earth grows roughly 1 inch per year from atmospheric dust. Go back 1 million years and tell me how big the sun is and how big the earth is and see if that would work in the laws of physics using the gravitational pull of the sun. That is just a basic answer. Let's do another one..... Carbon dating is a man made dating system that can supposedly give us the age of an object based on the properties of the item. In order to figure the age, you need a starting age (OF) to put into the basic math formula (IS over OF = PERCENTAGE over 100). This formula is used to figure either percentage, is (current value) or of (highest value). To figure out the age of something, you must get the value (IS) and put it into the above formula. You still need one more value which is (OF). Where do they get this number from? It actually comes from Darwin which was a human being and was a atheist. So carbon dating is based off of some number a man came up with that wanted to prove evolution was true. How truthful do you think this one is..... Refer to reference number 1. Last one.... There is proof that things do change over time. This would allow the use of the word evolve or even adapt. Several things are evolving to this day. So how fast would you have to evolve if you were exploded on land without lungs? Does that make sense? Nope..... Did you choose to be exploded on land without lungs? Nope? So if you did explode into existence, how did you know instantly that you had to grow lungs? None of that makes sense does it? If I threw in a bunch of scientific stuff that you don't understand, it would sound more feasible because it sounds scientific and science is never wrong....Lol. I could keep going, but I am sure this would start a huge debate because everyone has "proof" that evolution is real. Go ahead... Try me. Please provide proof of the last recent explosion that created life along with your reply.
Dburch111 says2016-06-19T17:01:21.3689227Z
Leojm, you are legitimately an idiot. No offense, of course.
TheModernRealist says2016-07-06T17:26:04.6531498Z
If you started trying to count to a billion as fast as you can, you would never even get close before you die. There are 3 billion catologued fossils around the world, and not one of them is considered a transitional form with certainty. Consider Chapter 4 of Darwins "Origins"
TheModernRealist says2016-07-06T17:27:00.9234319Z
If you started trying to count to a billion as fast as you can, you would never even get close before you die. There are 3 billion catologued fossils around the world, and not one of them is considered a transitional form with certainty. Consider Chapter 4 of Darwins "Origins"
Mharman says2016-09-22T17:56:58.4698256Z
Creationism. The proof that God exists is in archaeology. They have found the Wall of Jericho, for one, and some dinosaur bones they found still have marrow. Even more, 50 years ago the was a flood in Washington (the state) and trees were buried under erosion. Just now, their finding coal from the trees, After only 50 years, instead of 50,000,000 years. The homoerectus and apes are the same thing, look at the bones. Scientists just gave it a new name and called it a new species to try to get out of a sticky sistuation.
Mharman says2016-09-22T18:02:15.4014572Z
Creationism. The proof that God exists is in archaeology. They have found the Wall of Jericho, for one, and some dinosaur bones they found still have marrow. Even more, 50 years ago the was a flood in Washington (the state) and trees were buried under erosion. Just now, their finding coal from the trees, After only 50 years, instead of 50,000,000 years. The homoerectus and apes are the same thing, look at the bones. Scientists just gave it a new name and called it a new species to try to get out of a sticky sistuation.
Mharman says2016-09-22T18:04:31.4187291Z
Creationism. The proof that God exists is in archaeology. They have found the Wall of Jericho, for one, and some dinosaur bones they found still have marrow. Even more, 50 years ago the was a flood in Washington (the state) and trees were buried under erosion. Just now, their finding coal from the trees, After only 50 years, instead of 50,000,000 years. The homoerectus and apes are the same thing, look at the bones. Scientists just gave it a new name and called it a new species to try to get out of a sticky sistuation.
Mharman says2016-09-22T18:06:25.5802609Z
Creationism. The proof that God exists is in archaeology. They have found the Wall of Jericho, for one, and some dinosaur bones they found still have marrow. Even more, 50 years ago the was a flood in Washington (the state) and trees were buried under erosion. Just now, their finding coal from the trees, After only 50 years, instead of 50,000,000 years. The homoerectus and apes are the same thing, look at the bones. Scientists just gave it a new name and called it a new species to try to get out of a sticky sistuation.
liam2002 says2016-09-25T00:28:50.5581133Z
You do not have to be Liberal to be right about evolution.
liam2002 says2016-09-25T00:30:36.9975956Z
You do not have to be Liberal to be right about evolution.
Jenae.ross says2016-10-01T17:22:03.5084739Z
There is clear evidence of creationism. Want proof? Email me.
Khons says2016-10-03T14:54:32.7597560Z
There is evidence that there is a flaw in the evolution Lucy was found to have baboon bones in her that fit and if you want me to cite go into a debate
liam2002 says2016-10-04T23:13:18.4924547Z
You don't have to be a liberal to be right about evolution
liam2002 says2016-10-04T23:16:17.7532038Z
You don't have to be a liberal to be right about evolution
DaddyRational says2016-10-21T16:42:35.8599159Z
For everyone using the silly "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" I implore you to consider how there are still wolves even though dogs evolved from them. See, evolution doesn't imply that one species is created and its predecessor is wiped out. In fact, we evolved WITH apes, not necessarily from them. Certain mutations proved beneficial and were passed on through reproductive success, which leads to speciation. The concept is actually fairly simple, and highly logical. Look what we have done with wolves in just a couple hundred years, turning them into yorkies. Think about it, if elephants have mutations that render them tussles, poacher won't kill them, so they pass on their genes while tusked elephants die. Simple concept.
DaddyRational says2016-10-21T17:03:28.0175425Z
For everyone using the silly "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" I implore you to consider how there are still wolves even though dogs evolved from them. See, evolution doesn't imply that one species is created and its predecessor is wiped out. In fact, we evolved WITH apes, not necessarily from them. Certain mutations proved beneficial and were passed on through reproductive success, which leads to speciation. The concept is actually fairly simple, and highly logical. Look what we have done with wolves in just a couple hundred years, turning them into yorkies. Think about it, if elephants have mutations that render them tussles, poacher won't kill them, so they pass on their genes while tusked elephants die. Simple concept.
face1995 says2016-10-24T05:19:53.1940948Z
I'm not sure if there really is evolution. It's a theory, not a definite proven fact. Though I do believe that God created the universe and there is a beginning. I know that the Big Bang is what started all life, but God made the Big Bang happen according to what I believe. I know that many people argue that the Earth is 7000 years old only, but that to me seems unreal. The Bible has been changed too many times. The scientists claim that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, and others say 4.6 billion years old. Again, that is a theory. It could never be proven how old the Earth actually is. It could be older or younger than what the scientists claim. There is this argument that the universe is growing, and that we eventually will see no light due to it being too big. However, they say that the observable piece of the universe shows the light that has reached us, and that we eventually will be able to see a bigger piece of the universe, which contradicts the other one. They go against one another. The astronomers also claim that the farthest distance we can see in light years pretty much is the age of the universe. They also claim that the universe was bigger than the Milky Way galaxy in less than one second. So the real conclusion among whether we'll see more or less of the universe in the future seems confusing and contradictory to one another. Only God knows the facts, again, according to my belief. It doesn't mean you should believe it too, but it doesn't either mean you should try persuading me to no longer believe in that.
liam2002 says2016-10-26T22:03:37.9874521Z
Hey guess what if evolution was true why hasn't my pencil grew legs! HMmm EXPLAIN THAT, HA (its a bad joke, I believe evolution but accidentally hit creationism and my computer is having problems switching it) also leojm you don't have to be a liberal to be right about evolution. I wonder if leojm can correctly explain what evolution is and then explain why she still thinks it's wrong.
zachreitsma says2016-11-02T20:05:54.7940234Z
I am a creationist. I believe in the Bible. I am saying that evolution is incorrect. Evolution starts with one single celled organism. The theory is that lightning from the sky came in contact with the right chemicals and created life. (correct me if their is another theory because I am not sure) This single celled organism reproduced (probably asexually) many times and over much time evolved into multi celled organisms. These organisms became more diverse as they were exposed to different environments and different situations. These eventually brought us to today where we have multiple diverse ecosystems. The evidence evolutionists provide are fossils, carbon dating, and sediment layers in the earths surface due to gradual aging of the earth. My first point is that carbon dating is inconsistent. I have read multiple articles that state a certain rock or fossil is some millions of years old after one carbon dating. I have also read multiple articles where after a couple of years the carbon date shifts drastically from the previously stated age of origin. Also carbon-16 and carbon-17 measures have been taken apart from the standard carbon-14 all with different result. So carbon dating is not reliable. My second point is with the first organism. The theory I have heard is that lightning from the sky came in contact with the right chemicals and created life. (again correct me if their is another theory) This is a 1 to about 1 million chance of this even happening ever in nature. This has been done in a lab, however. Scientists came together with the right mixture of chemicals and created a living single celled organism. Am I defeating my point? No. The simple fact that this could ONLY be done in a laboratory environment further proves my point. Not only that, but also that fact that this organism would need food and a way to find it or consume it. This organism would need to survive on it's own in a place that was before uninhabited. The chances are slim on top of the 1 to a 1 million chance of life coming from nothing. My third point is the fossils. Fossils can be found literally anywhere on the earth. This is not supposed to be the case. For example, fossils have been found on the top of mountains. Not only just fossils but tylosaurs and other gigantic sea creatures. These fossils should be at the bottom of the ocean not on the top of mountains. Fossils have also been found passing through many layers of sediment. This should not be the case because supposedly over millions of years these layers should have been formed instead of fossils passing through multiple layers. My fourth point is surrounding the here and now. If the evolutionist claim is true, then there would currently be missing links all around us. What I mean by this is that there would be half breads walking around. For example a man with an abnormally larger jaw, longer arms, hunched over, and other apelike creatures. We do not have those here on planet earth. There are no crosses between a human and a chimp or an orangutan walking down the street. That's just not a thing. There are very distinct differences between every primate and humans. Side note: the mentally and physically disabled are not half human half primate. It is simply a disability that was brought upon them and are still considered children of God. My fifth point is about the in-between-states. One of the biggest rules of evolution is that nature does not make leaps. What this means is that nature does not go have a mother give birth to something completely different as to what the organism originally is/was. In other words evolution is gradual. If this is so, I would like someone to explain to me how eyes came to be. Eyes are incredibly complex and to say eyes just came from antenna for example is a MAJOR leap in evolution that would contradict this rule of evolution. The eye has the optic nerve, the lens, the iris, the cornea, the sclera, the macula, the choroid, the retina, the vitreous humor, and the aqueous humor. All of these things are necessary to making the eye work. Without just one of these components the eye cannot work. Tell me how this complex structure came to be step by step. This is not the only complex structure that I have not heard an explanation for. The ear, the knee, the stomach, the brain, the heart, muscles, and the lungs. And these are only a few things from the human body. So how do I explain all of this? I believe God created everything in seven days. He created it perfect with every kind of plant and animal, the sky and waters, the stars, space, and the planets, humans, and everything in between. God did not make his creation as young. God created things with age already. Adam and Eve (the first humans) were adults when God created them. This brings us back to carbon dating. God could have created stones with already great age if carbon dating were true. God gave humans a choice. To either live in harmony, peace, and joy in perfect union with God in obedience or to rebel against God and bring about death, destruction, and disease. We chose to rebel. God decided to start again with the flood. God chose Noah to built a large boat, store two of every animal on it, and take up his family and survive. In the process water covered the highest mountain and I believe in the process put fossils on top of mountains. This would also explain the Grand Canyon being a giant drainage system and the fossils going through multiple layers of sediment. This would make sense that multiple layers of sediment would form quickly having the fossils that cross layers. That is my argument. I am open to corrections in my understanding.
zachreitsma says2016-11-02T20:08:52.3075613Z
I am a creationist. I believe in the Bible. I am saying that evolution is incorrect. Evolution starts with one single celled organism. The theory is that lightning from the sky came in contact with the right chemicals and created life. (correct me if their is another theory because I am not sure) This single celled organism reproduced (probably asexually) many times and over much time evolved into multi celled organisms. These organisms became more diverse as they were exposed to different environments and different situations. These eventually brought us to today where we have multiple diverse ecosystems. The evidence evolutionists provide are fossils, carbon dating, and sediment layers in the earths surface due to gradual aging of the earth. My first point is that carbon dating is inconsistent. I have read multiple articles that state a certain rock or fossil is some millions of years old after one carbon dating. I have also read multiple articles where after a couple of years the carbon date shifts drastically from the previously stated age of origin. Also carbon-16 and carbon-17 measures have been taken apart from the standard carbon-14 all with different result. So carbon dating is not reliable. My second point is with the first organism. The theory I have heard is that lightning from the sky came in contact with the right chemicals and created life. (again correct me if their is another theory) This is a 1 to about 1 million chance of this even happening ever in nature. This has been done in a lab, however. Scientists came together with the right mixture of chemicals and created a living single celled organism. Am I defeating my point? No. The simple fact that this could ONLY be done in a laboratory environment further proves my point. Not only that, but also that fact that this organism would need food and a way to find it or consume it. This organism would need to survive on it's own in a place that was before uninhabited. The chances are slim on top of the 1 to a 1 million chance of life coming from nothing. My third point is the fossils. Fossils can be found literally anywhere on the earth. This is not supposed to be the case. For example, fossils have been found on the top of mountains. Not only just fossils but tylosaurs and other gigantic sea creatures. These fossils should be at the bottom of the ocean not on the top of mountains. Fossils have also been found passing through many layers of sediment. This should not be the case because supposedly over millions of years these layers should have been formed instead of fossils passing through multiple layers. My fourth point is surrounding the here and now. If the evolutionist claim is true, then there would currently be missing links all around us. What I mean by this is that there would be half breads walking around. For example a man with an abnormally larger jaw, longer arms, hunched over, and other apelike creatures. We do not have those here on planet earth. There are no crosses between a human and a chimp or an orangutan walking down the street. That's just not a thing. There are very distinct differences between every primate and humans. Side note: the mentally and physically disabled are not half human half primate. It is simply a disability that was brought upon them and are still considered children of God. My fifth point is about the in-between-states. One of the biggest rules of evolution is that nature does not make leaps. What this means is that nature does not go have a mother give birth to something completely different as to what the organism originally is/was. In other words evolution is gradual. If this is so, I would like someone to explain to me how eyes came to be. Eyes are incredibly complex and to say eyes just came from antenna for example is a MAJOR leap in evolution that would contradict this rule of evolution. The eye has the optic nerve, the lens, the iris, the cornea, the sclera, the macula, the choroid, the retina, the vitreous humor, and the aqueous humor. All of these things are necessary to making the eye work. Without just one of these components the eye cannot work. Tell me how this complex structure came to be step by step. This is not the only complex structure that I have not heard an explanation for. The ear, the knee, the stomach, the brain, the heart, muscles, and the lungs. And these are only a few things from the human body. So how do I explain all of this? I believe God created everything in seven days. He created it perfect with every kind of plant and animal, the sky and waters, the stars, space, and the planets, humans, and everything in between. God did not make his creation as young. God created things with age already. Adam and Eve (the first humans) were adults when God created them. This brings us back to carbon dating. God could have created stones with already great age if carbon dating were true. God gave humans a choice. To either live in harmony, peace, and joy in perfect union with God in obedience or to rebel against God and bring about death, destruction, and disease. We chose to rebel. God decided to start again with the flood. God chose Noah to built a large boat, store two of every animal on it, and take up his family and survive. In the process water covered the highest mountain and I believe in the process put fossils on top of mountains. This would also explain the Grand Canyon being a giant drainage system and the fossils going through multiple layers of sediment. This would make sense that multiple layers of sediment would form quickly having the fossils that cross layers. That is my argument. I am open to corrections in my understanding.
zachreitsma says2016-11-04T03:51:30.5653912Z
I am a creationist. I believe in the Bible. I am saying that evolution is incorrect. Evolution starts with one single celled organism. The theory is that lightning from the sky came in contact with the right chemicals and created life. (correct me if their is another theory because I am not sure) This single celled organism reproduced (probably asexually) many times and over much time evolved into multi celled organisms. These organisms became more diverse as they were exposed to different environments and different situations. These eventually brought us to today where we have multiple diverse ecosystems. The evidence evolutionists provide are fossils, carbon dating, and sediment layers in the earths surface due to gradual aging of the earth. My first point is that carbon dating is inconsistent. I have read multiple articles that state a certain rock or fossil is some millions of years old after one carbon dating. I have also read multiple articles where after a couple of years the carbon date shifts drastically from the previously stated age of origin. Also carbon-16 and carbon-17 measures have been taken apart from the standard carbon-14 all with different result. So carbon dating is not reliable. My second point is with the first organism. The theory I have heard is that lightning from the sky came in contact with the right chemicals and created life. (again correct me if their is another theory) This is a 1 to about 1 million chance of this even happening ever in nature. This has been done in a lab, however. Scientists came together with the right mixture of chemicals and created a living single celled organism. Am I defeating my point? No. The simple fact that this could ONLY be done in a laboratory environment further proves my point. Not only that, but also that fact that this organism would need food and a way to find it or consume it. This organism would need to survive on it's own in a place that was before uninhabited. The chances are slim on top of the 1 to a 1 million chance of life coming from nothing. My third point is the fossils. Fossils can be found literally anywhere on the earth. This is not supposed to be the case. For example, fossils have been found on the top of mountains. Not only just fossils but tylosaurs and other gigantic sea creatures. These fossils should be at the bottom of the ocean not on the top of mountains. Fossils have also been found passing through many layers of sediment. This should not be the case because supposedly over millions of years these layers should have been formed instead of fossils passing through multiple layers. My fourth point is surrounding the here and now. If the evolutionist claim is true, then there would currently be missing links all around us. What I mean by this is that there would be half breads walking around. For example a man with an abnormally larger jaw, longer arms, hunched over, and other apelike creatures. We do not have those here on planet earth. There are no crosses between a human and a chimp or an orangutan walking down the street. That's just not a thing. There are very distinct differences between every primate and humans. Side note: the mentally and physically disabled are not half human half primate. It is simply a disability that was brought upon them and are still considered children of God. My fifth point is about the in-between-states. One of the biggest rules of evolution is that nature does not make leaps. What this means is that nature does not go have a mother give birth to something completely different as to what the organism originally is/was. In other words evolution is gradual. If this is so, I would like someone to explain to me how eyes came to be. Eyes are incredibly complex and to say eyes just came from antenna for example is a MAJOR leap in evolution that would contradict this rule of evolution. The eye has the optic nerve, the lens, the iris, the cornea, the sclera, the macula, the choroid, the retina, the vitreous humor, and the aqueous humor. All of these things are necessary to making the eye work. Without just one of these components the eye cannot work. Tell me how this complex structure came to be step by step. This is not the only complex structure that I have not heard an explanation for. The ear, the knee, the stomach, the brain, the heart, muscles, and the lungs. And these are only a few things from the human body. So how do I explain all of this? I believe God created everything in seven days. He created it perfect with every kind of plant and animal, the sky and waters, the stars, space, and the planets, humans, and everything in between. God did not make his creation as young. God created things with age already. Adam and Eve (the first humans) were adults when God created them. This brings us back to carbon dating. God could have created stones with already great age if carbon dating were true. God gave humans a choice. To either live in harmony, peace, and joy in perfect union with God in obedience or to rebel against God and bring about death, destruction, and disease. We chose to rebel. God decided to start again with the flood. God chose Noah to built a large boat, store two of every animal on it, and take up his family and survive. In the process water covered the highest mountain and I believe in the process put fossils on top of mountains. This would also explain the Grand Canyon being a giant drainage system and the fossils going through multiple layers of sediment. This would make sense that multiple layers of sediment would form quickly having the fossils that cross layers. That is my argument. I am open to corrections in my understanding.
zachreitsma says2016-11-04T03:54:07.7706352Z
I am a creationist. I believe in the Bible. I am saying that evolution is incorrect. Evolution starts with one single celled organism. The theory is that lightning from the sky came in contact with the right chemicals and created life. (correct me if their is another theory because I am not sure) This single celled organism reproduced (probably asexually) many times and over much time evolved into multi celled organisms. These organisms became more diverse as they were exposed to different environments and different situations. These eventually brought us to today where we have multiple diverse ecosystems. The evidence evolutionists provide are fossils, carbon dating, and sediment layers in the earths surface due to gradual aging of the earth. My first point is that carbon dating is inconsistent. I have read multiple articles that state a certain rock or fossil is some millions of years old after one carbon dating. I have also read multiple articles where after a couple of years the carbon date shifts drastically from the previously stated age of origin. Also carbon-16 and carbon-17 measures have been taken apart from the standard carbon-14 all with different result. So carbon dating is not reliable. My second point is with the first organism. The theory I have heard is that lightning from the sky came in contact with the right chemicals and created life. (again correct me if their is another theory) This is a 1 to about 1 million chance of this even happening ever in nature. This has been done in a lab, however. Scientists came together with the right mixture of chemicals and created a living single celled organism. Am I defeating my point? No. The simple fact that this could ONLY be done in a laboratory environment further proves my point. Not only that, but also that fact that this organism would need food and a way to find it or consume it. This organism would need to survive on it's own in a place that was before uninhabited. The chances are slim on top of the 1 to a 1 million chance of life coming from nothing. My third point is the fossils. Fossils can be found literally anywhere on the earth. This is not supposed to be the case. For example, fossils have been found on the top of mountains. Not only just fossils but tylosaurs and other gigantic sea creatures. These fossils should be at the bottom of the ocean not on the top of mountains. Fossils have also been found passing through many layers of sediment. This should not be the case because supposedly over millions of years these layers should have been formed instead of fossils passing through multiple layers. My fourth point is surrounding the here and now. If the evolutionist claim is true, then there would currently be missing links all around us. What I mean by this is that there would be half breads walking around. For example a man with an abnormally larger jaw, longer arms, hunched over, and other apelike creatures. We do not have those here on planet earth. There are no crosses between a human and a chimp or an orangutan walking down the street. That's just not a thing. There are very distinct differences between every primate and humans. Side note: the mentally and physically disabled are not half human half primate. It is simply a disability that was brought upon them and are still considered children of God. My fifth point is about the in-between-states. One of the biggest rules of evolution is that nature does not make leaps. What this means is that nature does not go have a mother give birth to something completely different as to what the organism originally is/was. In other words evolution is gradual. If this is so, I would like someone to explain to me how eyes came to be. Eyes are incredibly complex and to say eyes just came from antenna for example is a MAJOR leap in evolution that would contradict this rule of evolution. The eye has the optic nerve, the lens, the iris, the cornea, the sclera, the macula, the choroid, the retina, the vitreous humor, and the aqueous humor. All of these things are necessary to making the eye work. Without just one of these components the eye cannot work. Tell me how this complex structure came to be step by step. This is not the only complex structure that I have not heard an explanation for. The ear, the knee, the stomach, the brain, the heart, muscles, and the lungs. And these are only a few things from the human body. So how do I explain all of this? I believe God created everything in seven days. He created it perfect with every kind of plant and animal, the sky and waters, the stars, space, and the planets, humans, and everything in between. God did not make his creation as young. God created things with age already. Adam and Eve (the first humans) were adults when God created them. This brings us back to carbon dating. God could have created stones with already great age if carbon dating were true. God gave humans a choice. To either live in harmony, peace, and joy in perfect union with God in obedience or to rebel against God and bring about death, destruction, and disease. We chose to rebel. God decided to start again with the flood. God chose Noah to built a large boat, store two of every animal on it, and take up his family and survive. In the process water covered the highest mountain and I believe in the process put fossils on top of mountains. This would also explain the Grand Canyon being a giant drainage system and the fossils going through multiple layers of sediment. This would make sense that multiple layers of sediment would form quickly having the fossils that cross layers. That is my argument. I am open to corrections in my understanding.
Rebel90 says2016-11-06T23:12:09.5820805Z
The question is nonsense. Nobody believes in evolution. You believe in things that are unproven. Evolution is a scientific fact. Creationism is utterly made up.
Rebel90 says2016-11-06T23:13:42.0750734Z
The question is nonsense. Nobody believes in evolution. You believe in things that are unproven. Evolution is a scientific fact. Creationism is utterly made up.
SamwiseGamgee says2016-11-08T01:22:00.7630577Z
Here's an idea. God made evolution to fulfill his purposes. After all, he is a god of logic and he invented science.
Ultrixomnium says2016-11-08T19:25:24.6004997Z
I do believe evolution exists, but, I also believe in a god. One cannot simply make the earth, but, if you are an exceptionally advanced scientist with a knack for patience, then you can cause a way for the earth to be created through means that still appeal to the laws of our reality. Now, this God may understand more than we do about the laws of reality, which explains why some things seem more mystical than others, but, said God still follows the laws of reality and has, therefore, been able to create a world, and cause evolution, a trial by error process, to create new things, and generate the perfect host that would accept the human soul.
Ultrixomnium says2016-11-08T19:26:17.0012356Z
I do believe evolution exists, but, I also believe in a god. One cannot simply make the earth, but, if you are an exceptionally advanced scientist with a knack for patience, then you can cause a way for the earth to be created through means that still appeal to the laws of our reality. Now, this God may understand more than we do about the laws of reality, which explains why some things seem more mystical than others, but, said God still follows the laws of reality and has, therefore, been able to create a world, and cause evolution, a trial by error process, to create new things, and generate the perfect host that would accept the human soul.
liam2002 says2016-11-16T01:56:32.8844194Z
Leojm clearly does not understand evolution
Diane99516 says2016-11-22T18:31:35.3479738Z
I am educated so of course evolution.
tsalyah says2016-12-17T06:32:51.8601254Z
I believe in both...
bland says2017-01-12T01:41:38.5957145Z
V
lbowers says2017-02-09T19:52:14.1101628Z
There is no fossil evidence for evolution out of the hundreds of millions of fossils found. Even Darwin said this confused him for lack of evidence.
lbowers says2017-02-09T19:55:56.1917628Z
There is no fossil evidence for evolution out of the hundreds of millions of fossils found. Even Darwin said this confused him for lack of evidence.
Lunaskip says2017-03-17T08:09:56.4761339Z
I don't understand how giant leaps of complexity come about through evolution. I get the micro changes via individual mutations over long periods of time, but for something like eyesight to develop involving 30+ different genes without breaking the law of entropy just blows my mind. Not to mention explaining the evolution of sex. There aren't even detailed theories on that one. Seems like mutations are nearly always negative too, so how you get so many coordinated, beneficial, all-at-once mutations for complex systems to develop blows my mind almost as much as the waving-a-magic-wand theory.
Lunaskip says2017-03-17T08:11:20.5743232Z
I don't understand how giant leaps of complexity come about through evolution. I get the micro changes via individual mutations over long periods of time, but for something like eyesight to develop involving 30+ different genes without breaking the law of entropy just blows my mind. Not to mention explaining the evolution of sex. There aren't even detailed theories on that one. Seems like mutations are nearly always negative too, so how you get so many coordinated, beneficial, all-at-once mutations for complex systems to develop blows my mind almost as much as the waving-a-magic-wand theory.
Lunaskip says2017-03-17T08:13:43.5965339Z
I don't understand how giant leaps of complexity come about through evolution. I get the micro changes via individual mutations over long periods of time, but for something like eyesight to develop involving 30+ different genes without breaking the law of entropy just blows my mind. Not to mention explaining the evolution of sex. There aren't even detailed theories on that one. Seems like mutations are nearly always negative too, so how you get so many coordinated, beneficial, all-at-once mutations for complex systems to develop blows my mind almost as much as the waving-a-magic-wand theory.
AppleAddict439 says2017-03-21T13:47:46.2858343Z
Obviously, Charles Darwin's most influential piece of his Theory of Evolution puzzle is the strength of his own personal observational data. Most of this data came from his long voyage on the HMS Beagle to South America. Particularly, their stop at the Galapagos Islands proved to be a gold mine of information for Darwin in his collection of data on evolution.
AppleAddict439 says2017-03-21T13:49:40.3062343Z
Obviously, Charles Darwin's most influential piece of his Theory of Evolution puzzle is the strength of his own personal observational data. Most of this data came from his long voyage on the HMS Beagle to South America. Particularly, their stop at the Galapagos Islands proved to be a gold mine of information for Darwin in his collection of data on evolution.
Jacobbruce says2017-03-25T02:39:51.4319779Z
I'm a theistic evolutionist. I believe in both.
lloomis says2017-03-27T03:37:59.7420180Z
There is no real proof for evolution. It is not real science. It a bunch of theories linked together using "proof" for evolution such as "Lucy" which is fake if you look into it.
lloomis says2017-03-27T03:39:24.9804180Z
There is no real proof for evolution. It is not real science. It a bunch of theories linked together using "proof" for evolution such as "Lucy" which is fake if you look into it.
LoverOfDebate says2017-05-07T04:15:47.0725672Z
This is a really tight and tough argument, at least for me. I do believe in God, and I am a Christian, but I also believe strongly in evolutionism. I do believe in most things in the Bible, however, creationism just isn't logical. I do believe in the whole Adam and Eve thing, but the fact that everything was just here one day doesn't seem right.
coldto says2017-07-18T03:40:35.7381446Z
Evolution is not only an extremely well supported natural phenomenon, but also the only viable explanation for speciation. Creationism has no root in science. There is so much evidence to support that this Earth is older than 6,000 years it's ridiculous that a large population of the world still clings to that view.
WWWestfall says2017-08-07T16:05:40.3673920Z
If you want to believe that some one edited DNA sometime along the way then I guess you can believe in creationism. Although it is much more likely that homosapiens were the most successful biped primate to wage war against other biped primates and most successful at breeding them out of existence.
radiatedpoem says2017-08-21T02:56:22.9213278Z
The fact that evolutionists hold a monopoly on the media does not make creationism a joke. There are many legitimate, well informed scientists who upon view of the evidence have become devoted creationists. We are taught in schools and by the media that all scientific and historical evidence points towards evolution and those who object are labeled idiots. Yet if one would care to truly read up on both viewpoints, I guarantee they would be surprised by the consistency and logic of creationism.
CommanderOz says2017-08-26T02:16:48.4044580Z
Whether evolution is true or not is beyond the Liberalism-Conservatism spectrum, so leave that out at once. It's science and logic vs superstition. Damn it.
CommanderOz says2017-08-26T02:18:13.0495154Z
Whether evolution is true or not is beyond the Liberalism-Conservatism spectrum, so leave that out at once. It's science and logic vs superstition. Damn it. Also, evolution is driven by both big and small changes in the DNA of every organism found on Earth and most likely other habitable planets orbiting other stars.
CommanderOz says2017-08-26T02:20:08.8013682Z
Whether evolution is true or not is beyond the Liberalism-Conservatism spectrum, so leave that out at once. It's science and logic vs superstition. Damn it. Also, evolution is driven by both big and small changes in the DNA of every organism found on Earth and most likely other habitable planets orbiting other stars. These small changes in the DNA can result (for example) in a higher sex drive or losing feathers, thus can lead to an intelligent species like humans or extinction.
Leaning says2017-11-22T10:50:45.5812751Z
Can't it be both?
LowTolerance4BS says2017-12-26T19:55:39.4812148Z
Science is not something you believe in: you either understand it (passed the class) or not.
LowTolerance4BS says2017-12-26T19:56:23.3798962Z
Science is not something you believe in: you either understand it (passed the class) or not.
LowTolerance4BS says2017-12-26T19:57:46.4816289Z
Science is not something you believe in: you either understand it (passed the class) or not. If not, make up a God as your explanation.
LowTolerance4BS says2017-12-26T19:59:39.6291542Z
Science is not something you believe in: you either understand it (passed the class) or not. If not, make up a God to explain those things you do not understand.
LowTolerance4BS says2017-12-26T20:15:36.9916911Z
Science is not something you believe in: you either understand it (passed the class) or not. If not, make up a God to explain those things you do not understand.
garlicsauce says2018-01-30T02:25:52.5013077Z
Well, I don't know. For creationism, I do kind of believe this. I really don't understand where and when evolution started, and what happened that start it.
ewsbsk says2018-02-23T18:01:03.1981550Z
Everyone who voted does not realize that both is completely an option, just society tells us that is one or the other. An all powerful creator can easily use evolution as their method for creating the world. If you disagree, please challenge me to a debate. I would especially like it if someone who only thinks evolution challenges me.
ewsbsk says2018-02-23T18:10:26.0868214Z
Everyone who voted does not realize that both is completely an option, just society tells us that is one or the other. An all powerful creator can easily use evolution as their method for creating the world. If you disagree, please challenge me to a debate. I would especially like it if someone who only thinks evolution challenges me.
SMcBride01 says2018-05-14T21:56:52.9788336Z
Does anyone have any concrete facts that prove creationism to be real? All the science points to evolution. Humans evolved from ancient primates in Africa. There is no proof that a higher being created humans.
SMcBride01 says2018-05-14T21:57:36.2220336Z
Does anyone have any concrete facts that prove creationism to be real? All the science points to evolution. Humans evolved from ancient primates in Africa. There is no proof that a higher being created humans.
Peteone1 says2018-06-06T06:43:01.1108435Z
There is no scriptural basis for evolution. Most Christians don't accept it, as Gallup polls reveal, but polls in of themselves art the final arbiters of truth. Scientific thinking, that is the philosophical interpretations that dominates the scientific establishment, has been engulfed by secularist thinking since the 19th century. If one follows the evidence objectively however, we see that the facts don't line up with evolutionary think
Debating_Horse says2018-07-10T18:19:07.8663899Z
I don't believe in the "Adam and Eve" fairytale. I believe in the works of Darwin.
Debating_Horse says2018-07-10T18:24:16.8238740Z
I don't believe in the "Adam and Eve" fairytale. I believe in the works of Darwin.
IDEBATESTUPIDTHINGS says2018-08-29T23:31:08.8659852Z
Neither because i think God may have created the universe and everything
IDEBATESTUPIDTHINGS says2018-08-29T23:32:29.5067070Z
Neither because I think God may have created the universe and everything
hc.pi says2018-09-22T20:21:55.2756940Z
Why can both coincide
hc.pi says2018-09-22T20:23:19.6248940Z
Why can't it be both side by side evolution and creationism
hc.pi says2018-09-22T20:25:24.3780940Z
But I mean evolution defiantly exist
IceDragonSlayer says2018-10-02T00:23:12.9029550Z
You can't solve it; its like a character or person in your dream trying to find out how it started.
nabbithero54 says2018-12-06T03:31:56.1198192Z
Why not both? Honestly, If you made one with both, I would choose it, I'm not just being sarcastic (that was just a bonus).
nabbithero54 says2018-12-06T03:44:59.3204061Z
I think both could definitely be possible. If I had to rule out one, It'd be evolution, But I'm more on the both side. Also, Everyone who says "There's no proof there is a God", Realize that there's also no proof that there isn't, So. . .
424431 says2019-01-08T02:51:30.5429146Z
I believe in Creationism. God created the world. That's the end of that.
Teto says2019-02-25T19:20:42.9686018Z
Too much substantial evidence to disprove it. People should have stronger faith instead of trying to disprove something that seems logical simply to make it work with their beliefs. Evolution does disprove religion in any way.
Teto says2019-02-25T19:25:02.5085428Z
Too much evidence to support evolution. The faithf