Evolution vs. Creation

[taratata]

argh..see how hard it is to be a christian..?? im all alone in this thread..with Mr.Gryph attacking me..

Oh, please. Don't tell us you're a martyr, because all we are doing is a debate. Instead of whining, please try to say intelligent things about all the arguments we have given you and that you haven't given an answer to.

whining?/haha ok.... w.e and i stood my point on everything..and what are the things that i haven't answered to??..

Actually they do and he's a prophet in their religion. They just don't think he's the son of God.

Muslims, for all intents and purposes, worship the same god too (Jesus Christ is a prophet in the Muslim religion too). You really mean to tell me that you believe that God would keep people who've been devoutly worshiping him all their lives just because they disagree about the geneology of one man?

yea..if they dont believei in Jesus Christ than they go to hell..to say it nicely..

 

Jesus Christ = God..not just a prophet.

Bah. Some think the same about you. You don't believe in ***insert prophet, god or whatever here*** and don't follow his laws = you go to hell (or whatever nasty place).

haha..true..owell i guess ill go to hell then.in terms of that person's view..

Now why would I believe you rather than that other guy? If I wanted to go to paradise, I'd have to choose. There is a major incompatibility there.

many people belive in Christianity because they've seen it with their own two eyes on how God works in their life..

 

im not dissing you or anything but hell there are so many more intellectual peole out in this world..

 

you think whenever a person converts to christianity..their life is perfect?/ hell no..its more trouble for them because being a christian is different..people look down on christians.... they struggle even more being a christian.

Please give me a good exemple of how you can see god work on your life with your own two eyes.

and although it is a hypothesis the idea that the world was flat was a postulate (more firm than a hypothesis) thats why so many people believed it given that it was WAY back when in the past

but still..

 

and then there were alchemists that thought they could turn any element into Gold

which cant be done and then there are people today still arguing over what the atom actually looks like so... science is always changing even the fundementals of science is all theories everything that sciecce is, Is based on a huge assumption.

Before we knew the earth was round, people believed in a flat earth. This is true.

 

So could it not also be true that before we knew about evolution, people believed in creationism?

Please leave me a bit of time to find the other ones, I'm getting a little tired. Edited September 10, 2004 by taratata

[Gryph]

Wow, I can't believe I totally missed out on this topic, for it is one I love to debate about. 

 

I will admit, I'm at work and was unable to read all the posts.  So I will just give my view. 

 

Creation has much better scientific proof to support it.  Scientific proof you ask?  Yup Scientific proof.  When you hear about the great flood it really makes a lot more sense than something happening millions of years ago.  Things like Petrified boots prove that petrification doesn't take thousands of years. 

 

Even carbon dating proves that the earth is not even 35 thousand years old because earth still hasn't reached equilibrium.  We see fosils of animals that were still flying.  Surely these didn't fly for thousands of years until slowly they got petrified.  And even if they had just laid in the sand for thousands of years, wouldn't some other animal come and eat it?

 

Evolution: 

 

There are 6 kinds of evolution. 

 

1- Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang

 

2- Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

 

3- Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.

 

4- Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.

 

5- Macroevolution Origin of major kinds.

 

6- Microevolution Variations within kinds.

 

There is proof to only one of these.  That would be number 6.  Microevolution.  Yes, we have seen Dogs give different dogs.  So that one can be proven.  The rest can not.  The rest are just beliefs.  A cat has never come out of a Dog, a monkey has never come out of a elephant.  A man has never ccome out of a Monkey. 

 

Yes, I know, Men and monkey look a lot alike, but there is no actual proof of a man coming out of a monkey.  Scientists will show you all these bones they've found to "prove" their theories but really it isn't proof.  We have plenty of people now that come out deformed, they have different bones.  And most of the time they make up most of the bones.  We all remember the Neanderthal man.  Made a full skeleton based on a tooth which later was proven to be a pigs tooth. 

 

No one has ever seen space be created.  They made up the big bang theory.  A theory where nothing blows up and makes up everything (yea, that's easier to believe than God).  However there were problems with that theory for not all the planets rotate the same way.  So they decided that a huge meteor hit this planet and that's why it rotetes differently.  Aha. sure. 

 

No one has ever seen life come out of something dead.  There is no proof of that.  IT has never happened.  But they believe it is what happened.  It rained for thousands of years on rocks and these microscopic beigns showed up.  yea. 

 

So, on the contrary to what I read in the begining pages of this debate, it actually seems like Creation has better proof than Evolution.  All those fossils prove a great flood much more than evolution. 

 

This brings me to my last point.  Evolution is nothing but a religion.  As you can see, it is all based on beliefs and not on facts.  And it was a religion to make people feel ok about slavery. 

 

This is why Darwin decided to renew Evolution, because it was needed at his time.  People needed to feel that they were greater than their slaves.  So he wrote is famous book "The Origin of Species".  Where he would let people know that some of use are more evolved than others.  Therefore some of us are Better than others.  Therefore it is ok to have slaves because they are under the owner, they are less evolved. 

 

Did you know they used to keep Australian Natives in Zoos because they were though of as being less evolved creatures instead of humans? 

 

Evolution was also the reason why Hitler did what he did.  He believed all the people he killed were less than him.  So it was ok. 

 

But, again, evolution is nothing but at religious belief, and if you think you have actual scientific proof of evolution, then please by all means go  here and you will win $250,000 dollars.  Yea, Dr. Hovind has been offering this money since 1990 and no one has been able to give him the scientific proof yet.  So one of you might get lucky.

Oh man, I just had to print that out and bring it to my professor, we shared a good laugh over it.

 

Anyway, here goes.

 

You do realize that carbon dating is not used to determine the age of the Earth? Probably not. The best way to calculate the Earth's age is using the Pb/Pb isochron age, which is derived from samples from the Earth and meteorites. Also dating the rest of the solar system is used in approximating how old the Earth is. Using those techniques some rocks have been dated all the way back to 3.9 BYA and some minerals on it go back to 4.1 BYA. And fossils didn't just lay in the sand, as time passes sediment lays on top of it and covers it. Just go outside and dig deep enough and you'll see the layers.

 

That's 6 kinds of evolution is alright since it's basically true. Since I am a biology person and not a geologist, physicist, or chemist, I won't worry about the first 4 since I haven't read enough of those. However there is evidence for micro and macro evolution.

 

Nothing can really be proved 100%. However, we can be quite certain about many natural things because of research and study, which is the case in evolution.

 

First of all...how the flock will cat come out of a dog? Why would a monkey come out of an elephant? Man come out of monkeys? HOW MANY TIMES DOES IT HAVE TO BE STATED THAT EVOLUTION DOESN'T SAY THAT MAN CAME FROM MONKEYS!!?! We share a common ancestor and evolved separately. Humans came after a progression of other lesser primates and we are still progressing. You don't seem to know the basics of biology so don't try to argue what you can't explain. Here is proof of evolution:

 

*All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritablility, catalysis, and metabolism.

* Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.

* Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.

* Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.

* The fossils appear in a chronological order showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years, and inconsistent with sudden creation.

* Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.

* Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestors but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.

* Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, whales and many snakes develop hind limbs as embryos which are reabsorbed before birth.

* The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. This consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.

* Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.

* The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70%, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.

* When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.

* The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.

* Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.

* Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.

* Speciation has been observed.

* The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

 

And about the planets not rotating the same way...

1. The Big Bang was not an explosion; it was an inflation. Space itself expanded.

2. The Big Bang material was not originally rotating. (How could it be? What would it rotate relative to?)

3. Conservation of angular momentum doesn't require that everything spin the same way. It requires that a change in spin in one object be compensated for by an opposite change in spin in one or more other objects. Retrograde planets are not a violation of angular momentum because other bodies in the early solar system could account for the compensating spin.

4. If the Big Bang were an explosion, we would expect different spins. When something explodes, pieces fly out spinning in all directions.

5. The Solar System formed long after the Big Bang; it got its angular momentum from turbulence in the interstellar cloud from which it was born.

6. Planets' spins can change considerably, due to tidal drag and precession. If the spin-axis precession is at approximately the same frequency as some of the orbit-parameter oscillations due to perturbations, the spin axis may acquire large chaotic oscillations, possibly making it retrograde. Tidal drag and capture of large retrograde-orbit satellites may also cause retrograde spin.

7. Some of the outer planets' satellites are in retrograde orbits; that is likely a side effect of their capture from drag by residual gases around their primaries early in the Solar System's history.

Source: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Retrograde...es_the_Big_Bang

 

Evolution has much better scientific proof than Creationism. Just try to enter a university with that mindset and try to argue with a professor about that and just see how you will get humiliated. There is a reason more work is done on evolution that creationism and it's not because of religion, it's because it makes more sense.

 

And the use of evolution as a tool for racism was known as Social Darwinism and is a complete misconception of Darwin's work. But did you know that anti-Semitism and xenophobia were around for centuries before and done by CHRISTIANS! Hell even Martin Luther was an anti-semite. So don't even bring up the use of evolution for horrible deeds because religion has MUCH MORE blood on its hands.

[Jjangthekid]

argh..see how hard it is to be a christian..?? im all alone in this thread..with Mr.Gryph attacking me..

Oh, please. Don't tell us you're a martyr, because all we are doing is a debate. Instead of whining, please try to say intelligent things about all the arguments we have given you and that you haven't given an answer to.

whining?/haha ok.... w.e and i stood my point on everything..and what are the things that i haven't answered to??..

Actually they do and he's a prophet in their religion. They just don't think he's the son of God.

Muslims, for all intents and purposes, worship the same god too (Jesus Christ is a prophet in the Muslim religion too). You really mean to tell me that you believe that God would keep people who've been devoutly worshiping him all their lives just because they disagree about the geneology of one man?

yea..if they dont believei in Jesus Christ than they go to hell..to say it nicely..

 

Jesus Christ = God..not just a prophet.

Bah. Some think the same about you. You don't believe in ***insert prophet, god or whatever here*** and don't follow his laws = you go to hell (or whatever nasty place).

haha..true..owell i guess ill go to hell then.in terms of that person's view..

Now why would I believe you rather than that other guy? If I wanted to go to paradise, I'd have to choose. There is a major incompatibility there.

many people belive in Christianity because they've seen it with their own two eyes on how God works in their life..

 

im not dissing you or anything but hell there are so many more intellectual peole out in this world..

 

you think whenever a person converts to christianity..their life is perfect?/ hell no..its more trouble for them because being a christian is different..people look down on christians.... they struggle even more being a christian.

Please give me a good exemple of how you can see god work on your life with your own two eyes.

and although it is a hypothesis the idea that the world was flat was a postulate (more firm than a hypothesis) thats why so many people believed it given that it was WAY back when in the past

but still..

 

and then there were alchemists that thought they could turn any element into Gold

which cant be done and then there are people today still arguing over what the atom actually looks like so... science is always changing even the fundementals of science is all theories everything that sciecce is, Is based on a huge assumption.

Before we knew the earth was round, people believed in a flat earth. This is true.

 

So could it not also be true that before we knew about evolution, people believed in creationism?

Please leave me a bit of time to find the other ones, I'm getting a little tired.

haha..theres only 2 things buddy.. and the two things that i've seen God work in my life?.. i went to missions trip to honduras and ecuador.. my church did street evangelism in the center of Ponceloma... up to 20-30 people gave their life for God and we saw miracles such as the crippled being able to walk.,him being able to dance up and down..and no it wasn't a trick..because i saw it with my two eyes...i dont care if you guys beileve it or not.. i know me and my church did..

 

also about knowing creatiionism before evolutionism. im guessing that we did..because there was christians before evolution came up.. christians believe in creationism.

[Jjangthekid]

Evolution has much better scientific proof than Creationism. Just try to enter a university with that mindset and try to argue with a professor about that and just see how you will get humiliated. There is a reason more work is done on evolution that creationism and it's not because of religion, it's because it makes more sense.

 

what the hell.you talking about?.. i'll bring in a christian scholar.. and lets see who gets humiliated.. sure in your opinion you may THINK that christians we'll get humiliated but why do you think that scientists who believed in evolution and all that turned to creationism??. because theres more proof

Edited September 10, 2004 by Jjangthekid

[Gryph]

Why does it matter when it came out and when you know it? Why don't you believe the Earth is flat and is the center of the universe? That's what Christians used to believe before knowing the Earth is round and is the 3rd planet from the sun. You are incorrectly assuming that all Christian believe in Creationism. Most rational Christians know how to find a proper balance between the two. Pathetic.

[Gryph]

Evolution has much better scientific proof than Creationism. Just try to enter a university with that mindset and try to argue with a professor about that and just see how you will get humiliated. There is a reason more work is done on evolution that creationism and it's not because of religion, it's because it makes more sense.

 

what the hell.you talking about?.. i'll bring in a christian scholar.. and lets see who gets humiliated.. sure in your opinion you may THINK that christians we'll get humiliated but why do you think that scientists who believed in evolution and all that turned to creationism??. because theres more proof

The only reason I said that is because I've seen it happen with my own two eyes. I don'tt care if you guys believe it or not, I know me and my class. See, I come from a very conservative town and most of the kids here believe in Creationism. So in class there was a nice heated debate between the evolutionists and Creationists and they gave in. It was such a great class, I wish we had more like that.

 

And pardon the double post...

[Daeval]

I hesitate to get in on this at all, since it's basically come down to "is the bible real" but I'll throw in just for the hell of it.

 

My problem with the Creation viewpoint is that there are an innumerable number of them. Nearly every religion, from the massive beast of christianity to the smallest tribal cultures in Africa or the south pacific islands, has a creation story. And nearly every one will say that it is descended from first-person or eye-witness accounts, whether it's a 500 year old Moses or some monkey-tailed shaman somewhere.

 

Believers tend to back up the bible by saying that the events detailed were recorded by a number of historians. That depends on what you can accurately call a historian. People were willing to go to great lengths for their beliefs, even to die for them, whatever they may be, and had been for hundreds of years at least, in every corner of the world. I find it easy to accept that a few people, in one of very few areas in the world where writing was relatively common, eventually wrote down what they believed in, even if it was a hundred years after the event. Does this make those writings fact?

 

Well, I guess that's the core of the "is the bible true" debate, but if the people were really moved by the words and actions of a great man (that would be the Jesus), who did (secular) good for the people, what reason would they have to refute a little glorification? Let alone glorification that would reinforce his divinity, the same source of power claimed by nearly every major figure in the area throughout recorded history?

 

Many religions contain ancient tales of miracle working god-kings and influential spirit-shamans and things that are relevant to their society. To me, the tales in the bible are very easily matched to these stories, written for a human-centered time and place, around a great human leader. That he preached a slightly modified, less customarily restricting, and heavily self-centered version of the popular religion at the time makes him seem, in my opinion, more human. I'm reminded of the Buddha, who has all kinds of mythology wrapped around him, but who, at his core, is a figure who becomes fed up with "Hinduism" and preaches a slightly modified, less customarily restricting, and heavily worshipper-centered version of it.

 

So I guess that means you can throw in my vote for Evolution. I do think that the majority of evidence for that theory stands strong, though there are perhaps some holes in it that will be filled in sometime in the future. I believe spirituality, in any form, is overall a good and important part of human society, but that it should not stubbornly resist the findings of science.

[Gryph]

Let me just say something quickly, let's not get at each other throats about this. Let's try to be as civil as possible...I know I need to try a bit harder. It's a tad bit late trying to restore some order after 9 pages...but oh well.

Edited September 10, 2004 by GryphonKlaw

[Daeval]

sure some of it is good..but majority of it is goign to screw the human kind..

*cough*crusades*cough*inquisition*cough*jihad*cough*

 

Wait, were you talking about religion or science?

Either can affect us for good or for ill.

[Jjangthekid]

hey gryph. i understand where your coming from.. in AP Bio we had couple of discussions about creationism vs evolutionism.. and im willing to hear all you guys' thoughts...

 

and gryph what you said about the earth being flat..yes it was christian "scientists" who said that the earth was flat..no?....

 

[edit]: im pretty sure science will..

Edited September 10, 2004 by Jjangthekid

[Gryph]

NO BODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

 

and gryph what you said about the earth being flat..yes it was christian "scientists" who said that the earth was flat..no?....

It was the church that really pushed the idea since that's how most of the people got an "education" back then. But it was also because they didn't really know because no one bothered to do the research.

Edited September 10, 2004 by GryphonKlaw