The Armor Games website will be down for maintenance on Monday 10/7/2024
starting at 10:00 AM Pacific time. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Forums → WEPR → Intelligent design Vs Evolution
| 388 | 55575 |
I just now found out about this forum and didn't notice a I.D. Vs E. thread so I decided to make one.
I am a Christian and believe in intelligent design is the way the world came to be.
What does everyone else think about this subject?
- 388 Replies
It doesn't take faith to follow where the objective evidence leads.
Observed changes in a species is not faith.
How the geological distribution phylogenetic tree of life and molecular tree of life all match up is not faith.
How the fossil record shows a gradual change in species is not faith....
Sure it does. How do know aliens didn't come to earth with a bunch of similar species from the galaxies, bury them, and watch the fun?
The only reason i said that is because you said there is no such thing as Evolutionism.
I knew the term existed, but I was saying it wasn't what you were describing it as. It's an irrelevant term created by creationists to group their opponents together into one group.
Please do not use ad-hominem arguments.
I'm not. I was not launching a personal attack or anything - although I do admit 'lie' was a bit of a harsh word, you're still misinterpreting my evidence at the very least. What I said makes sense - you haven't read all of my evidence, therefore you are not completely informed and therefore you shouldn't be drawing conclusions from it. I can't say a meal is bad if I only try the side dishes, just as you can't draw conclusions from my evidence without reading all of it. That's not ad-hominem, that's common sense. Also, an ad hominem fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are used instead of an argument to try to discredit a point - I did not launch a personal attack, nor did I use insults instead of argument to refute your point(which you should drop, as I've refuted it like 3 times, not counting my sources).
Your evi says that is it both Growing and shrinking in spurts, Yes i agree that it says that. But combustion is still happening. So, it would either be really cold billions of years ago, or really hot because of the deference of gases.
Umm . . . no. It would not be either really cold or really hot, because the fluctuating trend could've started right after the sun was born. I know combustion is still happening,but it is not fluctuation in the occurrence of combustion/fusion that is causing the fluctuations, but changes in the intensity/power of those reactions. The Sun is a yellow star, meaning it is stable, and is in the main sequence - it's likely that the sun has stayed relatively the same since forming and entering the main sequence.
Your sources say that. But again think of it logically.
Lol, I am. The Sun's fluctuating trend could've carried on since it entered the main sequence - there would be no wild temperature changes if the sun's average size over the years remains relatively the same, and evidence has shown it has.
However both believing Evolution (Or abiogenisis or w/e it is) or believing creation takes faith.
Faith is by definition belief without evidence. So, if you believe evolution, it isn't faith because it has significant evidence for it. In fact, natural selection - evolution on the generation-to-generation level - is a proven fact that is observable, testable, and so far, unfalsified.
Also, evolution is not a religion. Evolution is a scientific theory and a fact at the same time. for it to be a religion, it would have to be a belief system, not a singl theory dictating a single phenomenon.
Posted May 16, '10 at 7:55pm
thisisnotanalt
7,262 posts
Flag
Also, evolution is not a religion. Evolution is a scientific theory and a fact at the same time. for it to be a religion, it would have to be a belief system, not a singl theory dictating a single phenomenon.
I'm failing freshman physical science, so bear with me here. Wouldn't natural selection be a fact, with evolution being a more radical "belief system"? Just because the most efficient member of a species will survive doesn't mean a dog is going to grow wings and a beard.
Catholicism can be considered the same as you described evolution; a scientific theory and fact. Our theory is an all powerful God, our phenomenon is the creation of earth.
Catholicism can be considered the same as you described evolution; a scientific theory and fact. Our theory is an all powerful God, our phenomenon is the creation of earth.
I've said this many times. Unfortunately, this is not a reliable phenomenon, as we have no solid proof of God creating the Earth. Natural selection, however, can be constantly observed.
I'm failing freshman physical science, so bear with me here. Wouldn't natural selection be a fact, with evolution being a more radical "belief system"? Just because the most efficient member of a species will survive doesn't mean a dog is going to grow wings and a beard.
You misunderstand evolution. First of all, natural selection is the exact same thing as evolution - evolution is really a collective term referring to microevolution(natural selection) and macroevolution(microevolution, but divided by long periods of time, not generations like natural selection). The thing with the dog is a bunch of poison and lies; distance yourself from sentiment like that, and never believe someone when they tell you that's what evolution is like. Microevolution and macroevolution are really the same thing, just looked at differently.
And no, Catholicism is not a theory and a fact, Catholicism is a religion. It is a faith-based belief system, and by no means a fact.
[quote]Just because the most efficient member of a species will survive doesn't mean a dog is going to grow wings and a beard. Catholicism can be considered the same as you described evolution; a scientific theory and fact. Our theory is an all powerful God, our phenomenon is the creation of earth.
Well, you have to take Biology to figure out the concepts of Evolution. Natural Selection is a form of Evolution. It involves the species that is most suited to their environmental conditions to survive and reproduce, while those that aren't will not survive.
Point is, Evolution is not a belief system; it is a system of many different theories of "change over time" combined into one theory. Unlike Catholicism and other religions, it is not based off scriptures and prophets and gods. Your faith is an all-powerful god, your faith is the method in which your god created the earth.
Besides, like this thread, comparing the two is ultra failure. Evolution does not explain the origin of life; evolution explains the progression of life.
Believe me, if evolution was a religion, we'd be worshiping Darwin and the religious symbol would be a turtle. Despite me being 'a firm believer of this religion' , I would hang my head in shame if my religious symbol was a turtle XD
You misunderstand evolution. First of all, natural selection is the exact same thing as evolution - evolution is really a collective term referring to microevolution(natural selection) and macroevolution(microevolution, but divided by long periods of time, not generations like natural selection). The thing with the dog is a bunch of poison and lies; distance yourself from sentiment like that, and never believe someone when they tell you that's what evolution is like. Microevolution and macroevolution are really the same thing, just looked at differently.
I hate it when they lie to me...
Well in that case it looks like I'm all done here. Always a pleasure gentlemen
None of that has ever been seen.
Facepalm
"Observed changes in a species is not faith."
Do you even know what observed even means? It means we HAVE SEEN IT!
"How the geological distribution phylogenetic tree of life and molecular tree of life all match up is not faith."
If we haven't observed the evidence we wouldn't have been able to match the various trees of life together or be able to match it with the OBSERVED geological distribution.
"How the fossil record shows a gradual change in species is not faith...."
Again this is based on OBSERVATION meaning we have SEEN this transition in the fossil record when we line up the various species according to the geological strata they were found in.
Sure it does. How do know aliens didn't come to earth with a bunch of similar species from the galaxies, bury them, and watch the fun?
There's no evidence for that being the case so we can't throw out everything based an assertion.
I'm failing freshman physical science, so bear with me here. Wouldn't natural selection be a fact, with evolution being a more radical "belief system"? Just because the most efficient member of a species will survive doesn't mean a dog is going to grow wings and a beard.
I can see why your failing.
Microevolution and macroevolution are really the same thing, just looked at differently.
Correct.
What comparison could I use?. The electrical grid maybe...
Microevolution would be like looking at the link between the wall socket and and what ever device you have plugged in. Macroevolution would be looking at the main power line going into your house connecting it to the rest of the cities power. It's all the same just on different scales.
Faith is by definition belief without evidence. So, if you believe evolution, it isn't faith because it has significant evidence for it. In fact, natural selection - evolution on the generation-to-generation level - is a proven fact that is observable, testable, and so far, unfalsified.
Wrong. It is not testable, and not observable.
Do you even know what observed even means? It means we HAVE SEEN IT!
Where?
If we haven't observed the evidence we wouldn't have been able to match the various trees of life together or be able to match it with the OBSERVED geological distribution.
I could randomly make a tree of life that said rocks evolved into humans too.
Again this is based on OBSERVATION meaning we have SEEN this transition in the fossil record when we line up the various species according to the geological strata they were found in.
There have been no transitional fossils to be found.
Correct.
What comparison could I use?. The electrical grid maybe...
Microevolution would be like looking at the link between the wall socket and and what ever device you have plugged in. Macroevolution would be looking at the main power line going into your house connecting it to the rest of the cities power. It's all the same just on different scales.
Wrong. Micro-evolution are small defections in the DNA (Small Dog Big Dog etc.) Not 99/100 dog 1/100 cat turning into 98/100 dog 2/100 cat, etc.
(Tell me if i am wrong, which i am sure you will say) Macro-Evolution is saying that a dinosaur evolved into a feathered Bird-osaur after 3000 trillion years(feathered Dinosaur-bird which does not have supported fossils) and then into a bird after another 3000 trillion years.
Disclaimer: I randomly chose birds and dinosaurs i am not saying that is what evolutionists believe.
Point is, Evolution is not a belief system; it is a system of many different theories of "change over time" combined into one theory. Unlike Catholicism and other religions, it is not based off scriptures and prophets and gods. Your faith is an all-powerful god, your faith is the method in which your god created the earth.
Atheism isn't based on a God or scriptures and prophets (Reminds me of a joke: Atheism is a non-prophetorganization)
can be constantly observed.
Micro-Ev can can observed not Macro-Ev.
it has significant evidence for it.
There is no evidence that the big bang happened, No evidence that we evolved from amino acids etc. Because no one was alive to observe the big bang/ us evolving from AA's, we are unable to recreate the (fictional) occurrence.
Besides, like this thread, comparing the two is ultra failure. Evolution does not explain the origin of life; evolution explains the progression of life.
If by evolution you meant the entire amino acids (Or w/e it was) turning into life, (AKA abiogenisis or w/e you said it was) then eventually into humans. Then it does explain the origin of life.
you haven't read all of my evidence
Now i have, you happy?
Umm . . . no. It would not be either really cold or really hot, because the fluctuating trend could've started right after the sun was born. I know combustion is still happening,but it is not fluctuation in the occurrence of combustion/fusion that is causing the fluctuations, but changes in the intensity/power of those reactions. The Sun is a yellow star, meaning it is stable, and is in the main sequence - it's likely that the sun has stayed relatively the same since forming and entering the main sequence.
No matter how stable it is, it's still combusting gases into radiation, heat and stuff. So it is losing gases over time. which would either make the sun Colder of hotter, not both at the same time.
Wrong. It is not testable, and not observable.
Where?
I could randomly make a tree of life that said rocks evolved into humans too.
There have been no transitional fossils to be found.
Wrong. Micro-evolution are small defections in the DNA (Small Dog Big Dog etc.) Not 99/100 dog 1/100 cat turning into 98/100 dog 2/100 cat, etc.
(Tell me if i am wrong, which i am sure you will say) Macro-Evolution is saying that a dinosaur evolved into a feathered Bird-osaur after 3000 trillion years(feathered Dinosaur-bird which does not have supported fossils) and then into a bird after another 3000 trillion years.
Disclaimer: I randomly chose birds and dinosaurs i am not saying that is what evolutionists believe.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Seriously, this guy is either really ignorant to just about everything in the scientific community regarding evolution (even what it is by definition) or he is trolling us all hardcore...
One thing i do not get about atheists. Why do you debate on this forum? If you "convert" me to atheism and it turns out you are right, you gain nothing. Tell me if I'm wrong, but if we "evolved" from matter then we should have no purpose.
Atheists have every right to debate here too. In fact, without atheists, we wouldn't even be having this argument, as evolution is their belief(well, most of them anyway, I'm trying not to stereotype), and this thread is about Evolution. So yea....
Atheists have every right to debate here too. In fact, without atheists, we wouldn't even be having this argument, as evolution is their belief(well, most of them anyway, I'm trying not to stereotype), and this thread is about Evolution. So yea....
I'm not saying it is wrong, or they shouldn't. But i just don't understand why.
One thing i do not get about atheists. Why do you debate on this forum? If you "convert" me to atheism and it turns out you are right, you gain nothing. Tell me if I'm wrong, but if we "evolved" from matter then we should have no purpose.
Another stereotyping Christian... I just do it to waste my spare time. Why does it matter?
And we have no purpose. Your lucky we are here. Now go make your own purpose, like to have a few children, take over a small country, make a million dollars, explore space ETC. The human race has no purpose, but you can make one for yourself.
You must be logged in to post a reply!