Forums → WEPR → Evolutionism or creationism

I did have read it. And it doesn't explain it either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis it does not explain how stuff FIRST got there from nothing....

when yo said how stuff came about I thought you meant how life came from non life which is what abiogenesis deals with. I guess you are trying to get at the big bang. Your argument really hold no baring on the validity of evolution. As I said trying to say because theory X doesn't deal with subject Y means theory X is wrong is completely ridiculous.

Right now we can only go back so far. So the answer is we don't know. There is nothing wrong with not knowing and it is a far more honest answer then god did it.

It is stupid to believe in ANYTHING.

Not true. You can believe in anything, Doesn't make it real but you still believe in it

I disagree. Cause at least the bible explains from the very start. So in my opinion believing in evolution is believing in something more blindly then believing in the bible.

How is it blind to go with something that has evidence to back it up instead of going with something that has nothing to back it up?

Why does it have to be Evolution or creationism?

It doesn't, if you can offer a better explanation please present it.

Um no we haven't destroyed evolution for our species. We as a species will continue to adapt to what ever environment we are in. We have just become better at control what that environment is. If we don't need to be as strong as we once were then we will become physically weaker. Evolution makes species that are best suited for there environment. That doesn't always mean they get stronger and stronger.

Nope. We make things that help us adapt, we don't adapt. Evolution functions through those with favorable mutations surviving longer, and passing on their genes to the next generation who also have the beneficial mutation. Basically, because that mutation allows them to live longer somehow (Obtain food easier, fight off predators) they have a higher chance of passing on their genes, and eventually it spreads throughout the rest of the species over a long period of time. Humans, on the other hand, don't live like we used too. Now, technology can keep people who are incredibly sick or somehow disabled alive, while when we were a species in the wild that wouldn't happen. These people can pass on their genes, and the problem is spread through the species. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, since everyone should have right to have kids and raise family's and have kids, but I'm saying it destroys the fundamentals of evolution for our species. We aren't evolving. Humans are not evolving. We create things to simulate evolution for us, and becoming more advanced, but on a genetic level we aren't evolving. I don't know how to put this more clearly

I disagree. Cause at least the bible explains from the very start. So in my opinion believing in evolution is believing in something more blindly then believing in the bible.

1. No proof, of any kind, that most of those events happened in the bible, other than faith, which isn't proof. Evolution is pretty much 100% science that can be backed up
2. Supernatural events take place in religion. Evolution doesn't really have a supernatural element
3. Just because evolution doesn't really make sense to you doesn't mean the bibles more factual. It all comes down to the fact that there is reliable theory's with proof to back them up, against a 2,000 year old book and faith. I'm sorry, but that's more blind than evolution. Besides, anyone can come up with a theory of how things began, if they don't have to do anything to prove it existed. Hell, I could come up with half a dozen ways right now, and if I don't have to prove they existed, does that make it right?

against a 2,000 year old book and faith.

6,000+ year old, thank you very much (the Jewish Torah)plus, it hasn't changed whatsoever since the day each book was written.

I'm sorry, but that's more blind than evolution.

Evolution: A 200 year old theory with little to no evidence that was made up by some guy who thought it was awesome that finches had different sized beaks.
Creationism: A fact that has been supported by thousands of years of evidence and has been recorded by people as they happened or shortly after.
Which is more blind?

6,000+ year old, thank you very much (the Jewish Torah)plus, it hasn't changed whatsoever since the day each book was written.

I was referring to the Christian version, which wasn't written down until sometime between 100 AD and 200 AD

A 200 year old theory with little to no evidence that was made up by some guy who thought it was awesome that finches had different sized beaks.

You do realize that your trying to validate the Bible purely upon age? I'd think it'd be more of a hindrance since many of the things that were believed 2,000 years ago are pretty ridiculous today. 200 years old actually helps evolution, since its backed by modern science.

A fact that has been supported by thousands of years of evidence and has been recorded by people as they happened or shortly after.

1. Not a fact unless you believe in Christianity, and just because a bunch of people believe in it doesn't make it right.
2. Is claimed to have been recorded by people as they happened or shortly after if they did happen.
3. The problem I have with debating with you is the fact that you view Christianity as a fact. You'll keep saying whatever the hell you want because you believe in the Bible, while I'm limited by reality

Which is more blind?

You. I'm sorry, but saying Creationism is a FACT over several boards while people constantly shut you down on that would pretty much be blind faith. If you would acknowledge there's a chance that the Bible isn't a fact I could actually have a decent debate about this, buy you won't

6,000+ year old, thank you very much (the Jewish Torah)

Try maybe 2,600 years - at best. Monotheistic religion hadn't even developed 6,000 years ago.

it hasn't changed whatsoever since the day each book was written.

Again, just flat wrong. Plentiful translations aside, we have no copies of the originals of these works. Making claims like this is just fallacious.

Evolution: A 200 year old theory with little to no evidence that was made up by some guy who thought it was awesome that finches had different sized beaks.

If you're thinking that Charles Darwin came up with evolution, again you're just wrong. Darwin developed the idea of natural selection, which led to evolution.
This characterization of evolutionary theory is not only a straw man of the theory, but of the entire scientific community. Do you honestly think it just takes one moron spouting off ideas and the rest of the community just follows along?
The only time I've ever seen one person spouting nonsense and everyone nodding in agreement without the slightest bit of thought is in a church. And this is exactly why creationists simply have no business trying to refute scientific evidence on grounds of evidential support or scientific methodology.

You definitions are wrong and what you said looks very much like what I have found on creationist websites that are built on almost nothing but quote mines, straw men arguments, and flat out lies.

These are the two definitions I gave:

"Change among kinds of animals to help them survive, adaptation and natural selection"

"the speculation that all life descended from single-celled organisms"

How are either of those wrong? They're obviously abbreviated, not exhaustive definitions right out of a college dictionary, but I think you're mistaken in saying they're wrong. Rather, you're angry, annoyed, or offended that I attached the same religious connotation to evolution as to creation, and focused on the fact that both are derived from evidence and assumption.

No it's a scientific theory based off physical evidence and observation.

Did I say it wasn't? A theory can be based off of both physical evidence and biased assumptions, and this is always the case with historical/origins science. It's not like evolution has evidence and observation while creation has assumption. Both sides have the same evidence but they both interpret it differently through their assumptions. Evolutionism assumes naturalism, uniformitarianism, and other secular assumptions, while creationism assumes the bible. Who's to say one bias is more biased than the other?

You don't seem to have much of an understanding on how scientific field works. A theory only holds up so long as the evidence points to it. I the evidence we have suggests otherwise the theory is reworked or thrown out.

Evidence cannot point to anything, support anything, or say anything. Evidence is inanimate, it's a concept. It has no view or opinion. Scientists interpret evidence through their beliefs, their assumptions, dare I say, their bias. Long-age geology is biased by the assumption of uniformitarianism, which cannot be proven. Naturalistic theories of origins such as the Big Bang coupled with evolution are based off of the assumption naturalism, which cannot be proven. These biases and assumptions are just as religious as creationist assumptions that the bible is the word of God. There is no neutral or objective standpoint. He who is no with me is against me, he who does not gather to me scatters (Matthew 12:30).

Based on the evidence we have been able to gather all life dies. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think otherwise. If you can find evidence that at one point things did not die please do present it. Also, no the Bible or any other religious text is not evidence.

Even this reasoning is based off of the assumption of uniformitarianism, in a less geological sense. Since things die today you assume that things have always died. This is just as much a religious belief that cannot be supported as is the belief that at one time death was not part of life.

Oh well if it's contrary to the Bible it must be wrong.

I believe so, yes. But that's not at all the argument I was using. You can't prove that humans will keep evolving and that they aren't the final result. I can't prove that they are. They're both religious beliefs.

One is based on observable physical evidence and the other is based solely on faith.

There is no observable physical evidence that humans are upwardly evolving into a different kind of animal, at most there is genetic variety among us. So they're both based on faith. Also, not all aspects of Christianity are solely based on faith. We obviously have to take on faith that humans are the final result of God's creation, but we don't have to take completely on faith that David was the King of Israel who conquered many people, that Israelites were once slaves in Egypt, that Jesus was a real man that taught what the gospels record, or that he rose from the dead any many saw him.

This is a good example of one of those straw men arguments. While it is true we ultimately can't be 100% certain what we see is accurate it's the best and really only thing we have to work with.

I'm not misrepresenting or distorting evolutionary beliefs. I'm not claiming that evolutionists believe we can accurately interpret and observe reality, only that if evolution is true then there's no guarantee that we can, and there's no reason to believe that we can.

You seem to misunderstand the term survival of the fittest. It doesn't mean "might makes right" it mean the ones best suited for the environment there in stand a better chance of passing there genetic traits on to the next generation. As for the argument on charities I don't see how a desire to preserve members of ones own species goes against evolution.

In nature do not the stronger animals take advantage of the weaker ones and do what they please? Why should we care for weaker, deformed humans? Doesn't that just make us weaker? I'll leave that to you and Mike to discuss.

I'm not really sure what your argument here is other then "it contradicts the Bible so it must be wrong" Scientists don't just pull this stuff out of no where and claim it to be fact, unlike religion. The actually observe what's going on then come up with a theory based on that. If someone can come up with evidence that contradicts what the theory says the theory is reevaluated, unlike religion. If the new evidence doesn't hold up the original theory will stand but if the new evidence does hold up the theory is revised or thrown out, but I'm repeating myself here.

My argument is that evolution does indirectly have to account for things like the origin of life and the universe, as long as it's tied to Big Bang astronomy and ages. The theory of evolution obviously has little or nothing to do with the origin of life, only how it evolved from there, but indirectly the evolutionist must still give explanation for life and the universe. They're also indirectly linked by the assumptions of uniformitarianism and naturalism.

Also, Christianity doesn't pull its beliefs out of no where. Even belief in things like Eden and Adam and Eve aren't pulled out of no where. We have reason to believe in those things. Jesus taught these things. Then he died. Three days later his tomb was empty, his followers were claiming to have seen him, and thousands of Jews started converting to Christianity, this wild belief that a crucified man was the Messiah-God who came back to life, and these Jews were rejected from their families, homes, synagogues, and societies because of this belief. It spread so rapidly that Jews were expelled from Rome and Christians were mass-persecuted within 20 and 35 years of Jesus' death, respectively. If Jesus came back to life, all of the Bible is true.

Unfortunately, sometimes Christians and the Church do reevaluate the Bible and reinterpret it according to the latest secular 'discoveries' and theories. When the idea of an old-earth and evolution began to arise in the secular scientific community, the Church began to reinterpret Genesis as poetry, metaphor, allegory, or even throw it out of the Bible. Getting rid of original sin, Noah's flood, and other things destroyed the foundation of the Bible and greatly crippled the message of the Gospel. If there was no first Adam, what good can the Last Adam do? If Jesus paralleled the coming judgment to the Flood of Noah, but there was no flood, or at least a localized flood, wouldn't that be like the boy crying 'Wolf' or a partial judgment?


In response to Mike412

On the contrary, its proven everyday. We know there are no species that live eternally, at least not on this planet, on which most of our laws and ideas are based. We see species dying all around us. If you mean to say that natural causes of death haven't always been around, that's extremely unlikely. Hypothetically, if something somehow managed to maintain perfect health it would be possible, but nothing can do that, and everything dies eventually, whether by "Natural" or not

The Christian proposition is not that some species live forever or that things used to carefully maintain perfect health and didn't die by natural causes, but that God originally did not design death as a part of life, and death was impossible. Also, observing that all things today die can never be evidence that it was always so, not without assuming naturalism and uniformitarianism. The present can only be evidence that the past was the same way if you have the religious assumption of uniformitarianism. So it can't be proven objectively that death has always been a part of life.

Religion, in almost every case, requires some belief in an almost supernatural portion of it. Even so, you can't call something a religion if it doesn't want to be labeled one. Christianity is a religion because it has followers, gods, and [/i]acts like a religion, acknowledging they are one. Its a religious belief because its a part of an organized religion, while evolution is not.

I think, and maybe you could agree with me, that organized religion is not the only kind of religion. Defining religion as something that wants to be called religion or something that holds specific beliefs, in my opinion, is a poor definition of religion. If you can't call something religion that doesn't want to be called religion, then my creationist and biblical views are not religion, they're scientific theories of history.

Also, if by almost supernatural you mean immaterial or metaphysical, I'd just like to point something out. Laws of logic are metaphysical, immaterial things. The laws of logic are not physical, tangible things that you can touch, smell, see, hear, or taste, but they're obviously real. If one argues against immaterial or metaphysical reality logically, then one proves that the immaterial and metaphysical realm exists. (Hmm.. I think I may have butchered that argument)

There's a problem with our minds right there. We believe we can define what is right and wrong, based upon our own perceptions. Our brains could by the most screwed up thing you will ever find, but to us that's normal, and therefor, right. We can't really say that our brains are wired right, but we can say they are wired to function.

Thus, if evolution is true, there's no reason to trust your brain or rational thought.

What if the electrochemical reactions occurring in our brains at the very moment aren't giving us accurate depictions of reality

This is something I think about a lot, but in the end, isn't it still reality? If that's how everything seems to be, its some form of reality. Its not wrong if someone sees it differently, its just a different perception, and still reality. Would you say someone who is colorblind doesn't see reality? Reality is incredibly difficult to define if you think about it.

It's only difficult to define if you think it can't exist apart from our perception.