Forums → WEPR → Evolutionism or creationism

Evolution is obvious but it does not disprove creation but some of the creationists.

I just showed how the two are incompatible.

just showed how the two are incompatible.

You do accept contradictions of it,yet you dont hesitate to abuse to prevail. How very elequent.

You do accept contradictions of it,

Where am I accepting contradictions?

Where am I accepting contradictions?

The Bible's contradictions.

The Bible's contradictions.

When did I say that I accept what the Bible says as being true?

When did I say that I accept what the Bible says as being true?

Exactly, never. Yet you are using Bible to debunk the whole probability against this weak spot of Bible posseses. Pointing a reliable source to compare with was required as i recall.

Doesn't say anything about sea animals going onto land.

It doesn't say, so that means it didn't happen? That's kind of ignorant.

It doesn't say, so that means it didn't happen? That's kind of ignorant.

His point was that evolution shows us that animals appeared in a different order than the Bible does. He never said it didn't happen, he just said the Bible says it didn't, meaning believing in both evolution and creationism is contradictory.

Creationism is nice, but it doesn't work. With that idea, the timeline is significantly reduced. Dinosaurs would have been around 10 000 years ago. If that's the case, then wouldn't the egyptians be riding dinosaurs instead of camels?

True - if creationism was ture, wouldn't human remains be found? I mean there are countless bones and fossils to prove dinosaurs existence, so why no human remains from the same time?

Exactly, never. Yet you are using Bible to debunk the whole probability against this weak spot of Bible posseses. Pointing a reliable source to compare with was required as i recall.

I did that because creation is based on religious views. I would use a reliable source for creation but that, as far as I can tell, doesn't exist. So I'm left with the doctrines where people originally got the idea that "God did it" and point out how those claims do not fit with current models based on evidence. Non of which requires that I believe or even have to accept those claims.

It doesn't say, so that means it didn't happen? That's kind of ignorant.

Armed_Blade was saying that it did say this when it doesn't, that's what I was pointing out there. Not that just because it didn't say it, it never happened. Really it doesn't matter because what it does say doesn't fit.

Evolutionism makes more sense and can historically proven with evidence and the passage of various civilizations.

It's not a belief it's a scientific theory, so drop the -ism.

Also, mixing science with religion is not recommended since it backfires on its own basic principles.

Agreed.

Now with all that said there are points in creation that evolution doesn't touch on. However this leaves the arguments of creation having to face other theories or it being left as the fallacious God of the gaps argument.

Creationism is nice, but it doesn't work. With that idea, the timeline is significantly reduced. Dinosaurs would have been around 10 000 years ago. If that's the case, then wouldn't the egyptians be riding dinosaurs instead of camels?

Maybe human evolve took a shorter time period. There is 4.Murat lived at 17th century, having a mace 60 kg and a broadsword 50 kg he carried throgh the battles he joined, which are displayed in topkapı museum. And 4 big man could fit in his clothes, which is displayed in the museum.

I did that because creation is based on religious views. I would use a reliable source for creation but that, as far as I can tell, doesn't exist

Yes, 'as far as i can tell' fits better.

The theory also a flow which we have monkey anchestors while there is human and monkey existing but no creatures in transition process.

Also have look at this?

2:63 â" 65
And (O Children of Israel, remember) when We took your covenant and We raised above you the Mount (saying): "Hold fast to that which We have given you, and remember that which is therein so that you may become Al-Muttaqun. Then after that you turned away. Had it not been for the Grace and Mercy of Allah upon you, indeed you would have been among the losers. And indeed you knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath. We said to them: "Be you monkeys, despised and rejected."

5:60
Say (O Muhammad to the people of the Scripture): "Shall I inform you of something worse than that, regarding the recompense from Allah: those (Jews) who incurred the Curse of Allah and His Wrath, those of whom (some) He transformed into monkeys and swines, those who worshipped Taghut (false deities); such are worse in rank (on the Day of Resurrection in the Hellfire), and far more astray from the Right Path."

7:166
So when they exceeded the limits of what they were prohibited, We said to them: "Be you monkeys, despised and rejected." (It is a severe warning to the mankind that they should not disobey what Allah commands them to do, and be far away from what He prohibits them).


Additionally, we read that the historical Islamic scholars and commentators agreed with the literal interpretation of this verse:

A. Jews Transformed Into Apes

God transformed these Jews into apes because they disobeyed His commandment and went to catch fish on a Saturday. These Jews inhabited a coastal city (refer to Chapter 2:65). The Qurâan says:

"And you know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how we said unto them, âBe apes, despised and hated!"â

The interpretation of the expositors of the Qurâan is in full agreement with the content of these verses (refer to the Baydawi, page 14; Jalalan, pages 10, 11; Zamakhshari, part 1, page 286). We also read the same incident in chapter 7:163-166 and in chapter 5:60 in which these Jews were transformed into apes and swine. [2]

The theory also a flow which we have monkey anchestors while there is human and monkey existing but no creatures in transition process.

There were several humanoids between the monkeys and today's modern man. Even Wikipedia knows that.

Armed_Blade was saying that it did say this when it doesn't, that's what I was pointing out there. Not that just because it didn't say it, it never happened. Really it doesn't matter because what it does say doesn't fit.

I guess I wasn't being clear
What I was saying is that you said that, on day five, birds and sea creatures were made. The version of whatever that I was looking at didn't show the 'day five' part, I must have missed that.
My original argument is sort of still alive, though.
Sea creatures are creatures that swim. The bible doesn't really decide what an animal that swims would be called. Since we know theropods [the dinos that became birds] were able to swim, that goes in line with our evidence. You've got the sea creatures, you've got dinos that swim, you get birds, dinos die, you get cattle.

Also, there is a high possibility of feathered dinosaurs. So the birds, made first, might have taken some time to start flying [By evolving into more aerodynamic creatures], just as young birds do in nature by growing until they can take the leap of faith.


It is a little twisted, but it can fit in line.
My only issue is that I have loads of trouble with debating this stuff by quoting the Bible. I'm for one not Christian, so I haven't read it or anything. Also, my understanding that I've gotten, whether through religious bias or just research is that the Bible has been changed a bunch over time, so it's questionable.

There were several humanoids between the monkeys and today's modern man

I meant today. There is not even in 10000 years a creature showing tendency to be in transition. As i said I am not agains evolution but the monkey part.