Evolution vs Creationism Debate

[Medea]

Non-life does not give life. This is science 101. Meat does not produce maggots, the maggots are put there by flies.

Everything that is alive, was given life by another living being. Hence, we give life to our (or your) children.

Your body and soul were given to you, passed along by your/our creator(s).

A 57 Chevy does NOT build itself. It was intelligently designed and produced, so it is with every living thing starting from other living things.

So, evolution is the reason "why" and not the "how". What creator who loved his/her creation, would not give said life the ability to adapt and grow?

I'm a programmer. Sometimes when I create a program, it's a good idea to build in some AI so it can learn and adapt to serve it's function.

Everyone was created and no matter what your God is/is not, we all come from the same one.

So what you are basically saying is that man/life is too complex to have existed without being created by a superior life? Then, under that logic, if God is infinitely more powerful than man can realize and is a complex being beyond our reasoning, then God must have been created himself.

 

[NENALATA]

NENALATA said: ↑

Non-life does not give life. This is science 101. Meat does not produce maggots, the maggots are put there by flies.​

​

Everything that is alive, was given life by another living being. Hence, we give life to our (or your) children.​

​

Your body and soul were given to you, passed along by your/our creator(s).​

​

A 57 Chevy does NOT build itself. It was intelligently designed and produced, so it is with every living thing starting from other living things.​

​

So, evolution is the reason "why" and not the "how". What creator who loved his/her creation, would not give said life the ability to adapt and grow?​

​

I'm a programmer. Sometimes when I create a program, it's a good idea to build in some AI so it can learn and adapt to serve it's function.​

​

Everyone was created and no matter what your God is/is not, we all come from the same one.​

​

So what you are basically saying is that man/life is too complex to have existed without being created by a superior life? Then, under that logic, if God is infinitely more powerful than man can realize and is a complex being beyond our reasoning, then God must have been created himself.​

​

​

Knowledge is power and time is a man made invention. Many exotic formulas workout perfectly when you remove the concept of time.

 

[Seanu Reaves]

So what you are basically saying is that man/life is too complex to have existed without being created by a superior life? Then, under that logic, if God is infinitely more powerful than man can realize and is a complex being beyond our reasoning, then God must have been created himself.

Who is to say. Descartes has a similar break down of how God has to exist, without saying how he did come to be. I mean I never got how intelligent design counters evolution. Since one could argue that an intelligent designer always has prototypes. It is one of those things that I don't see why people have to aggravate about. Then you realize it has to do with power.

I mean I will never deny my church has done bad things. But why should faith in something greater be shaken by those who manipulated it. It is like not trusting scientists because of the many "inhumane" things scientists used to do. If you want to believe in a higher power, be it god or science. I don't know why people feel the need to prove there higher power is the "right" one.

All it does is show an insecurity in your own beliefs. Now we have the calm, logical, and intelligent people forced to take sides due to extremists attacking them for having there beliefs.

 

[Medea]

Knowledge is power and time is a man made invention. Many exotic formulas workout perfectly when you remove the concept of time.

Time is not an invention. It is a conceptualization of a dimension through which events can be ordered. It is what keeps everything from happening at once. No intelligent, sentient life could get very far without realizing the concept of time. Without recognizing this concept, which is used in many equations itself, I doubt we would even know what the word "equation" meant.

 

[shadowkitty]

I think it's important to challenge religion. And no, not because I am 'close minded' or 'intolerant of other people's views'. It's just because I think we should challenge, mock, question and doubt everything that holds a certain amount of power. As soon as you cannot do that anymore, you create scary situations. If you look at countries where power is unquestionable, you see dictatorships and other nasty situations.
Also, religious people have the right to believe whatever they want. But they are not entitled to extra respect. All opinions and views are equal, and if we can question everything - then religion too. If that offends you, you should turn off your monitor and get off the internet. Not because I don't respect you, but because you will get offended a lot. Different people hold different views and online you are going to meet those views. And it will be very frustrating to find out about the Netherlands or Finland where a majority of people don't believe in God or even think it's silly to do so (not necessarily my view).

I agree with Anouck here ^

also..

In my household we are three people. Me the Evolutionist, my Husband the Creationist and our son, who we respect and love enough to let him make his own mind up about the matter and don't try to jam our views and opinions down his throat. It's something that is discussed if questions are asked and then let go.

 

[Irishman]

It's just because I think we should challenge, mock, question and doubt everything that holds a certain amount of power. As soon as you cannot do that anymore, you create scary situations.

I think that sums up things perfectly. This statement doesnt even have to do with just religion imo.

I hope this conversation can continue in the direction of being a friendly and informative debate. Unfortunately, topics like this dont usually take too long to be filled with discrimination, offensive insinuations and just general childish behavior. It would really prove the integrity of this site to have everyone come out the other side with the same if not more mutual respect for one another

 

[Irishman]

In my household we are three people. Me the Evolutionist, my Husband the Creationist and our son, who we respect and love enough to let him make his own mind up about the matter and don't try to jam our views and opinions down his throat. It's something that is discussed if questions are asked and then let go.

What 'side' is your son leaning toward, if you dont mind me asking? I think its great you guys give him both sides of the argument.

 

[Anouck]

I really liked this debate and love Bill Nye however there is something I would add to this.

Bill Nye was not the right person for this debate, you could tell during the whole thing. It just not his field, he's not biology guy. I feel like someone who specializes in this science could've communicated the ideas much, much better rather than someone who's name is a household one.

You could tell where the other guy was gonna go with his debate the second he started. Using testimonials from scientists not in the biology field means absolutely nothing. He's a respectable guy but I'll pick science every time.

Perhaps Richard Dawkins? But he always gets a lot of backlash from religious people. They think he goes too far with his convictions, and after his book 'The God Delusion' people have gotten offended by pretty much everything the man said. They would probably be too biased about him in the first place to even listen to what he has to say. Bill Nye, however, is someone everyone likes.

 

[Anouck]

People who actually believe that the earth is only 6000 years old must have a compulsion to ignore everything geology has taught us.

I think this is where indoctrination and a lack of education comes in. You see, ignorance is not something people can be held responsible for. Not everyone is intelligent or has the ability to learn. But when information is presented to you, you need to embrace it. If you start to deny scientific facts, you need to be close minded to a certain extent. And often that requires 'training', if you know what I mean.
For instance: the very first 'theory' that got presented to me about why and how we are here, was the theory of creationism. I was 7 at the time, and was attending a catholic school. But I was not indoctrinated. So as soon as I asked my dad where we come from, and he told me about science, I simply accepted that as the better explanation. It was the only logical option for me, and was not barricaded by indoctrination of some sort.

As far as evolution goes it is not something that we can see in real time either,

Actually, we can. There are animals (like the fruit fly) who have such short lifespans we can actually notice the changes over time. But macro evolution, such as species turning into another, is something that takes millions of years. So we won't be able to see that. But if you want to see evolution on a smaller scale, just go to a cave. You see the little bugs who live there? Their offspring is blind and albino. Why? Because there is no sunlight inside and they don't need their eyes.

but I would much rather believe this theory over "Zeus made us".

Some creationists use the "Which came first? The chicken or the egg?" argument to try and stump evolutionist theory.

I've heard worse. People who believe in creationism sometimes say stuff like 'show me a picture of a crocoduck' in order to bash evolution. I once had a guy telling me that 'there is no known case of a dog turning into a whale over night'. I mean; how can someone be so ignorant?
I don't judge ignorance, since most of the time ignorant people cannot hep it. But what does piss me off is their arrogance.

Their questions that are supposed to 'prove evolution wrong', such as the chicken/egg story, show us how little they know about evolution. They didn't even look it up on Google. One simple look at a dictionary would answer most of the questions they have about evolution. Yet they have the arrogance to tell people like Einstein, Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Carl Sagan and Douglas Adams that they are wrong. Brilliant people who've studied this subject all their lifes, who are widely respected for their work. 'I don't even understand evolution, and I am not planning to learn anything about it either, but you're wrong Einstein! You're ignorant! You're delusional! You should do your research!'.

View attachment 23962

 

[DrunkenMage]

I feel like posting now.

I think it's important to challenge religion. And no, not because I am 'close minded' or 'intolerant of other people's views'. It's just because I think we should challenge, mock, question and doubt everything that holds a certain amount of power. As soon as you cannot do that anymore, you create scary situations. If you look at countries where power is unquestionable, you see dictatorships and other nasty situations.

How does one challenge the belief of the heart, over the mind?

Science and religion go hand in hand. What created the universe? Some say a big bang. What created the big bang? Some say gasses. What created the gasses? Nothing. Unknown, no logical answer, impossible to find out. There will always be questions science can never answer.

Things that happen in everyday life. Seemingly random, yet constantly occurring. Luck? Or something else.

No matter how much you challenge, how much you mock. Faith remains the same, Science ever changing.

The problem is often, those who are religious ignore. Those who are scientific attack.

I believe in a supreme being, but I also believe in science. There is too much beauty in this world and in the universe, to simply be as what Scientists believe as "random occurrence".

 

[Anouck]

I feel like posting now.

I think it's important to challenge religion. And no, not because I am 'close minded' or 'intolerant of other people's views'. It's just because I think we should challenge, mock, question and doubt everything that holds a certain amount of power. As soon as you cannot do that anymore, you create scary situations. If you look at countries where power is unquestionable, you see dictatorships and other nasty situations.

How does one challenge the belief of the heart, over the mind?

Science and religion go hand in hand. What created the universe? Some say a big bang. What created the big bang? Some say gasses. What created the gasses? Nothing. Unknown, no logical answer, impossible to find out. There will always be questions science can never answer.

Things that happen in everyday life. Seemingly random, yet constantly occurring. Luck? Or something else.

No matter how much you challenge, how much you mock. Faith remains the same, Science ever changing.

The problem is often, those who are religious ignore. Those who are scientific attack.

I believe in a supreme being, but I also believe in science. There is too much beauty in this world and in the universe, to simply be as what Scientists believe as "random occurrence".

Well, it's also because our human mind might not be able to understand it's really that simple. Our world is a fart of the universe, and the universe doesn't care what happens to us. I am not saying there is not some supreme being, but I don't think it's a God. I've heard people calling it nature. Just nature doing what it always does. Maybe it does not think, maybe it is not aware it exists, maybe it is not an entity - but it is an energy that keeps everything going.

I say we should mock and challenge religion, like we mock and challenge everything else. Religion is not entitled to a special treatment. I also think it is important to mock and challenge everything that holds a certain amount of power: whether it's religion or your government, you should be able to make fun of it. As soon as something becomes unquestionable, you create a dangerous situation.
There was a time when religion couldn't be mocked. It was called 'the Dark Ages'. Fun times

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

The whole creationism versus evolution is a bit sketchy to me. Tbh, it doesn't matter how it happened. It's like majoring in the minor leagues. What really matters is do you believe what you need to in order to achieve heaven or whatever other afterlife your God or gods have for you. For me, that's accepting Jesus Christ as savior.

Now for my other two cents about the topic. The whole created in seven days thing could have numerous meanings, so it doesn't rule out the Earth being really old. And Nye's points about so many species, like over 200 a day, branching out and changing, as well as the over 200 seasons was really good. I didn't watch the whole debate though, fell asleep

But, can't God create the Earth and the rest of the Universe aged? Just sayin'.

As for evolution, I don't believe one species changes to a whole other news species or whatever. It has never been observed, and if it has the person who observed it does a poor job of getting the word out.

I'm not sure what I believe. I do believe that God created us as he said he did, right from the dirt, and all. Obviously some animals underwent changes. And then you get to the arc. I suppose miracles are possible, but it must've been quite hellish confined in that boat with so many animals.

Then after they get off the arc, they all go their separate ways, travelling vast distances without leaving a trace? I don't know how that could've went down. Miracles are possible though... did God just snap his fingers and BOOM, done? I don't pretend to know.

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

I feel like posting now.

I think it's important to challenge religion. And no, not because I am 'close minded' or 'intolerant of other people's views'. It's just because I think we should challenge, mock, question and doubt everything that holds a certain amount of power. As soon as you cannot do that anymore, you create scary situations. If you look at countries where power is unquestionable, you see dictatorships and other nasty situations.

How does one challenge the belief of the heart, over the mind?

Science and religion go hand in hand. What created the universe? Some say a big bang. What created the big bang? Some say gasses. What created the gasses? Nothing. Unknown, no logical answer, impossible to find out. There will always be questions science can never answer.

Things that happen in everyday life. Seemingly random, yet constantly occurring. Luck? Or something else.

No matter how much you challenge, how much you mock. Faith remains the same, Science ever changing.

The problem is often, those who are religious ignore. Those who are scientific attack.

I believe in a supreme being, but I also believe in science. There is too much beauty in this world and in the universe, to simply be as what Scientists believe as "random occurrence".

Well, it's also because our human mind might not be able to understand it's really that simple. Our world is a fart of the universe, and the universe doesn't care what happens to us. I am not saying there is not some supreme being, but I don't think it's a God. I've heard people calling it nature. Just nature doing what it always does. Maybe it does not think, maybe it is not aware it exists, maybe it is not an entity - but it is an energy that keeps everything going.

I say we should mock and challenge religion, like we mock and challenge everything else. Religion is not entitled to a special treatment. I also think it is important to mock and challenge everything that holds a certain amount of power: whether it's religion or your government, you should be able to make fun of it. As soon as something becomes unquestionable, you create a dangerous situation.
There was a time when religion couldn't be mocked. It was called 'the Dark Ages'. Fun times

Even if nature was directing things, nature has no will or volition of its own. A pen will always fall if you drop it on the surface of the Earth. It's never going to say, "If you drop it ONE MORE TIME, I will not make it fall!" And something would've had to create it. The chances of everything being a random fart of thr universe is the same as a bomb going off and creating the library of congress here in Murica.

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

Regarding carbon dating, that relies on the amount of carbons present in whatever they examine to have advanced at a steady rate over a VERY long time. There is almost nothing in nature that stays the same over time, even rates of advancement. And then there's the law of diminishing returns (which I'm not sure applies, but I'm bringing it up anyways). So I do not believe Carbon Dating to be accurate. Though there are other means to hypothesis age. Like geology and its crawling pace, and things like that.

 

[Anouck]

Regarding carbon dating, that relies on the amount of carbons present in whatever they examine to have advanced at a steady rate over a VERY long time. There is almost nothing in nature that stays the same over time, even rates of advancement. And then there's the law of diminishing returns (which I'm not sure applies, but I'm bringing it up anyways). So I do not believe Carbon Dating to be accurate. Though there are other means to hypothesis age. Like geology and its crawling pace, and things like that.

I don't mind religion. But I hope it doesn't make people close minded. I was a Roman Catholic, then a Christian, then a Protestant and eventually an agnostic atheist.

You have to understand, scientists like Einstein and Douglas Adams have studied subjects like this all their lives. They are brilliant people who are probably smarter than I will ever be. Theories like carbon dating are accepted world wide, so to say 'I don't believe it' without having done the amount of research they have, might be something to reconsider. I just mean, it is accepted and used for a reason, don't you think?

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

Regarding carbon dating, that relies on the amount of carbons present in whatever they examine to have advanced at a steady rate over a VERY long time. There is almost nothing in nature that stays the same over time, even rates of advancement. And then there's the law of diminishing returns (which I'm not sure applies, but I'm bringing it up anyways). So I do not believe Carbon Dating to be accurate. Though there are other means to hypothesis age. Like geology and its crawling pace, and things like that.

I don't mind religion. But I hope it doesn't make people close minded. I was a Roman Catholic, then a Christian, then a Protestant and eventually an agnostic atheist.

You have to understand, scientists like Einstein and Douglas Adams have studied subjects like this all their lives. They are brilliant people who are probably smarter than I will ever be. Theories like carbon dating are accepted world wide, so to say 'I don't believe it' without having done the amount of research they have, might be something to reconsider. I just mean, it is accepted and used for a reason, don't you think?

Indeed. But many theories are accepted worldwide as pretty much fact. Hence evolution being presented in most schools and textbooks as fact. I don't pretend to know everything about the subject, but no one has bothered explaining it to me in a way that convinces me otherwise. If someone did, I would accept it.

 

[Anouck]

But many theories are accepted worldwide as pretty much fact. Hence evolution being presented in most schools and textbooks as fact. I don't pretend to know everything about the subject, but no one has bothered explaining it to me in a way that convinces me otherwise. If someone did, I would accept it.

Evolution is a fact. Don't be confused by the term 'theory'. Let me explain it to you, because I didn't use to understand it myself not that long ago:

There are actually three different things that are applicable here. There are facts, there are scientific laws that describe the way facts act, and there are theories that explain why facts act as they do.
A scientific law is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a narrow fundamental principle of science. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions and cannot be rigorously applied outside of those conditions.
For example, gravity is a fact that we experience every day. Newton's law of universal gravitation states that the gravitational force between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of the masses divided by the distance between them squared.
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning that describes how certain facts relate to each other, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle that explains natural phenomena and is capable of predicting additional phenomena that derive from those facts.

'Theory' here does not mean the same thing as theory does in a different context. A theory can mean an uncertainty, but in science that's not the case.

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

But many theories are accepted worldwide as pretty much fact. Hence evolution being presented in most schools and textbooks as fact. I don't pretend to know everything about the subject, but no one has bothered explaining it to me in a way that convinces me otherwise. If someone did, I would accept it.

Evolution is a fact. Don't be confused by the term 'theory'. Let me explain it to you, because I didn't use to understand it myself not that long ago:

There are actually three different things that are applicable here. There are facts, there are scientific laws that describe the way facts act, and there are theories that explain why facts act as they do.
A scientific law is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a narrow fundamental principle of science. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions and cannot be rigorously applied outside of those conditions.
For example, gravity is a fact that we experience every day. Newton's law of universal gravitation states that the gravitational force between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of the masses divided by the distance between them squared.
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning that describes how certain facts relate to each other, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle that explains natural phenomena and is capable of predicting additional phenomena that derive from those facts.

'Theory' here does not mean the same thing as theory does in a different context. A theory can mean an uncertainty, but in science that's not the case.

View attachment 23991

Oops, typed without thinking again. I meant Evolution as one animal changing to a whole new one is a theory. But I understand things do evolve and adapt in at least small ways.

 

[Anouck]

But many theories are accepted worldwide as pretty much fact. Hence evolution being presented in most schools and textbooks as fact. I don't pretend to know everything about the subject, but no one has bothered explaining it to me in a way that convinces me otherwise. If someone did, I would accept it.

Evolution is a fact. Don't be confused by the term 'theory'. Let me explain it to you, because I didn't use to understand it myself not that long ago:

There are actually three different things that are applicable here. There are facts, there are scientific laws that describe the way facts act, and there are theories that explain why facts act as they do.
A scientific law is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a narrow fundamental principle of science. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions and cannot be rigorously applied outside of those conditions.
For example, gravity is a fact that we experience every day. Newton's law of universal gravitation states that the gravitational force between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of the masses divided by the distance between them squared.
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning that describes how certain facts relate to each other, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle that explains natural phenomena and is capable of predicting additional phenomena that derive from those facts.

'Theory' here does not mean the same thing as theory does in a different context. A theory can mean an uncertainty, but in science that's not the case.

View attachment 23991

Oops, typed without thinking again. I meant Evolution as one animal changing to a whole new one is a theory. But I understand things do evolve and adapt in at least small ways.

That's what I meant. That theory of evolution is considered a fact. Because natural adaption is evolution too. All these tiny changes can influence an entire species over a longer period of time.
And that 'long period of time' is key. One species doesn't change into another over night. It takes millions of years. But fossils of animals show us exactly how the transition went.
It also has to be functional. Like a dog won't turn into a whale just like that. That wouldn't make any sense.

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

Evolution is a fact. Don't be confused by the term 'theory'. Let me explain it to you, because I didn't use to understand it myself not that long ago:

There are actually three different things that are applicable here. There are facts, there are scientific laws that describe the way facts act, and there are theories that explain why facts act as they do.
A scientific law is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a narrow fundamental principle of science. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions and cannot be rigorously applied outside of those conditions.
For example, gravity is a fact that we experience every day. Newton's law of universal gravitation states that the gravitational force between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of the masses divided by the distance between them squared.
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning that describes how certain facts relate to each other, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle that explains natural phenomena and is capable of predicting additional phenomena that derive from those facts.

'Theory' here does not mean the same thing as theory does in a different context. A theory can mean an uncertainty, but in science that's not the case.

View attachment 23991

Oops, typed without thinking again. I meant Evolution as one animal changing to a whole new one is a theory. But I understand things do evolve and adapt in at least small ways.

That's what I meant. That theory of evolution is considered a fact. Because natural adaption is evolution too. All these tiny changes can influence an entire species over a longer period of time.
And that 'long period of time' is key. One species doesn't change into another over night. It takes millions of years. But fossils of animals show us exactly how the transition went.
It also has to be functional. Like a dog won't turn into a whale just like that. That wouldn't make any sense.

Nonsense! Who wouldn't want to be a whale?!