Creation or Evolution?, Which do you believe in? Options

[*steve330*]

and you look like a fag. Your turn

[Simba]

It's not one or the other, it's both.

I don't understand why people can't comprehend that concept.

[NoSex]

and you look like a fag. Your turn

What a shallow response.
I call everyone a moron, and you retaliate with such petty shit.
Boring.
At least insult my character, christ.

[illriginal]

I don't understand why people can't comprehend that concept.

It's ok, let them be... most of the time they're useless and will only drag you down with their ignorance :D

[1angel3]

^^ I agree a 100%

[Simba]

Ok, well on the contrary (even though I half agree with you =P), as irrational as it sounds, I still feel like it's a "duty" or something to let everyone know the "truth." If ya know what I mean.

But you're right, some people just aren't interested.

[chibichi15]

I believe in creation.

[1angel3]

Learning about evolution in biology, it does make a lot of sence. They both make sence, which do I believe, I'm not sure.

[illriginal]

Ok, well on the contrary (even though I half agree with you =P), as irrational as it sounds, I still feel like it's a "duty" or something to let everyone know the "truth." If ya know what I mean.

But you're right, some people just aren't interested.

Oh don't get me wrong, it is in fact our duty to teach religion. But I'm not gonna force it down someone's throat. As soon as they seem not interested, I'll give up on them and let them figure it out for themselves. Or maybe someone else can handle them. When it comes to religion, and I know it's a very touchy subject, I just lose most of my patience. Because I already know I'm saved and I just feel too selfish/lazy to help the next person who realistically needs it, but consciously they don't want it.

[Peanups]

Creation,,

why?

"First,,
"It has been scientifically demonstrated that life never comes from nonlife"
Second
"intelligent life needs an intelligent cause."
Third
"the idea that life arose purely by chance is unscientific."
Fourth
"some experts in the field of biology have shown the evolutionary model of the origins of first life (chemical evolution) to be false)"

"Problems with Evolution

-if evolutionist were corret, thousands of fossils should have been preserved, showing a transition from one kind into another.
(Fossil records support creation)

-discoveries show that animals appear fully formed and not in 'transition.'

-Even Darwin found it hard to believe that the eye could be formed by natural selection when he asserted, 'to suppose the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.'
-systemic changes that occur between different kinds of animals-such as from fish to amphibian or ape to human-must be completed all at once not gradually. the internal system of an animal is such that changes from one kind to another must be immediate or else the animal will die.
Example: a person can make minor changes in a car gradually, over time, without altering its basic type. Gradual changes can be made in the shape of the fenders, the car's color, and its trim. But if a change is made in the size of the piston, this involves simultaneous changes in the cam shaft, block, cooling system, engine compartment and other systems. Otherwise the new system will not function. This is the reason why no fossils support a gradual change from one kind of life to another (macroevolution).

-different animal types may have similar bodily appearances-such as apes and humans-but this does not automatically make them ancestors, anymore than a bird and an airplane have genetic linkage because of similar body design. Body shape has no necessary connection with common ancestry. Rather, similar body types point to a common Creator that suited animals and humans for a similar living environment."

What about the discoveries of "missing links?"

-piltdown man
This discovery by Charles Dawson in 1912 was said to be evidence of a half-million-year-old ape-man. However, in 1953 it was found out that Piltdown Man was a fake. When the evidence was examined more carefully, scientist discovered that it had been altered to give the appearance of age when actually the jawbone was that of an orangutan.

-nebraska man
In 1922 a tooth was found on a farm in Nebraska. Initially it was said to be a tooth of a 1 million year old ape-man. Later, geologist Harold Cook found another tooth, similar to the first one, attached to a skull, which was found to belong to a rare pig.

-peking man
The evidence for Peking Man has disappeared since 1941. There are serious problems with believing that Peking Man was an ape-man becausse he died by a blow from a sharp object, which is highly unlikely cause of death for a pre-human.

-java man
"This alleged missing link was discovered by Eugene Dubois's expedition in 1891 along the SOlo River in Java (now Indonesia). The fossil evidence for Java Man indication to some scientists that it lived 500,000 years ago.. However, a closer look at the initial dating process and skull cap and femur bones suggest that it is either a human or ape buy not both.

-lucy
In 1974 while in Ethiopia, Donald Johanson discovered the remains of an animal that allegedly lived more than 3 million years ago. It is still debated whether Lucy is a small human or a chimpanzee.

-ramapithecus
In 1932 several teeth and jawbones were found in India. These were thought to belong to an early ape-man dating from about 14-million years ago. However, anthropologists have since discovered that they belong to an ape.

-neanderthal man
Neanderthal Man was thought to be the remains of an early ape-man. But recent studies have provided convincing evidence that he was a hunched man who suffered from a vitamin D deficiency."

-All information is from a quoted from TruthQuest Living Loud Defending Your Faith

[*ersatz*]

NEWSFLASH

The evolutionary theory 1) does not propose that life came from nowhere and, for that matter, 2) does not propose a theory of the origin of life at all.

Now, if you are referring to the Big Bang Theory, it is commonly accepted that meteors hit the earth and some of them contained the necessary portions (nucleotides) of DNA, came together and made a sort of "DNA soup" and from there evolved life.

Go look it up.

[Peanups]

NEWSFLASH

The evolutionary theory 1) does not propose that life came from nowhere and, for that matter, 2) does not propose a theory of the origin of life at all.

Now, if you are referring to the Big Bang Theory, it is commonly accepted that meteors hit the earth and some of them contained the necessary portions (nucleotides) of DNA, came together and made a sort of "DNA soup" and from there evolved life.

Go look it up.

I'm not sure if you are referring to me or not because I don't recall saying that evolution or the big bang theory was created from nothing,

but if we are speaking of origins, if the big bang theory were correct, then that would mean that evolution would have to occur, so either way we are going back to evolution, which I clearly explained that it is faulty above...

anyways, theres always a question of where the earth came from for the meteors to hit and where the meteors came from to hit the earth, but I really don't feel like getting into that.

[*ersatz*]

BIG
BANG
THEORY

You know stars, and how they're made from gases and stuff, that formed from the stuff from other exploding stars? Explooooodddiiiiing stars? Yeah, some stars exploded, the gas turned into solid, BABADABA planets and meteors. Like, the sun's gonna explode eventually and maybe create a new solar system cause it's a star like that. STARS GO BANG.

And I said that because with your first "point", life can't come from nothing, I think it's clear what you were referring to. Don't be coy.

[sadolakced acid]

It's not my duty to inform you of the errors of your thoughts, but merely my pleasure of ignoring them.

Don't believe everything you're told.

[brooklyneast05]

Don't believe everything you're told.

obviously
that goes both ways

[Peanups]

BIG
BANG
THEORY

You know stars, and how they're made from gases and stuff, that formed from the stuff from other exploding stars? Explooooodddiiiiing stars? Yeah, some stars exploded, the gas turned into solid, BABADABA planets and meteors. Like, the sun's gonna explode eventually and maybe create a new solar system cause it's a star like that. STARS GO BANG.

And I said that because with your first "point", life can't come from nothing, I think it's clear what you were referring to. Don't be coy.

i feel as if your avoiding the real question of the faults of evolution and the faults of the origin of the universe. If it came from stars or whatever you are talking about above, where did the stars come from? The universe didn't always exsist, it's been scientically proven, and since you are avoiding the answer to the quesiton, I am just going to automatically assume this.

Oh yeah, you said that the meteors came and hit the earth which made a "DNA soup,," then where did those nucleotides of DNA come from, what is the origin of LIFE from the universe, either way there is going to be a point where there is nothing, which did create something, which somehow created DNA soup which then the soup found another soup to marry and make baby soups,,, haha this sounds funny, sorry, i'll try to be more serious.

Please it seems like you believe in the big bang theory or evolution (if not please state) so if you could please refute my information above, thanks

Don't believe everything you're told.

Yes, and I totally agree with that, but that applies both to evolution and creation right?

[NoSex]

"First,,
"It has been scientifically demonstrated that life never comes from nonlife"

Do you even know what a scientific demonstration is? What you're referring to, I assume, is the theory of Spontaneous Generation. Well, certainly Spontaneous Generation has been discounted and discarded as a legitimate theory for the origin of certain forms of life, specifically maggots and flies. But, we're talking about putting a piece of meat in a sealed container and finding that no flies appear within the container, not at least until a fly or several flies are added to the system. We found that maggots come from flies and flies from maggots. This theory was discarded because there was a direct observation which denied the original model, the initial hypothesis. And, that's how science works: It moves from observation, to hypothesis, to testing, to conclusion.

What you're suggesting is that, somehow, science could determine that something could never happen merely because it has yet to be observed. As science operates on a rationalist philosophy and an empiricist ideal, such a request is impossible. Science can never demonstrate that something can never happen.

Science hasn't demonstrated such a thing because it can't, and neither can anyone for that matter. However, we have been able to demonstrate that the fundamental building blocks of life can be created from a primitive early earth environment and model. Read a book, it's called The Urey Miller Experiment.

This first point does demonstrate something though: Your complete ignorance of both science and evolution.

Second
"intelligent life needs an intelligent cause."

This premise has so many issues that it's really just embarrassing. First of all, how could you ever know such a thing? Are you so profoundly intimate with the creation of intelligent life that you know for certain that it had to, must be, no other way but to have been, created by another intelligence? But, beyond your problem of justification and unsubstantiation, you have a problem of contradiction.

If this premise is true you can't posit that God is uncreated, unless you want to prescribe him as unintelligent, in which case, he couldn't be held responsible for intelligent life himself. If you want to say God created man, then, given the same premise, you have to argue that another intelligence created God. Further, you have to argue that yet another intelligence created the intelligence that created God ad infinitum.

You suck.

Third
"the idea that life arose purely by chance is unscientific."

Another great misrepresentation of science. You already demonstrated that you know nothing about science so this can't come as any surprise, really. Alright, you're referring to abiogenesis. Well, surprise surprise, abiogenesis isn't actually just a "chance" ordeal. Certainly, there is a great deal of chance involved in all aspects of life, but when a scientist describes abiogenesis he is speaking with the assumption of the axiom of identity. Certain bodies have certain properties and will act according to those properties. This lends towards directional probability: things tend to act uniformly. So, first of all, most of the things people think of as "pure chance" (abiogenesis, evolution, etc. etc.) often aren't.

And, if we are talking about directional probability, you have to demonstrate that the probability of life arising is so unlikely that it isn't even worth consideration. Because, as of the current scientific model, it isn't so unlikely given the early conditions of the earth, the nature of amino acids, and the vastness of the universe.

But, your most offensive claim is that something spectacular arising from chance is somehow unscientific. It most certainly isn't, we recognize and accept that amazingly formed and ordered things do indeed come from chance. From meteorology, to geography, to stellar evolution. Science is a consistent observer of this phenomena. Watch a star super nova and I dare you, double dog dare you, to say what you just did again.

Fourth
"some experts in the field of biology have shown the evolutionary model of the origins of first life (chemical evolution) to be false)"

None I'm familiar with. But, people disagree all the time, doesn't really mean much.
Not to mention, argument from authority.

-if evolutionist were corret, thousands of fossils should have been preserved, showing a transition from one kind into another.
(Fossil records support creation)

Our fossil records are really great for our expectations. Animal remains are things which are rarely preserved. It isn't exactly common that remains are fossilized, let alone ideally preserved. It just doesn't happen so often. And, it is likely we have thousands and thousands and thousands of years missing within the fossil record, this is something we would expect. However, what we have found is that transitional fossils are abundant and that the fossil record wholly supports an evolutionist model.

-discoveries show that animals appear fully formed and not in 'transition.'

You have no idea what evolution is, do you?
Whale Transition: From Land to Sea.

-Even Darwin found it hard to believe that the eye could be formed by natural selection when he asserted, 'to suppose the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.'

Firstly, what does this have to do with anything? Even if Darwin abandoned evolution and took up creationism, that would, in no way, support your case. Further, you're quoting out of context, a rather popular creationist tactic. I would like to believe you aren't aware of the fact that Darwin then goes on for pages and pages describing exactly how he believes that the eye evolved. And, that he goes on and on about how although it appears amazing and improbable, it is actually very easily explained. Notice Darwin admits it "seems" absurd. He never admits that it is absurd.

Cause, if you are aware of the context of quote, you shouldn't be using it. It's dishonest, and ugly. Really, this just sums up the entire creationist argument here: Lie, cheat, distort, misrepresent, and intimidate.

This is pathetic.

[Peanups]

I'd like to further my statements then, and I'll try to fully answer you, these are quoted from a book

"
First, it has been scientifically demonstrated that life never comes from nonlife.
We could ask an evolutionist to furnish an example of life emerging from nonliving things, whether observed in nature or in the laboratory without intelligent intervention, but even the pasteurization process has confirmed that life cannoy come into existence where there is no life. When Lous Pasteur killed all bacterial life by sterilizing his test ube and placing a seal around the lid, he showed the scientific community that life could not emerge from a nonliving environment.

On the other hand, we Christians can adequately account for the cause of life. God qualifies as the first cause of life because it takes life to give life, and God is life. Furthermore, what is more reasonable to blieveL that life begets life or that nonlife begets life? Have you ever seen a rock bear fruit?"

Second, intelligent life needs an intelligent cause. It is unreasonable to believe that intelligent life arose from a nonliving, unintelligent cause. Did the information in Webster's Dictionary come together by a gust of wind in a paper mill? No. Were Shakespeare's plays composed by an explosion in a printing shop? No. Did the presidential faces on Mount Rushmore emerge as the result of wind and rain erosion? Of course not! All of these examples were vreated by an intelligent cause. In other words, it is unreasonable to believe that an intelligent life was caused by nonintelligent natural forces.

Third,... the idea that life arose purely by chance is unscientific. Science prides itself on observation and experimentation, not on reasoning based on chance. Besides, the odds of life beginning by chance are very low-and for all practical purposes, zero. Some have calculated the chance to be 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. that's more atoms than there are in the universe! It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in a supernatual creator.

Information on Supernovas
Yes^ i know this isn't what you were talking about

Okay, yes, supernovas may be unlikely and random, but are the chances of a supernova as astounding as the chances of evolution?

Oh yes, and supernovas actually support creationism.

Pasteur's experiment is still accepted as proof against abiogenesis. But this leaves evolutionists with no source for small "simple" organisms -- a key part of their mechanistic Weltanschauung, or world-view. Several schemes involving panspermia were proposed. These said that life seeds had been imported from outer space via comets or meteorites, or even by interplanetary travelers. This falls into the realm of science fiction -- there's no evidence of such a far-out happening, and much evidence against it. Some simple organic molecules have been found in meteorites, but nothing even remotely capable of life. Space is filled with deadly radiation that would destroy any form of lifelike molecules.

Proponents of evolution were left with only one chance. In 1924 Alexander Oparin suggested that maybe simple chemicals, under the right conditions, might spontaneously form complex organic molecules, and these might then combine to form simple living cells. J.B.S. Haldane, Harold Urey and others elaborated this idea, and many scientists began trying to explain how such a spontaneous decrease in entropy (an obvious violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics) might actually happen. It quickly became apparent that this would require a reducing atmosphere, that is, one that was rich in hydrogen but that had no free oxygen. Other planets have been observed to have such an atmosphere, but all evidence still shows this was never true on the earth. Yet this has become the orthodox scientific description of our early earth -- in spite of evidence to the contrary, they maintain that we must have had a reducing atmosphere at one time, because without it life couldn't have evolved! This is truly scientific faith in action!

Fourth, some experts in the field of biology have shown the evolutionary omdel of the origins of first life (chemical evolutoin) to be false.... Taking up that challenge, Micheal Behe..., biochemistry professor at Lehigh University, has demonstrated that a living cell shows marks of intellifent design. In his book Darwin's Black Box, Behe provides strong evidence that a living cell could not have originated by evolutionary processes because the cell needs all of its parts functioning togeher at the same time for its survival. This means that the cell could not have come together in stages over long periods of time because if could not have survived with only part of its necessary components intact. With a cell, it's either all or nothing.
Dr Behe illustrates this point by using a mousetrap. If any one part of the mousetrap is missing or not functioning, it iwll not work as a whole. It is same with a living cell. It must have all its parts functioning and in place at one time or it dies. This new discovery challenges evolution by demonstrating that life must have been created fully formed as the Book of Genesis indicates.

To the fossils:
Discoveries show that animals appear fully formed and not in "transition," as evolutionist claim. These preserved fossils appear suddenly within the geological column and not spread over long periods of time....

For whales,

Click here for information against whale evolution

Simpler:
Whale gaps

For the quote:

Simply stated that one of the "founding fathers" of evolution even was skeptic, not really evidence, and not intended as any, but just there as a quote.

Information on the eye

References,
Truth Question Living Loud Defending Your Faith
Creation Bits Number 13

Science can never demonstrate that something can never happen.

Can two men/women have sexual intercourse and produce a baby? Uh no.

Can science prove this, let me use your quote and follow the procedure

And, that's how science works: It moves from observation, to hypothesis, to testing, to conclusion.

Hypothesis:
Two Men/Woman cannot create another life form without the other sex.
Testing:
Two Men/Woman have sexual intercourse together.
Wait alloted time for baby to be born
Conclusion:
No Baby Born, can this even happen?
Simple answer: No.

[brooklyneast05]

i think u missed everything that NoSex just explained.

no offense peanups but i don't understand the way u "debate"
u did this same thing in the global warming topic, u simply copied over a bunch of text from some another source. with very little explanation on ur part. it confuses me


"Science can never demonstrate that something can never happen."

this statement IS true, i think it goes against common sense to say it isn't. if u disagree with it, then i don't think u understand it

[dustbunny]

says it all

[xKatt]

Peanups, your source is a book about 'defending one's faith'. Do you really think that the information they give you is going to be accurate? In fact, I can see that pretty much all the things you quoted were complete jargon.

Let's take that quote from Darwin. First of all, it's a misquote from Darwin's On the Origin of Species, 6th Edition.

Here's what he's actually saying. He's not "admitting" anything. He's talking about the evolution of the eyes. Make your own decisions, don't mimic religious leaders':

ORGANS OF EXTREME PERFECTION AND COMPLICATION.
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

[Wlfgrl7777]

I have to agree with peanups. It makes absolutely no sense how "Science can never demonstrate that nothing could ever happen" They have disproved the theory of evolution. If u do not agree, go and look it up on google. And you guys are failing to give us evidence that Science can never demonstrate that nothing could ever happen, because you are simply scared that it might not be true. thank you for proving to us that you guys are afraid of us. thank you. Peanups has a point that is really good:
Hypothesis:
Two Men/Woman cannot create another life form without the other sex.
Testing:
Two Men/Woman have sexual intercourse together.
Wait alloted time for baby to be born
Conclusion:
No Baby Born, can this even happen?
Simple answer: No.


exactly. Science has proven that if two men/woman have sex, the CANNOT have a child. There it is. Science just proved that this could never happen.

[Peanups]

no offense peanups but i don't understand the way u "debate"
u did this same thing in the global warming topic, u simply copied over a bunch of text from some another source. with very little explanation on ur part. it confuses me

I'm sorry if it confuses you, but often information on BOTH parts of evolution and creation are clouded and people when they debate don't back up their answers.

I gave you information, I gave you links to support my answers.

Basically what you do when you debate is you take the information you learned for books, websites or whatever and just reword them.

I just show you the "pure state" of the text in its original form

[brooklyneast05]

I have to agree with peanups. It makes absolutely no sense how "Science can never demonstrate that nothing could ever happen" They have disproved the theory of evolution. If u do not agree, go and look it up on google. And you guys are failing to give us evidence that Science can never demonstrate that nothing could ever happen, because you are simply scared that it might not be true. thank you for proving to us that you guys are afraid of us. thank you. Peanups has a point that is really good:
Hypothesis:
Two Men/Woman cannot create another life form without the other sex.
Testing:
Two Men/Woman have sexual intercourse together.
Wait alloted time for baby to be born
Conclusion:
No Baby Born, can this even happen?
Simple answer: No.
exactly. Science has proven that if two men/woman have sex, the CANNOT have a child. There it is. Science just proved that this could never happen.

lmao

[Wlfgrl7777]

lmao

Is that serioiusly your only reply??? u people really are afraid......wow....I'm still trying to figure out how what you guys believe is true.....you're not providing us with any kind of evidence to back up what you're saying. You're just tossing out things that you can't even prove yourself.