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

[Ington]

Nature speaks.. Everybody has it writen down in the soul that God/ or something created the World. it's just some ppl block it out and chose not to believe it. And you no that some of those animals.. if not us, where NOT created by shear coinsodince!

You mean to tell me that if I grew from birth completely seperate from all other influences, I would still realize there is a God?

Did you know, that in a very large portion of history, there were no religions? There was no thought of a God or ultimate creator. Are you telling me that they always had a hunch about it, but never went with it?

You seem to not know of any proof. So unless you find some hard evidence, which is the only thing that would please us, just shut the hell up. This is a debate, and all debates must have information to back them up.

Also, that was a trick question. There is no hard evidence. If there were, we would all be religious, wouldn't we? That leaves you with one option left.

[fifthing]

I don't see why we can't have been created, then evolved.

Creation may not hold up for everyone, but I fail to see how the Big Bang theory is useful at all. The bang still wold have had to occur somewhere. It doesn't answer the question of where everything came from at all.

So. On the first day, God created the Earth. Perhaps there was a big bang. On whatever day, God created the animals (bear with me; I haven't taken any sort of religion class in years). But, of course, these aren't normal days at all, so during that "day," the animals could have evolved until finally decided to finish it off and so the first two animals became human, Adam and Eve. And so on and so forth.

Now to be honest, I don't really give enough of a damn about how the world came about to work out the technicalities, but is there any particular point rhat I'm so far gone on that even carefully expanded by someone who knows what they're talking about would just be ridiculously unrealistic?

[flc]

You seem to not know of any proof. So unless you find some hard evidence, which is the only thing that would please us, just shut the hell up. This is a debate, and all debates must have information to back them up.

Yeah, that is what I see with people who back creationism. They can't really prove to me that there can only have been creationism; instead they ask me philosophical questions such as, "If I emptied out this room & left it like that for 100 years, would it ever become filled with objects again? Someone will have to place them there. They can't just appear."

Therefore, I don't even understand why there are even debates on this subject. Because as I see it, creationism backers' arguments will always be based on personal religious beliefs. Doesn't a debate need more than that?

I don't see why we can't have been created, then evolved.

I don't know why there can't be a happy medium, like that. For both creationists & evolutionists, can't you guys think for a minute that maybe, just maybe, the two worked hand in hand?

[fifthing]

^exactly. It seems pretty futile to debate this at all, really. We don't know. We can't know. (Well, maybe someday, but now, no.)

[sadolakced acid]

for the reasonable, creation and evolution can coexist.


it's those who believe that everything was created as is by god that can't accept evolution.

[*disco infiltrator*]

I don't see why we can't have been created, then evolved.

Creation may not hold up for everyone, but I fail to see how the Big Bang theory is useful at all. The bang still wold have had to occur somewhere. It doesn't answer the question of where everything came from at all.

So. On the first day, God created the Earth. Perhaps there was a big bang. On whatever day, God created the animals (bear with me; I haven't taken any sort of religion class in years). But, of course, these aren't normal days at all, so during that "day," the animals could have evolved until finally decided to finish it off and so the first two animals became human, Adam and Eve. And so on and so forth.

Now to be honest, I don't really give enough of a damn about how the world came about to work out the technicalities, but is there any particular point rhat I'm so far gone on that even carefully expanded by someone who knows what they're talking about would just be ridiculously unrealistic?

Well, for those of us that don't believe in God, having such a mash-up of the ideas of creation and evolution is still a bit of a stretch.

It's really, really hard for me to back something that there isn't observed evidence of.

[NoSex]

I don't see why we can't have been created, then evolved.

[The Hebrew word for day ('Yom') almost always means an exact 24-hour period. Also, in the same passages which account the creation of the universe, God creates darkness (night) and light (day) so as to allow man to calculate time. It seems pretty clear to most scholars that the day is a literal day.]
[Although the Hebrew word "Yom" can mean other things aside from a 24-hour day, it will always mean so in the case of an ordinal modifier. Each time 'Yom' is used in the account of the creation, it is used with an ordinal modifier.]
[Evolution is not the same as The Big Bang Theory. Not even close.]
[Design is an integral part of creationism and the Christian story of genesis. Evolution is not sentient design]

It's arbitrary. Let's just say we cut this up with Occam's Razor. The theory of evolution is the most simplistic explanation. It requires the least amount of additive assumptions. So, in adherence to the princibles of Occam's Razor, it would be more accurate simply to say that Evolution operates independent of any supernatural force (i.e. God).

So, we don't really need God. Evolution makes perfect sense all by itself.

I posted the above response a page back. Just a single page. Your line of reasoning is nothing special or new. It has been addressed many times here, and millions more times everywhere else. Do some research or, at the very least, read one page back.

Just a single page.

[flc]

Well, for those of us that don't believe in God, having such a mash-up of the ideas of creation and evolution is still a bit of a stretch.

Now, I'm not saying you should believe, but I have to say that I think determined Atheists are just about as stupid as determined Christians. People need to accept that we don't know all of the answers, & until we do, we might as well keep an open mind about everything.

[fifthing]

It was a single page back in a 35 page long thread. I skimmed the first few pages and then stopped, because as I said previously, I find arguing this topic completely futile, so kindly remove the stick from your ass; plenty of things have been repeated. The fact that this arguement has been going on, unresolved, since the Scopes trial is a pretty decent indication that we're all just going in circles.

I hadly expected my idea to be novel, however I had been pondering the issue vaguely, and had never gotten a real response to why it could or could not be considered.

Now, your arguement explains why evolution can have been independant to creationism quite well (and I'm perfectly well aware that the Big Bang and evolution are not the same already). The bit about the day is also interesting, but the part that I still have not been convinced of scientifically is how there was something there in the first place for humans to evolve from, or for the bang to occur.

I don't doiubt that I'd find something coving that on a previous page, but unfortunately, I do have better things to do with my time.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Now, I'm not saying you should believe, but I have to say that I think determined Atheists are just about as stupid as determined Christians. People need to accept that we don't know all of the answers, & until we do, we might as well keep an open mind about everything.

I keep an open mind and it's been open for quite some time, allowing me to think about things and form my own ideas or accept others' as (probable) truth. I have no problem with anyone who is set in their beliefs, as long as there is fact and reason behind it. Those of any belief who say, "This is this way because it says so" are not the same.

[NoSex]

but the part that I still have not been convinced of scientifically is how there was something there in the first place for humans to evolve from, or for the bang to occur.

Here, I'll just quote an old post I made from the "Are You Religious?" thread:

"If something exists, how can it never have been created?" The problem with this question is that you are assuming that a prerequisite to existence is creation. Which, fails miserably as a premise. If existence is the totality of all existent things, how can it be created, given that only existent things have the possibility to create. Given this, something has to exist before a creation. You can not have creation without existence.

Creation requires the assistance of time. Because, if something is to be created, it's creator or cause must exist temporally prior to said creation. Quite simply, causes are always temporally prior to their effects. This requires the existence of time, as well as an existent cause which has the ability to effect itself or another existent material.

Spicetime requires the unity of space and time. Can we have one without the other? No. So, given that without time, we have no space, no matter, and that with time we do have space, and matter, and motion, it would be safe to say that at no time has there been nothing. And, at all time has there been something.

To assume at any point in time that there has been a period of nothingness would be to deny our entire reality of existence. So, I believe that at all time there has been something.

Creationists love the saying, "Something can not come from nothing." In physics, this isn't exactly accurate. It would be more accurate to say, "Nothing can come from something." The first law of thermodynamics is the law of conservation. In laymen terms, "Energy nor Matter can be created or destroyed." In our universe, Energy is a constant. All we can get from something, is something. Nothing other than that something [changed] will come forth from something.

In the end, the debate falls to what is more reasonable a "beginning"; A god, or a natural universe.

Occam's Razor would dictate that the best explanation carries the least amount of assumptions. In effect, the natural universe follows. I mean, God creating the universe out of no raw materials is like building a lego castle without legos. It's impossible.

[jerre1624]

I voted for evolution! Proof? We're 98% related to monkeys! Isn't that enough for you? We're not that close in DNA to any other animal. Besides, the Bible says that the Earth is only so many thousands of years old, but scientists who study the Earth estimate that it's about 4 billion+...how can that be? Heh...well, I'm an aheist, so yeah...that's just what I think about it...I don't really want to argue...

I believe in creation, but i didn't just choose these beliefs completley in faith, i wanted evidence for it. If you are saying that the scientific proof for the four billion years plus is radioactive dating, there are tons of times that radioactive dating is false, if you want examples, please just ask. And did you know that radioactive dating, assuming that you trust it, has dated the books of the Bible (the originals of course) to be when they said they were from, and the Bible has information about the world being circular, evaporation, and many other scientific things, that the people of that time period couldn't have know about. And if you want to get really technical on the age of the earth, scientists have done a study which shows that the earth's gravitational pull is decresing one half life ever fourteen hundred years, and they calculated that if the earth was even ten thousand years old, due to its decresing rate of gravitational pull, it would now be only as strong as a star! Which simply would have wrecked the world, and infact our current gravitational pull is more than a star at the moment. I'm not trying to argue with you, i am just stating my opinion backed up with facts just as you have, and i did a report on this stuff so i figured out a lot of problems with evolution, please send me a message if you want to ask any questions and what not.

[sadolakced acid]

the conceit of hindsight.

harry potter contains all those and more.

any large body of text will contain anything you wish to look for in it.

and how can you dismiss radioactive dating when it doesn't agree with the bible, then use it when it does?

maybe you could make a list of those problems with evolution.

i'd like to see that.

[*mipadi*]

I believe in creation, but i didn't just choose these beliefs completley in faith, i wanted evidence for it. If you are saying that the scientific proof for the four billion years plus is radioactive dating, there are tons of times that radioactive dating is false, if you want examples, please just ask.

Okay, I'll ask. Examples?

And did you know that radioactive dating, assuming that you trust it, has dated the books of the Bible (the originals of course) to be when they said they were from, and the Bible has information about the world being circular, evaporation, and many other scientific things, that the people of that time period couldn't have know about.

What other "science" is in the Bible? And if the Bible says the world is round, why did the Church deny it for so long (going so far as to place Galileo under house arrest)?

And if you want to get really technical on the age of the earth, scientists have done a study which shows that the earth's gravitational pull is decresing one half life ever fourteen hundred years, and they calculated that if the earth was even ten thousand years old, due to its decresing rate of gravitational pull, it would now be only as strong as a star! Which simply would have wrecked the world, and infact our current gravitational pull is more than a star at the moment. I'm not trying to argue with you, i am just stating my opinion backed up with facts just as you have, and i did a report on this stuff so i figured out a lot of problems with evolution, please send me a message if you want to ask any questions and what not.

Questions:

1. If the pull of Earth's gravity is greater than that of a star, why do the planets orbit around the Sun, and not Earth?
2. What is your evidence that Earth's gravitational field is decreasing (which, in theory, should only happen if the size of Earth is decreasing)? The magnetic field is shifting (towards the South Pole), but I've never heard that the gravitational field is decreasing. If you can provide evidence, I'll eat my shoe.

[sadolakced acid]

whoa whoa whoa...


physics 101-

the force of gravity is related to the mass of the two objects...

the force of a gravitational field is related to the mass of the single object, in this case the earth.

so you're saying the earth is losing mass? at a rate 5 times as fast as carbon 14?

i bow down to your superior facts. against jesus christ the savior i cannot prevail.

[jerre1624]

Okay, I'll ask. Examples?
What other "science" is in the Bible? And if the Bible says the world is round, why did the Church deny it for so long (going so far as to place Galileo under house arrest)?
Questions:

1. If the pull of Earth's gravity is greater than that of a star, why do the planets orbit around the Sun, and not Earth?
2. What is your evidence that Earth's gravitational field is decreasing (which, in theory, should only happen if the size of Earth is decreasing)? The magnetic field is shifting (towards the South Pole), but I've never heard that the gravitational field is decreasing. If you can provide evidence, I'll eat my shoe.

Ok, first off, i would like to say, i was merely expressing my opinion, and wasn't looking to work people up as it seems that i have done with you, and it really is frustrating to me, when people can't have a calm talk about spirtiual beliefs, but anyways. As for exmples, instead of writing them out, i will refer you to a website that has some good information on it
http://www.island.net/~rjbw/EvolutionvsCreationRebuttal.html
I know that it is biast, but hey isn't almost all evolution beliefs, but anyways, as an answer to your remark about the Church putting Galileo under house arrest, who says that people are perfect, even the Bible states that people are not perfect, why do you expect them to be. I know that many religions in the past and today are taking harsh actions, but why condem me for them? But yes the Bible does state that the earth is round, and i am not going to deny it if you would like the verse ask me, or you can just take my word for it if you would like. Oh and for all reading, i accidently typed gravitational pull where as i ment magnetic field, sorry for the typo. If you want to look into what i said, i think that that website talks about it under "Earth's magnetic Field." Oh and for sadolakced acid i was stating that radioactive dating has proved to make mistakes in the past, but i used it as a defense only because that person i was quoting was chosing to accept that it was true.

whoa whoa whoa...
physics 101-

the force of gravity is related to the mass of the two objects...

the force of a gravitational field is related to the mass of the single object, in this case the earth.

so you're saying the earth is losing mass? at a rate 5 times as fast as carbon 14?

i bow down to your superior facts. against jesus christ the savior i cannot prevail.

Whoa, first off, please look at the thing i wrote before, in which i stated that i made a typing error and wrote gravitational pull rather than magnetic field. And also for your last statement, i like to talk about religious belliefs with people only if they are calm, but if they turn bitter and into a ridiculous argument, i really don't like to, so i am kindly asking you to please not turn this into an argument. thank you.

[sadolakced acid]

the flying spagetti monster planted the bible and jesus to test your faith in him- false believers would fall for the false religion, and thus only the truely worthy would be fit to accend into the eternal meatball.

it says so right here:

www.linksobiaseditcan'tpossiblybewrong.net

[*mipadi*]

Ok, first off, i would like to say, i was merely expressing my opinion, and wasn't looking to work people up as it seems that i have done with you, and it really is frustrating to me, when people can't have a calm talk about spirtiual beliefs, but anyways.

Yes, we all know you were expressing your opinion. The Debate forum isn't just a place to express your opinion; people will question it. That is the nature of debate. Please understand no one is attacking you personally, but if you come in here, expect to be challenged unless you can meticulously back everything up (and no, "take my word for it" is not meticulously backing your statements up). It's frustrating to us when a person comes in here, expresses an opinion (a good thing!) and then retreats behind a shield of "I'm just expressing an opinion, you have no right to question me." If you just wish to express an opinion, post a thread in The Lounge.

but anyways, as an answer to your remark about the Church putting Galileo under house arrest, who says that people are perfect, even the Bible states that people are not perfect, why do you expect them to be.

I know no one's perfect, but that's a pretty big misstep for the Church, to hold beliefs contrary to something you insist is stated explicitly in the Bible. If the Bible says the earth is round, why would the Church allege it is not?

But yes the Bible does state that the earth is round, and i am not going to deny it if you would like the verse ask me, or you can just take my word for it if you would like.

With all due respect, I'm not going to just take your word for it, because I have never heard anyone argue that the Bible states the earth is round. So yes, I would like the verse, please.

Oh and for all reading, i accidently typed gravitational pull where as i ment magnetic field, sorry for the typo. If you want to look into what i said, i think that that website talks about it under "Earth's magnetic Field." Oh and for sadolakced acid i was stating that radioactive dating has proved to make mistakes in the past, but i used it as a defense only because that person i was quoting was chosing to accept that it was true.

What does the earth's magnetic field have to do with carbon dating, or creationism vs. evolution? I'm failing to see the connection, and the importance of the shift in the magnetic field.

[sadolakced acid]

michael, i can give you the verse.

it goes something like this:

god held the earth and formed it with water.

the logic is, that riverstones are round, therefore, the bible simply must be saying that the earth is round.

[jerre1624]

Ok, i don't think i said that anyone was attacking my personality, i never told you to take my word for it, i said that you could ask me for the verse which is Isiaha 40;22, or you could choose to take my word for it, it seems as though you are only looking at half of that sentence, where have i said that you have no right to question me, why would i have choose any beliefs, if i did not expect them to be questioned? I don't mind if people question my beliefs, but when people do it disrespectfully is when i get agrivated, oh and the magnetic field thing was just a little example of the information that was talking against evolution, and in this case for a young earth


and for the person who poasted the sobiastitcan'tbewrong, i was simply stating that i understood that the website was biast, i didn't mean for it to say that it couldn't be wrong.

[sadolakced acid]

and i meant that, because it's recognized as biased, it must be assumed wrong

[NoSex]

instead of writing them out, i will refer you to a website that has some good information on it
http://www.island.net/~rjbw/EvolutionvsCreationRebuttal.html

If you want to look into what i said, i think that that website talks about it under "Earth's magnetic Field."

Ummm. Dude.
That site makes fun of the ideas that you presented. In fact, it has a clear rebuttle of said ideas. That site is in favor of evolution. It is an entire rebuttle of a creationist case.

the verse which is Isiaha 40;22

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

Sorry. The writers of the Bible seemed to believe, very much, that the world was flat. Sure, they thought it was a flat circle, but still flat.

I mean, what are you trying to prove here?!

[sadolakced acid]

let's go through all biblical evidence for a round earth, cited by bibilical websites.

job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

job 26:10 10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Proverbs 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

Luke 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

Luke 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.


very convincing if you ask me.

[PandaKnight14]

To screw up one part of the bible, there was no flood. Attachment included, it's a Word Document...

Luke 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
very convincing if you ask me.

What does that have to do with anything?

Attached: Disproof of Noah's Ark story and the flood.

Attached File(s)

 No_Flood.doc ( 31.5K ) Number of downloads: 3

 

[PandaKnight14]

pmuB.
<_<
>_>