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

[NoSex]

Are you serious ACID BATH? Evolution, the most simplistic explanation? Well, I'd say Creation and Evolution are tied. We evolved or we were created.

Evolution is by far the most simplistic explanation. This is because of the princible of Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor states that 'entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.'

In this case, the predictive power of each case are about equal, however Evolution requires much fewer additive assumptions in comparison to Creationism. Also, Evolution does not postulate as many hypothetical entities. In all reason, Evolution is the most simplistic of the two.

Also, following the predictive powers of each, Evolution seems to fit the reality of biological life, while design does not.

I really don't think you understood what I meant when I said "simplistic."

That's what you believe. There's no proof for or against it. So, you're wrong. god may not exist, but there is no certaintly that he does or doesn't exist.

1. You can't say she is wrong, because she may very well be right. God may not exist, you concede this yourself.
2. There is proof for and against God. Conclusive proof only in selective propositions and cases.
3. Most cases do not demand certainty so much as they rely on rationalism and accumulative evidence.
4. A negative existential proposition can be proven to be true. It is possible.

[Kontroll]

Also, following the predictive powers of each, Evolution seems to fit the reality of biological life, while design does not.

I really don't think you understood what I meant when I said "simplistic."

2. There is proof for and against God. Conclusive proof only in selective propositions and cases.

Well, 'simplistic' is a very general term. Maybe you should exbound upon your generalizations next time.

There is a logical way that says God exists, but it's not like we can hear Him or see Him. You're right. I did say it is possible that God didn't exist, but religion is faith. We believe. There have been prophecies in the Bible the have come true and are still in process. It's pretty wierd to just be coincidence.

How can there be proof for and against God? I don't understand.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Yeah, and it's pretty "weird" for them to have happened due to a holy spirit in the heavens, too.

I don't know; whichever seems most odd to you.

[Kontroll]

Yeah, and it's pretty "weird" for them to have happened due to a holy spirit in the heavens, too.

I don't know; whichever seems most odd to you.

Actually the Holy Spirit didn't create anything. It was God the Father. Seems wierd doesn't it? Actually the Trinity is more like offices instead of persons. They all have their roles. It's more logical to have something created than spontaneously generate. God is three in one. The Trinity. basic principle. He is personable. It is logical for Him to create. He created us to have a relationship with us. He wasn't lonely. He didn't need to. But He did. There is a relationship with in the Trinity. Therefore to create, a God must be personal and and have relationships.

[*disco infiltrator*]

It would make sense to have something created, wouldn't it?
Who created Him?
Does God have relationships with the animals other than humans that he created, that don't have a soul and kind of just die and rot in the ground? Isn't it funny how people are the only animals that have souls and can go to heaven or hell after death out of the entire world, but God loves and has relationships with all of his creations?

[sadolakced acid]

you cannot logically argue about god's existance. if you could, he wouldn't be god, since he derives power from blind faith.

however, this is debate and we do like logical arguments. therefore, you cannot debate that god exists- in order to do so sucessfully is to negate the power of god.

[aubbob]

both...
i think god created everything...
and i believe he let things evolve

[mizzkim]

I go for both, but a little more on evolution, it makes sense there is proof, and it's quite interesting.

[bellpepper]

I believe in creation.

I do have some questions about Evolution. Im asking these because I want answers. I've asked some of these and they havent been answered. Some of these might have been answered in the previous pages but I dont have time to look at all 30 something pages.


1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?

[sadolakced acid]

just because YOU don't know the answer doesn't AUTOMATICALLY MAKE the answer GOD.

you can do the same with the flying spaggetti monster.

"i have no freaking clue, so it must be god" is possiblly the greatest non sequiter in history.


your questions are either not legit, or answered.

besides, i could ask all those questions to disprove the existance of god, and thus creationism.

[NoSex]

[quote name='bellpepper' date='Jun 5 2006, 12:04 AM' post='2075628']
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?[/quote]

This is an incoherent and nonsensical question. How could space "come from" anything if space, at any time, hadn't existed? Not to mention, this problem is just as pertinent, if not more so, to the idea of creationism. Also, we have to realize that Cosmology and the origin of the universe is not the same as the theory of Evolution. So, the quick answer here is that this question doesn't relate to the biological theory of Evolution of which we are discussing here.

If you want to start a thread about the origins of the universe or Cosmology, by all means do so. But, don't pretend that it's the same as the theory of evolution.

Evolution is the change, over time, inside the gene pool of any given biological population. Let's stay on point.

[quote name='bellpepper' date='Jun 5 2006, 12:04 AM' post='2075628']
2. Where did matter come from?[/quote]

Refer to question 1.

[quote name='bellpepper' date='Jun 5 2006, 12:04 AM' post='2075628']
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?[/quote]

This is more of a physics question.
Refer to question 1.

[quote name='bellpepper' date='Jun 5 2006, 12:04 AM' post='2075628']
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?[/quote]

Now you're beginning to confuse the theory of evolution with more Cosmological ideas. Stellar evolution maybe? Also, you're begging the question. Matter isn't "so perfectly organized." I, nor any scientific body, seems to understand what a creationist is saying when they talk about "perfect organization." Take some time to learn about quantum mechanics, you might be surprised.


[quote name='bellpepper' date='Jun 5 2006, 12:04 AM' post='2075628']
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?[/quote]

Refer to questions 1 & 2.

[quote name='bellpepper' date='Jun 5 2006, 12:04 AM' post='2075628']
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?[/quote]

Ohh, the three W's. Cute.
This is an issue of abiogenesis and not Evolution.
Although you are getting more biological, you are way off base.
Inanimate matter would be a far more accurate, as opposed to "dead matter."

This is really great, you don't believe in the theory of evolution and you don't even seem to know what it is. Have you done your homework? And, listening to Kent Hovind's sermons isn't homework, just so you know.

[quote name='bellpepper' date='Jun 5 2006, 12:04 AM' post='2075628']
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?[/quote]

The three W's again.
Well, this is a loaded question. Life certainly reproduces, but it didn't exactly learn to do so. Mitosis isn't exactly a learning experience, especially when a certain organism doesn't have the mental capacity to "learn." And, most biological means of reproduction are not learned, they are innate.

[quote name='bellpepper' date='Jun 5 2006, 12:04 AM' post='2075628']
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?[/quote]

No one believes a single cell was ever capable of sexual reproduction. Early life, almost exclusively, reproduced asexually.

Also, if I were to suggest that you asked "With what did the first organism capable of sexual reproduction reproduce:"

Itself.
Figure it out. I'm tired of being a teacher, do some research yourself, this is getting pathetic.

[quote name='bellpepper' date='Jun 5 2006, 12:04 AM' post='2075628']
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)[/quote]

A drive to survive is explained the same way a drive for reproduction through sexual intercourse would be. A genetic mutation is a cause of the behavior. Those species which had these behaviors, survived, while those who did not became extinct. This is why all of the species that live today exhibit similar behaviors as described above.

Also, f**king feels good. And, it's an innate behavior.
Not to mention, there is power in numbers. The more people you have on your team the less likely you are to suffer by the hands of the opposing teams. Also, nature is its own check and balance, it's called homeostasis.

[quote name='bellpepper' date='Jun 5 2006, 12:04 AM' post='2075628']
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)[/quote]

Well, clearly they create new varieties. That's what genetic mutation does, introduce new varieties. The common consensus within the scientific community, based on many years of genetic research specifically dealing with mutation, is that a large majority of mutation are neither beneficial or harmful, but neutral. Also, the effects a mutation has on the survival of a species is all relative to the enviroment the species inhabits.

Your analogy (clearly false) of english letters producing Chinese books shows a wild misunderstanding of genetics and genetic mutations. Do some more research. Try wikipedia.

[quote name='bellpepper' date='Jun 5 2006, 12:04 AM' post='2075628']
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor? [/quote]

Loaded question. Animals don't exhibit "design."
Because of the fact that animals don't exhibit sentient design or manufacturing, it is most likely that homogulous qualities are due to a common ancestor. Also, the situation and circumstances at hand, working in an accumulative case, demand a common ancestory, not a creator.

Beyond that, to assume that a creator is responsible for what we see in biological life would assume a rather incompetent creator.

[quote name='bellpepper' date='Jun 5 2006, 12:04 AM' post='2075628']
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true? [/quote]

Genetic drift, hybridization, and genetic mutation.
Also, natural selection does not "only keep a species stable." That's a gross misrepresentation. Natural selection is a strong factor in fluctuating biological populations. It could keep a species "stable," or it could cause it to become extinct.

[quote name='bellpepper' date='Jun 5 2006, 12:04 AM' post='2075628']
13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?
[/quote]

Read a book.
Seriously.

[quote name='bellpepper' date='Jun 5 2006, 12:04 AM' post='2075628']
I do have some questions about Evolution. Im asking these because I want answers. I've asked some of these and they havent been answered. Some of these might have been answered in the previous pages but I dont have time to look at all 30 something pages.[/quote]

Alright. I know some things here.

1. These are not your questions.
2. These questions were produced by the infamous creationist Kent Hovind.
3. All of these questions represent a misunderstanding of Evolution. They exhibit, for the most part, irrelevant questions, straw men arguments, and a perfect example of ignorance towards the common sciences and understanding of such.
4. Some of these probably have been answered in the previous pages of this thread, but more importantly, all of these issues of have addressed accordingly by science. These questions have all been answered by the scientific community, if you had any honest concern for the issue, you should know that.

You seem so sure of creationism, but so critical of evolution.
You are so "scientific" and critical in your scrutiny of evolutionary theory, but not at all in the face of creationism. Hmmm.

[quote name='bellpepper' date='Jun 5 2006, 12:04 AM' post='2075628']
I believe in creation.[/quote]

I just have one question for you.
Why?

[Edit: This quote thing really needs to stop happening. What the f**k...]

[sadolakced acid]

the easiest answer is this:

those that evolved to not reproduce died.

those that evolved to reproduce, created more that were evolved to reproduce.

you ever wonder why no species has evolves to be sterile? because if they did, they would die out. some individuals have undoubtablly done so already.

[*Steph Chan*]

I'm not a really religious person, but even if I was I would still believe in evolution. Since it is this whole scientific theory, it makes more sense to me than some story from the bible which could be completely false. Not to mention that many stories from the bible are basically tall tales and vague when it comes to time. You would get my drift if you've ever read the play entitled Inherit the wind. It's a play about a debate on this subject.

[magicfann]

my dear friends, god let us f**k up too bad

[sadolakced acid]

god is a kid with a magnifying glass, and we are the ants.

this debate is rather stagnant.

[NoSex]

this debate is rather stagnant.

I'm still waiting for bellpepper's reply!

[Comik-knerd]

what'dya mean there is PLENTY of evidence behind Creation.. the Bible tells all about it AND, Think about it.. all this intelligent life coming from a weird cosmic egg that suddinly decided to explode?? and then we formed from an ameba.. really? And God has left tons of evedince that HE created the world.

[*mipadi*]

what'dya mean there is PLENTY of evidence behind Creation.. the Bible tells all about it AND, Think about it.. all this intelligent life coming from a weird cosmic egg that suddinly decided to explode?? and then we formed from an ameba.. really? And God has left tons of evedince that HE created the world.

Aside from the Bible, what is this "tons of evidence"?

(I don't mean to completely discount the Bible, but we all know the Bible's creation story, so it need not be rehashed again.)

[NoSex]

what'dya mean there is PLENTY of evidence behind Creation.. the Bible tells all about it AND, Think about it.. all this intelligent life coming from a weird cosmic egg that suddinly decided to explode?? and then we formed from an ameba.. really? And God has left tons of evedince that HE created the world.

I'm starting to think the debate threads should be invite only.

[Comik-knerd]

I'm starting to think the debate threads should be invite only.

Your just afried becouse somebody else has a strong opinion that's the oposite of yours

[NoSex]

Your just afried becouse somebody else has a strong opinion that's the oposite of yours

I'm shaking in my booties!

[Comik-knerd]

Aside from the Bible, what is this "tons of evidence"?

(I don't mean to completely discount the Bible, but we all know the Bible's creation story, so it need not be rehashed again.)

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!

[NoSex]

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!

I love how well he knows exactly what we know!
Must be telepathy!

But, seriously.
Invite only.

[*mipadi*]

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!

Let's assume, for the purposes of discussion, that God did create human beings. He did a pretty bad job at creating them. After many long days at work, the engineer in me has, over time, created just a "short" list of things that are badly designed about humans, which a true engineer would not have done:

• Wasteful. Humans create a lot of waste. Body processes create a lot of waste. And the storage for that waste is minimal.
• Temperature acclimation. Humans have a very limited range of temperatures in which they can survive. The range in which they feel comfortable is even smaller—about 65° to 95°. Not a very good operating temperature.
• Eyesight deterioration. Let's face it: human eyes are terrible. Vision deterioration begins around adolescence for many people.
• Structure. Fall from a height greater than twenty feet, and you'll almost definitely suffer injuries requiring a visit to the doctor or the hospital.
• Fuel/energy. We have to drink water every three days, and eat every 21. Okay, the eating thing isn't so bad, but let's be honest—most people can barely go 12 hours without eating.

And that's but a tiny bit of a list of things I have come up with, which is but a tiny list of all things wrong with the human body. And that's just humans.

If God did create all living things, he certainly wasn't very good at it.

[sadolakced acid]

hey, there's plenty of evidence for the existance of the borg. it's very well documented. it's just some people choose to ignore it.