Creation Or Evolution

[ramenkage]

Evolution seems more reasonable

[Babbo]

evolution used as a means of creation...........

[ramenkage]

so first there was creation then evolution brought upon man?

[Babbo]

sorta..........

[ramenkage]

meh, nothin else to debate about =/
explain Babbos reasoning

[Babbo]

god used evolution as a means of creation.............

[aviet2k]

at first i would say evolution. but after listening to babbo's reasoning, i think that could be possible also.

[ramenkage]

just for clarification,
does Babbo mean that god implanted the first living cell, and from there it evoled into man?
Or did God also guide evolution?

[Lst2touchdasky]

Im not much for God, long live the buddhas for me, and evolution seems completely more a natural matter rather then a miracle in sense.

[Babbo]

just for clarification,
does Babbo mean that god implanted the first living cell, and from there it evoled into man?
Or did God also guide evolution?

god created the first living cell with the ability to evolve and then guided evoluotion.....

[ramenkage]

goddammit!
are there no hardcore creationist here?

[Babbo]

Babbo doubts it....even the catholic church accepts the theory of evolution....I think......

[ramenkage]

debate section is gonna die soon if there are no debates :(

[Babbo]

d00d you're the only one who isn't screwing around in here........it's not like this forum is home to a bunch of intellectuals.....

[ramenkage]

:( guess ill screw off too XD

[mgviperman]

yea i agree with babbo... not may people are as deep as you ramenkage... but i support the evolution theory

[ramenkage]

hmmm im about as deep as a puddle of spit

[parky]

i ussually argue the part of hard core creationist for the sake of arguing even though i dont believe it, 100%, i really dont care, its a non essential part of the doctrine of christ. could be symbolism could be literal ..... whatever, however evoution has some fairly significant holes in it, as does literal creation

[ramenkage]

explain the holes
the only loophole is punctuated equilibrium,
sudden evolution seems a little fishy =/

[Divine Truth]

This guy who was a former hardcore evolutionist spoke at our church for like three or four days. Here's a story he told. Oh yeah that was like at the begining of the month and i'm telling this from memory, so somethings might not line up right. :D

Boy: Do you believe in eternal things?
Evolutionist: Of course not, I'm an evolutionist.
Boy: Are you sure?
Evolutionist: yep, pretty sure.
Boy: Oh, okay. Then tell me, where did we come from?
Evolutionist: We evolved from primates.
Boy: Ok, where did the primates come from?
Evolutionist: From fish (I think there might be some thing else before fish, I don't know I forgot :D).
Boy: From fish, really! Where did the fish come from?
Evolutionist: *sigh* From single cell organisms.
Boy: Ok, where did the single cell organisms come from?
Evolutionist: *sigh (shut-up already)* From rocks (Again, there might be something before rocks).
Boy: Come on, rocks, no way! So, where did the rocks come from.
Evolutionist: From the big bang.
Boy: Where did the big bang come from?
Evolutionist: From an explosion of gas.
Boy: Where did the gases come from?
Evolutionist: What are you talking about? The gases didn't "come" from anywhere, they've.........just always been.
Boy: I thought you didn't believe in eternal things. If they've "just always been" isn't that the same as being eternal?
Evolutionist:.........

I grew up going to church so I've always heard about creationism, but they teach a bit of evolution in school. Up until that guy came to our church, I kinda thought that the world might be a combination of both. But after hearing that guy, man he shot some major holes in the theory of evolution. If this thread had been made at the beggining of the month, I could have made a big argument for creationism, but like I said...I forgot most of the major facts :D .

[ramenkage]

that guy is an idiot
creationism does not relate to the origin of the universe in terms of life.
law of physics states, energy cannot be either created or destroyed, thus the energy present in our can be assumes to alway have been there
state the loopholes and ill counter them

[parky]

aight the only few i remember off hand is

the evolution of the eye, the eye could not have evolved all at once, and part of an eye is a hindrince not a help so the evolutionist theory of survival of the fittest hurts evolution in this case. Darwin himself, conceded that most mutants are recessive and degenerative; therefore, they would actually be eliminated by natural selection rather than effect any significant improvement in the organism

also spontaneous generation, how did the first single cell organism appear? if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws which govern life had to be completely different from what they are now, this won't work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform at all times

the cambrian strata is the last strata with fossils, yet these fossils are complex, so the precambrian strata should also have less evolved fossils yet they dont, darwin even said in origin of the species "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer...the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." page 309

and there is always entropy "The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity."

[version01]

Well in Genesis it says that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void;..."
Since it says that since earth was without form, couldn't that mean that god first created the building blocks (matter/anti-matter), then used those building blocks to give form to the universe.

[ramenkage]

the evolution of the eye, the eye could not have evolved all at once, and part of an eye is a hindrince not a help so the evolutionist theory of survival of the fittest hurts evolution in this case. Darwin himself, conceded that most mutants are recessive and degenerative; therefore, they would actually be eliminated by natural selection rather than effect any significant improvement in the organism
True, rarely does evolution favor mutation, but evolution does not depend solely on mutation, it is through the change in the environment and competition that one trait is more favorable than the next, thus causing natural selection to take place and eventually, the creation of a new species.

also spontaneous generation, how did the first single cell organism appear? if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws which govern life had to be completely different from what they are now, this won't work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform at all times
The first life on earth appeared after the formation of amino acids, which bonded together to form polypeptide bonds. What are the laws that govern life and why is the evolutionary theory depended on the earth remaining uniform. It is clear that the earth has changed over the span of time.

the cambrian strata is the last strata with fossils, yet these fossils are complex, so the precambrian strata should also have less evolved fossils yet they dont, darwin even said in origin of the species "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer...the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." page 309
you bring up a good point. My answer will be there are still fossils to be found =/
kinda halfassed it

and there is always entropy "The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity."
this law applies to the energy and mass on the greater scale, how do you explain plants absorbing sunlight and synthesizing glucose? Thats going from simple to complex which is against the theory you have.

Well in Genesis it says that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void;..."
Since it says that since earth was without form, couldn't that mean that god first created the building blocks (matter/anti-matter), then used those building blocks to give form to the universe.
cant really agrue against that because it seems valid to me

[Babbo]

*tries to remeber High school biology so he can join the discussion*


*Fails*

(no Babo did not fail Biology)

[ramenkage]

dont worry Babbo,
biology only meant for pointless debates like these and serves no other function XD

[Babbo]

yeah but it's the only science class Babbo didn't hate in hgih school....and now Babbo can't remeber much of it.....

[ramenkage]

o_O;
you liked bio?
Physics and chem > bio

[Babbo]

Physic as and chem=math...... x_x

[ramenkage]

math>bio XP

[Babbo]

Math= t3h 3vil.....

[ramenkage]

math=asian's best friend

[Babbo]

math= st00pid fat white guys worst enemy.......

[parky]

math is my worst enemy and i have an engineering major and a math minor....... i think i am doomed

oh ya

chem>bio>physics

[ramenkage]

wah?
its physics>chem>bio
im basicing this on the amount of sleep i get in each class
cant stay awake in bio
in terms of difficulty
its chem>bio>physics

[Kulong]

i agree chem is a ***** !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bio was easy for me =P
never took physics so i dun know =T
let just say Ap mirco bio is hard >=(

[ramenkage]

i meant chem being the easiest
hardest being physics
for clarity
order of difficulty,
physics, bio, chem

order of interest
physics, chem, bio

[Ninjacowboy]

heres my way. and i made this up. any/all conections to ture belifes are purely by accdent

god but us here, AS MONKEYS!
and we evloved into what we are now.

[P4lladiumShifted]

This guy who was a former hardcore evolutionist spoke at our church for like three or four days. Here's a story he told. Oh yeah that was like at the begining of the month and i'm telling this from memory, so somethings might not line up right. :D

Boy: Do you believe in eternal things?
Evolutionist: Of course not, I'm an evolutionist.
Boy: Are you sure?
Evolutionist: yep, pretty sure.
Boy: Oh, okay. Then tell me, where did we come from?
Evolutionist: We evolved from primates.
Boy: Ok, where did the primates come from?
Evolutionist: From fish (I think there might be some thing else before fish, I don't know I forgot :D).
Boy: From fish, really! Where did the fish come from?
Evolutionist: *sigh* From single cell organisms.
Boy: Ok, where did the single cell organisms come from?
Evolutionist: *sigh (shut-up already)* From rocks (Again, there might be something before rocks).
Boy: Come on, rocks, no way! So, where did the rocks come from.
Evolutionist: From the big bang.
Boy: Where did the big bang come from?
Evolutionist: From an explosion of gas.
Boy: Where did the gases come from?
Evolutionist: What are you talking about? The gases didn't "come" from anywhere, they've.........just always been.
Boy: I thought you didn't believe in eternal things. If they've "just always been" isn't that the same as being eternal?
Evolutionist:.........

I grew up going to church so I've always heard about creationism, but they teach a bit of evolution in school. Up until that guy came to our church, I kinda thought that the world might be a combination of both. But after hearing that guy, man he shot some major holes in the theory of evolution. If this thread had been made at the beggining of the month, I could have made a big argument for creationism, but like I said...I forgot most of the major facts :D .
So, the guy is wrong because he knows about Evolution but not about Cosmic Origin theory? Isn't that logic a little bit fuzzy?

************
To the topic!

Evolution, and i'll tell you why.

The Theory of Evolution was based on scientific method. What does that mean? That the theory changes as we learn more things. Scientists debate (or argue) on the facts that are unearthed, and the view of the theory shifts from one version to the next.

Theory isn't a "guess" and just because one thing doesn't mesh doesn't mean that the whole theory is incorrect. That's not how science works.

Creation, on the other hand, isn't based on science at all. It's based on a text (who's validity is suspect since the writers are all dead) that some people have chosen to put their faith in. It's scientifically irresponsible to think that this truth is the only truth and that anyone who disagrees is wrong.

There was a great cartoon that I saw one year, it had two panels:
Panel 1, titled "Evolutionist's Method": A scientist was in front of a blackboard with his assistant asking, "Ok, here are the facts, what conclusions can we draw from it."
Panel 2, titles "Creationist's Method": A man with a preacher's collar is holding a bible. He looks at his assistant and asks, "Here's our conclusion, now what facts can we find to support it."

[Enrich]

Evolution is only a theory... creationism is one as well. The world will never know.

[P4lladiumShifted]

Yeah, but evolution at least is supported by the evidence unearthed by paleontologists, anthropologists, and geneticists.

Creation isn't based on any science whatsoever, it's just a religious idea stemming from the central tome of christianity.

[epicbard]

Yeah, but evolution at least is supported by the evidence unearthed by paleontologists, anthropologists, and geneticists.

Creation isn't based on any science whatsoever, it's just a religious idea stemming from the central tome of christianity.
d00d evolution and creationism are but two of a large number of theories about where life originated....

[P4lladiumShifted]

What besides the theory that we all came to being because of cells that arrived from a meteorite?

Yeah, I'll grant you that, but this thread isn't about the other 3,000. It's about Creationism and Evolution, and so I only address those two.

That and the fact that I don't know anything about the others.

[Hikari]

and there is always entropy "The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity."



Entropy can support evolution; it's the total entropy in the universe that counts, so even if an organism is ordered, the result in the disorder in its surroundings can still increase entropy.

[PINOY]

Both actually are accepted to me. Scientists state that man was evolved from something bu tdon't know what. Thats where god comes in. I'm not taking ANY sides here but I state what I hear.

[Babbo]

they don't know exactly what man evolved from but seeing as most other animals have evolved why shouldn't be the sam with another animal, humans????

[PINOY]

Humans and other animals may have evolved from a certain thing but we don't know exactly what it is. Some say ancient bacteria and pools of living beings were the first life forms on earth which all species invcluding humans evolved from. Or God could have created the beings which all evolved from. It's all a matter of public opinion and the media.

[k_angel_iii]

so first there was creation then evolution brought upon man?
Or that the creator built in mechanisms for evolution.

Someitmes it's a little bit like the chicken or egg problem. Did evolution occur due to creation, or did creation occur due to evolution. Or is it an infinite chain of causes and effects where either node in the timeline could be the result of either evolution or creation.

Sometimes I view evolution as a consequence. For example, due to how money is used to represent value, the economies tend to be capitalist in nature and evolve in a way that allows a balance between quality, demand, and quantity.

However, someone can make the argument that if the behavior of people with respect to their needs is thought of as an evolutionary process, then money is the result of an evolutionary process. In other words, it's flipped and now evolution is the artifact.

In the end, probably a matter of point of reference and definition. This argument is really funny, and whenever I have it with my friends, we loop about in endless cycles.

[spy182]

i think that evolution is the answer since big bang created the single cell organisms and from there evolution worked it magic

[Harrichimaru]

I have a much easier time in accepting logic and science as opposed to a 2,000 year old book that has been edited countless times.

[sapphiresky]

Personally I belive in theistic evolution which is to say that God made evolution happen. I mean, there is no way that evolution can just happen on its own.

[|FuHrEr|]

Personally I belive in theistic evolution which is to say that God made evolution happen. I mean, there is no way that evolution can just happen on its own.

Why would you say that Evolution cannot just happen on its own? That sort of the way it works...

[JudgeMe]

I don't really know, the only thing I do know is that we didn't evolve from any animal that is alive today. Bececause if we evolved from monkeys, apes, ect. then why are there still monkeys, apes, ect. still the way they are. It's not really right to say they just didn't jump the hump.

[Carl]

Your idea on how there shouldn't still be monkeys and such is false. It's like saying why are there still mini-vans when there are SUV's on the road. Simply put there's still room for the monkeys. A place for them. Humans probably could have edged them out totally, but we didn't. We took to the plains, while monkeys stayed in the forests.

Edit: To the people who were saying that god created evolution. I believe that theory is called Intelligent Design. Currently many school districts are being put under pressure to have it entered into the curriculum. This is a pretty bad idea considering there is no evidence for it. Schools are for teaching what is known, not what are basically crackpot theories without any support.

[P4lladiumShifted]

Why are there monkeys?

Humans are the end product of a specific chain of evolution that started at prokaryotic cells. We call them 'bacteria' today. Now only a few of these prokaryotic cells evolved into eukaryotic cells (cells with nuclei). So we still have these bacteria along with the new evolved cells. This process took hundred of thousands of years alone. Now, these some of these eukaryotes evolved into multi-cellular life.

Basically, only a percentage of a type of creature evolve. When prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes, they didn't all do it at once.

So as we evolved into homo sapiens sapiens, some prokaryotes were just beginning to evolve along the same chain. And as we evolved into homo sapiens sapiens, some lower-chain creatures were evolving too. That's why apes are still around while we are too.


It's painfully obvious once you actually begin to think of the bare statistics of evolution.

[breakurjea]

Humans are the end product of a specific chain of evolution that started at prokaryotic cells.
There's no reason to suggest humans are at the very end of evoultion. Technically, evolution is infinite- were always adapting to the environment and we pass these variations down to our children.

Personally I belive in theistic evolution which is to say that God made evolution happen. I mean, there is no way that evolution can just happen on its own.
Its supposed to happen on its own that's the whole point. Organisms adapt to the environment, those that don't adapt, die out (survival of the fittest). Those that to survive pass on their modified genes onto their children (descent with modification).