Evolution vs Creationism

[victra♥]

It is also important to keep in mind the bible was written by humans claiming to hear the voice of god. Maybe some did, I can't prove they didn't, but admitting creationism is wrong does not mean god or the teachings of Christianity is wrong. It only means that the person that wrote that section was incorrect and its possible he added it to answer a question that science had not yet found the answer to. But now science does have the answer and its time to move on.

But who's to say the whole Bible is wrong, not only with the origin of life, but with everything else that is mentioned in the Bible? The word of God is perfect, and the Bible is the word of God is it not? With that, it's only reasonable to assume that the Bible is either 100 percent right, or 100 percent wrong. No fifty fifties. Science has proven a lot of things wrong in the bible, and yet it's still thought of as the holy divine answer key to all of life. Heck, i could even go as far as to say that they are even attacking science, either because they don't have the answers so the Bible must be right, or they are literally attacking the authenticity of science in general, such as radiometric dating.

 

[BFDD]

Whoever wrote the bible said that it is the word of god and claimed thats what god told them. The bible says murder and theft is wrong, and I completely agree, but that doesn't mean I agree with the whole thing. In fact I disagree with the vast majority of what is written in it. Some of the morals in the bible are good, but a large portion of the bible is a work of fiction. There are fifty fifties, the bible was written at a time when religions were fighting for power, in order gain followers that had to make up some stuff because whoever wrote it either wanted power and/or had a message they felt was important to get across. It is likely that Jesus was a real person, but he most definitely did not perform miracles. These were stories to make him seem more exciting and divine so his message could be taught to more people.

A lot of religion is politics, people want creationism in the classroom because they believe that the bible has to be 100% right or 100% wrong and if people teach evolution it means that they are teaching that all of Christianity is wrong. But science does not seek to prove religions wrong, it seeks to understand the physical world.

 

[Uncle_Donkey]

Seven thousand years is nowhere near how long it took the first life forms on Earth to appear after the Big Bang.

You're taking that verse too literally. Saying that to God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day means that time is not an issue for God. What the Bible says took seven days could have taken any imagineable amount of time.

 

[GhostAnime]

that's just a cop-out christians use to avoid taking the bible as it says.

if you can take day to mean any amount of time at all, i'll take god to mean of a way to control people. fair game, isn't it?

 

[cF=)]

You're taking that verse too literally.

That doesn't make sense. Parts of the bible should be metaphorical, and others shouldn't? How about "the words of god are true and undeniable"? If god gave a numerical value to how old Earth is, and as it turns out, this value is proved wrong through modern science teachings, the words of god are nothing more than a load of crap. If everything wasn't literal (like you propose), there wouldn't be creationist believing god made adam & eve.

 

[victra♥]

You're taking that verse too literally.

mmmm. Classic.

 

[BFDD]

Thats exactly why there isn't much point in arguing against creationism. Creationists can pick and choose which parts of the bible are literal, and everyone picks different ones. Meanwhile they force evolutionists to accept everything science says. Plus they can use their interpretation powers gained from their bible and apply it to evolution so they can misrepresent it.

The best we can do is prove that creationism doesn't belong in the classroom. You can't disprove creationism because creationists can't argue. Similar to arguments with children that think they are right because they cover their ears and scream "lalalallalalala not listening". You can't prove someone wrong if they refuse to understand the evidence.

 

[SSBbo]

Ahh... this is a classic topic.
I am a christian.
however i Believe in intelligent design (God created a life form and then allowed evolution to occur).
I may be wrong, i know but lemme explain my argument:
In the bible, God makes himself know to early man (Abraham). abraham wouldn't be able to comprehend a single-celled life-form being changed through adaptation and natural selection into what is now every bit of life on the planet.

Also, in the bible, god says he made all life, he doesn't specify how he did it.
he also said in "days," a day, as we know it, is 24 hours, but through-out space, "days" are different lengths, so in another dimension (i likely place that an omniscent ruler of the universe would inhabit) "days" might refer to "millions of years"

back to abraham, early man. he wouldn't comprehend "millions of years" cuz he probably didn't make it to 50 years old. i also don't think he would understand mass extenctions, or even care, for that matter, he has a family to feed.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Ahh... this is a classic topic.
I am a christian.
however i Believe in intelligent design (God created a life form and then allowed evolution to occur).
I may be wrong, i know but lemme explain my argument:
In the bible, God makes himself know to early man (Abraham). abraham wouldn't be able to comprehend a single-celled life-form being changed through adaptation and natural selection into what is now every bit of life on the planet.

Also, in the bible, god says he made all life, he doesn't specify how he did it.
he also said in "days," a day, as we know it, is 24 hours, but through-out space, "days" are different lengths, so in another dimension (i likely place that an omniscent ruler of the universe would inhabit) "days" might refer to "millions of years"

back to abraham, early man. he wouldn't comprehend "millions of years" cuz he probably didn't make it to 50 years old. i also don't think he would understand mass extenctions, or even care, for that matter, he has a family to feed.

Just don't use the term "intelligent design", "intelligent design" is a loaded term which has connotations far beyond "God exists but evolution happens and is happening". Furthermore it's presented as a scientific theory but it's a complete mockery of the scientific method.

Just say "God exists but evolution happens and is happening". It doesn't come with any of the excess idealogical baggage that ID has.

 

[SSBbo]

intelligent design is just a religious explanation for where the first life-form came from.
science can't explain it with anything except:
panspermia (problem: how was the original life that came to earth created?)
on the backs of crystals (makes NO sense, i saw it on Ben Stein's: Expelled)
and an almost impossible chance of over 250 strings of 4 proteins in precisely the right order in the perfect conditions (enough oxygen, nitrogen, water, etc. present) with just enough sources of energy near enough for the life to use in order to carry on.

here's a good movie to watch for the "ID v. random sequence i listed earlier" debate. "ben stein's: expelled".Ben stein is on the ID side of the argument.

there's no way you can disprove either side of the debate.

 

[snex]

expelled is a steaming pile of dog **** PROPAGANDA. it is NOT science. scientists have not yet discovered how life first began, but so what? scientists have also not yet discovered why ice is slippery, or why ice floats on water. does that mean god is the cause? no, it means scientists are working on the problem.

labeling your ignorance "god" is both bad science and bad theology.

 

[AltF4]

I can't believe you just cited Ben Stein's wacko movie as a credible source of information.

Tip: Ben Stein is not a scientist. He plays one on TV.

EDIT: Actually... I don't even think he does that.

 

[Aesir]

From Wiki:

"Benjamin Jeremy Stein (born November 25, 1944) is an American attorney, political figure, and entertainment personality who in his early career served as speechwriter for U.S. presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford."

Sorry but he isn't a scientists, no more then Kirk Cameron is a Scientist either yet he endorses ID as well. Amazing how ID Proponents are barely qualified to even be scientists. If they are they continuously ignore the overwhelming evidence for evolution and write it off as. "Not good enough for me."- Micheal Behe.

This isn't science it's religion. Some of the first ID books didn't mention intelligent design or a designer, they used words like creation and god. So if we're going to teach pesudo-science in public schools why stop at ID? this opens up numerous doors for our young students. Lets teach them Astrology next, how about alchemy, oh oh why not magic too?

 

[SSBbo]

isn't ben stein a member of Mensa International?

snex,
1. not neccesarily propoganda... kinda, but not really.
2. very bad examples. ice is slippery do to thin layers a melted water or top. ice floats because ice expands when it's frozen thus having less mass than water with an equal volume.

he's no scientist, but he can pin people (scientists) down with logic in an instant.

i'm just saying: you can't deny the possiblility of something if you can't disprove it.

 

[Aesir]

he's no scientist, but he can pin people (scientists) down with logic in an instant.

i'm just saying: you can't deny the possiblility of something if you can't disprove it.

1. Without knowledge in the field or any reasonable qualifications how can you honestly think he can pin them down? Evolution is a both fact and theory. Fact species evolve over time, so the use of the theory of evolution is evidence for that fact.

2. Lack of evidence is not proof of existence. The ID movement largely relies on the theory that a designer did it. Why don't we look at that for a moment. It depends on the fact that a designer exists, correct? that's a reasonable assumption. Except the more we discover about evolution the more we come to realize how preposterous this designer argument is. Behe once said that the immune system is so complex that even removing one part destroys the system. However through research it's been discovered that you can have an immune system without all the parts. Many Marine organisms have simple immune systems compared to the primates.

 

[SSBbo]

ugh.
"on the backs of crystals" (whatever it means) and panspermia can easily be disproven by anyone with half of a mind.
i agree that evolution exists and occurs all the time.

i'm not proving anything, both sides of the arument are possible.

 

[Aesir]

Except there's no creditable evidence so how can the ID camp be a possibility? It's no different then saying; "Look you can't disprove the existence of unicorns so it has to be a possibility" That isn't proof to go on saying it is, or even saying it's a possibility is a logical fallacy and doesn't progress the argument at all.

 

[SSBbo]

unicorns? do none of you use good examples? unicorns would be something physical, not an event (such as the origin of life), so if you there aren't any, they don't exist.

here's a good example: wormholes. i've heard lots of things about wormholes (in fact, my theory of how the edge of the universe revolves around them) but i've never heard any credible evidence that proves there existence, i still believe in the possiblity though.

 

[EC_Joey]

ice floats because ice expands when it's frozen thus having less mass than water with an equal volume.

You got it mixed up. Ice is less dense than water. This is because it occupies a greater volume when it expands, making mass/volume have a lower value. Because it has a lower density it floats on top of water. See Buoyancy on Wikipedia.

EDIT:

here's a good example: wormholes. i've heard lots of things about wormholes (in fact, my theory of how the edge of the universe revolves around them)

What is this? Sounds like rubbish that doesn't belong in this thread.

 

[SSBbo]

"ice expands when it's frozen thus having less mass than water with an equal volume"
"less mass than water with an equal volume"

that's what i just said. lol redundancy.

 

[Aesir]

unicorns? do none of you use good examples? unicorns would be something physical, not an event (such as the origin of life), so if you there aren't any, they don't exist.

Your hypothesis largely depends on the assumption of a creator which isn't provable in anyway. To assume he exists without any evidence is an argument of ignorance.

here's a good example: wormholes. i've heard lots of things about wormholes (in fact, my theory of how the edge of the universe revolves around them) but i've never heard any credible evidence that proves there existence, i still believe in the possibility though.

That's different though, Note I'm not claiming to be an expert but from what I know: worm holes are thought to be possible because of the the general theory of relativity it opens up the possibility. There's a distinct difference in a possibility from a well known scientific theory and a possibility from an argument of ignorance.

 

[EC_Joey]

"ice expands when it's frozen thus having less mass than water with an equal volume"
"less mass than water with an equal volume"

that's what i just said. lol redundancy.

The only way to have "less mass" in a system is to take it out. If water forms into ice, you're not removing any mass from the system, you are simply increasing the volume. It might seem the same to you but there is a clear difference.

 

[SSBbo]

possibilties are possiblities.
back to wormholes, the way i had them explained to me is:
they are a rip in spacetime conjoining it to other parts of space-time.
space-time is a dimension, well all three dimensions, and is the fabric in which the universe is made of, but it's not tangible. so how can you rip through it???
same thing with religion, it brings up more questions than answers, mostly "why?"
so does science. why do protons have charges? how would the universe have an end? does it have an end? if the universe doesn't have an end, how can it go on and on?

also, variola, i said less mess than water with an equal volume, I was comparing it to water with an equal volume.

 

[AltF4]

No, SSBbo!

For god's sake (pun intended) don't try to get a half ***** explanation of a scientific topic, mention something that you don't understand about it, and then claim that it "brings up more questions than it answers".

Wormholes are a mathematical construct that arise when dealing with black holes. They are otherwise known as Einstein-Rosen bridges, because those are the guys who came up with it. The math works just fine, and they SHOULD exist. But we just haven't seen one yet. The same thing happened with black holes. They were mathematically discovered first, and believed to exist. Only much later would we actually find one.

The rest of your questions are easily answered either by googling, wikipedia, looking at my previous posts, or paying attention in science class. They are not fundamental flaws with science in any way, shape, or form.

 

[SSBbo]

although i disagree with what you believe, thanks for explaining that math can prove wormholes should exist.

 

[EC_Joey]

SSBbo, please write more clearly.
The difference between science and religion is that science attempts to back up its answers with evidence, and even then most of the time they are not assumed to be 100% correct. Religion (particularly Christianity) attempts to give answers with virtually no evidence, assumes these answers are indisputable, and when there is no evidence turns to "God/The Bible did/says it".

 

[SSBbo]

most christians believe that it's possible that they're wrong (i'm a christian, i should know), but believe in christianity anyway.

and now i think it's time to bring up death. if i die and find out i was wrong about god, i rot in the ground and don't care. if an athiest happens to be wrong about god, he's in hell, and is all like "i remember this on SWF."

also i think the rennaciance (i speld dat rong, i tink) helped make everyone secular enough to where we could talk about somethink other than religion.

 

[snex]

isn't ben stein a member of Mensa International?

even if he is, how is that relevant?

1. not neccesarily propoganda... kinda, but not really.

it absolutely is propaganda. it obtained interviews from scientists by lying to them, it tells lies about evolutionary theory, it tells lies about the alleged "expellings" of "ID theorists," and it dishonestly attempts to link evolution to the holocaust. all of this stuff is well documented on the interwebs.

2. very bad examples. ice is slippery do to thin layers a melted water or top. ice floats because ice expands when it's frozen thus having less mass than water with an equal volume.

the reason you list for ice being slippery is not correct. it provides SOME reduction of friction, but not enough to account for the actual slipperiness of ice as we observe it.

the reason you list for ice floating is correct, but it is just repeating what i said in scientific terms. nobody knows WHY ice is less dense than liquid water.

most christians believe that it's possible that they're wrong (i'm a christian, i should know), but believe in christianity anyway.

ok, if its possible that you are wrong, what would it take to demonstrate it to you? if you cant think of any possible event or observation that would disprove christianity, then you really ARENT open to the possibility that you are wrong.

 

[AltF4]

nobody knows WHY ice is less dense than liquid water.

Really? Water crystallizes when it freezes. So the resulting grid-like shape of the molecules takes up more space than if they were just squeezed together any which way. It kidn of makes sense if you look at what the water molecule looks like.

Am I missing something? Lol, I was not aware of this being an open scientific topic.

 

[EC_Joey]

also i think the rennaciance (i speld dat rong, i tink) helped make everyone secular enough to where we could talk about somethink other than religion.

Religion is a man-made institution. There was a time when religion did not exist, and all human beings were "atheists".

 

[snex]

Really? Water crystallizes when it freezes. So the resulting grid-like shape of the molecules takes up more space than if they were just squeezed together any which way. It kidn of makes sense if you look at what the water molecule looks like.

Am I missing something? Lol, I was not aware of this being an open scientific topic.

you absolutely are missing something. water is the only known (at least afaik) substance for which this happens. for all other substances, lower temperature increases density. remember the ideal gas law?

 

[Aesir]

Religion is a man-made institution. There was a time when religion did not exist, and all human beings were "atheists".

I think the first evidence that humans began believing in gods was in the neolithic era, there's statues of a goddess I believe she had like 4 breasts? she was the goddess of fertility.

 

[BFDD]

I have written essays on why ID is wrong. Basically any evidence used by people who believe in ID, comes down to misrepresenting evolution to create holes they can fill with god. For instance the argument that life is irreducibly complex came from the statistical probability that a mutation would form a fully functioning eye. And I agree with that it is ridiculous to believe that a single mutation would form a fully functioning eye.

However, if you actually understand evolution, you know that know one is claiming that, the eye according to evolution is formed slowly over the course of many mutations over many generations. One mutation forms something that causes a cell to be light sensitive, then the next generation gains a mutation that improves on that cell and so on until the eye is formed.

 

[AltF4]

you absolutely are missing something. water is the only known (at least afaik) substance for which this happens. for all other substances, lower temperature increases density. remember the ideal gas law?

Obviously it's unusual. But there are other materials that do the same thing as well. In a quick google search or two, I wasn't able to find anything to the effect of a controversy related to freezing ice expanding. I've heard of the slippery ice thing, but not the expanding one.

Not that any of this matter! It just caught my eye.

 

[Deleted member]

I thought that was what the Mars mission is for. To study the origin of water and it's unusual properties?

 

[SSBbo]

I have written essays on why ID is wrong. Basically any evidence used by people who believe in ID, comes down to misrepresenting evolution to create holes they can fill with god. For instance the argument that life is irreducibly complex came from the statistical probability that a mutation would form a fully functioning eye. And I agree with that it is ridiculous to believe that a single mutation would form a fully functioning eye.

However, if you actually understand evolution, you know that know one is claiming that, the eye according to evolution is formed slowly over the course of many mutations over many generations. One mutation forms something that causes a cell to be light sensitive, then the next generation gains a mutation that improves on that cell and so on until the eye is formed.

yes, i get what you're saying, but i don't "misrepresent" evolution. i believe in one life form by god ("holes" i can fill in? how about "hole"?) besides that aspect, i think that i agree with evolution in every way.

 

[snex]

yes, i get what you're saying, but i don't "misrepresent" evolution. i believe in one life form by god ("holes" i can fill in? how about "hole"?) besides that aspect, i think that i agree with evolution in every way.

i dont think that you do. if you agreed with evolution, you would have to agree that the existence of humans is really just a lucky accident. the results of evolution are not planned - they are random. there was never any guarantee that intelligent creatures would exist. as stephen jay gould argued, if you rewound time and started evolution again, you would not get the same results that you had before.

 

[SSBbo]

wrong i believe that the asteroid that caused the mass extinction of dinosaurs was god saying "nope, try again, science." but evolution just happens.

 

[snex]

wrong i believe that the asteroid that caused the mass extinction of dinosaurs was god saying "nope, try again, science." but evolution just happens.

uhhhh wut???

if thats the case, then i have some awful news to break to you. an asteroid of a similar size is on its way, and there is a darn good chance it could hit earth around 2030. even if it doesnt, an eventual collision is inevitable. there are plenty of asteroids on earth's orbit, and they seem to hit every 100 million years. the one that killed the dinos was 65 million years ago, so we are coming due for one.

even ignoring asteroids, 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct. the average "lifespan" of a mammal species is approx 7 million years if i remember my numbers correctly, and there is no reason to assume humans will be any different.

 

[EC_Joey]

Really? An asteroid hitting the Earth? How does that have anything to do with God? Plenty of meteorites have made big dents in the Earth's surface, is God responsible for those too?