Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[MeDeFe]

2 - Not one religious/god/abortion/evolution/creation thread on this site has been started by an atheist.

Sorry backglass, but I started one back in '06, it didn't last long though and was derailed within 3 pages. Though I wouldn't count myself as an atheist back then rather than as a strong agnostic.

[unriggable]

athiests feel the need to impose their beliefs on others, and don't even try to say I attempted to impose mine on you.

1 - "Nonbeliefs". Athiest's don't believe magical gods exist.

2 - Not one religious/god/abortion/evolution/creation thread on this site has been started by an atheist.

So....who is pushing their agenda? The religious zealots who cannot think for themselves, thats who. The same people who want to have a forced prayer for all at a public high school football game and then scream "OPPRESSION!" when someone objects to their heavy handed tactics.

Jesse Bad Boy tried to with his challenge "prove god exists" but nobody could so it died after a few pages.

[Neoteny]

Sometimes I feel bad for the theists...seems like they get ganged up on a lot. Why is there such a large proportion of athiests on CC anyways?

So... anyway, I agree with this. It's like this is the saloon the atheist posse hangs out in. I kinda wish there would be an organized creationist response. We scared away all the singles except for Widow, who I will say bravo to for persistence.

[john9blue]

Considering that theists outnumber atheists in the real world, I don't blame atheists for going online to spread their lack of beliefs.

You want facts?
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2009

Pretty much ends this debate.

A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory.

This is true. If you have religious beliefs, this is equally as true because you must accept that there is a HUGE difference between the idea of a godless universe and a universe with a god.

It's a scientifically testable theory of God. Maybe not that feasible, but you could do it.

The reality is that there is EXACTLY the same amount of evidence for God's existence as there is for fairies, giants, cyclopses, unicorns or whatever.

Anyway, let's face facts. Theists cannot prove that there is a God. Atheists cannot prove otherwise. If this wasn't true, nobody would be having this argument.

I suppose it's true that a universe without God would look different. To be specific, it wouldn't exist.

[Neoteny]

Or would it...

[Snorri1234]

Or would it...

(it would)

[Frigidus]

Sometimes I feel bad for the theists...seems like they get ganged up on a lot. Why is there such a large proportion of athiests on CC anyways?

So... anyway, I agree with this. It's like this is the saloon the atheist posse hangs out in. I kinda wish there would be an organized creationist response. We scared away all the singles except for Widow, who I will say bravo to for persistence.

I mean, admittedly, it's a very rare occasion that athiests outnumber theists, but the best argument has even numbers on each side.

[comic boy]

Sometimes I feel bad for the theists...seems like they get ganged up on a lot. Why is there such a large proportion of athiests on CC anyways?

So... anyway, I agree with this. It's like this is the saloon the atheist posse hangs out in. I kinda wish there would be an organized creationist response. We scared away all the singles except for Widow, who I will say bravo to for persistence.

I mean, admittedly, it's a very rare occasion that athiests outnumber theists, but the best argument has even numbers on each side.

The best arguments are like this one because the other side has nothing to counter with

[luns101]

Most people I know are religious, if I didn't respect them, I wouldn't have very many friends, for sure. But because I have respect for them, by no means implies I have respect for their opinions. Most of my friends know this, and get along just fine. Hell, they think I'm just as wrong as I think they are. I think the problem with posting on a forum is that it's difficult to express the tone of a statement. I've never gotten into a heated theological discussion face to face.

Thanks for at least making the attempt. Your respect is appreciated

For me, I just couldn't find enough evidence in evolution to stake my entire eternal destiny on it. Others here obviously are comfortable with the decision to do so.

Before I became a Christian I tended to think of Christianity as a system of "thou shalt not do this or that". As a consequence, I also labeled Christians as people who were "against" this or that. I used to tell them to GFY and call them bigots. Now I'm the one being called a bigot for switching sides.

[unriggable]

Now I'm the one being called a bigot for switching sides.

Well, you're a flip flopper. You're the kind of christian that sees it not as a morality lesson but more as a psychological lesson. AKA the good kind of christian. Gregrios is leaning toward the bad side.

[john9blue]

Morality is one of those subjects where I tend to deviate from the Church in some ways. I just think that certain things can be right or wrong, depending on the situation.

The best arguments are like this one because the other side has nothing to counter with

I really don't think comic boy has even read what I have to say. We don't have anything to counter with, but you don't have any way of proving the nonexistence of God. It's sort of a deadlock. That's why the debate hasn't been settled after centuries of debate.

As a side note, Conquer Club just recorded it's 180,000th member. Don't ask me how I know.

[Frigidus]

Morality is one of those subjects where I tend to deviate from the Church in some ways. I just think that certain things can be right or wrong, depending on the situation.

The best arguments are like this one because the other side has nothing to counter with

I really don't think comic boy has even read what I have to say. We don't have anything to counter with, but you don't have any way of proving the nonexistence of God. It's sort of a deadlock. That's why the debate hasn't been settled after centuries of debate.

As a side note, Conquer Club just recorded it's 180,000th member. Don't ask me how I know.

But the fact that you can't prove or disprove your claim either way removes its validity. If I claimed that there were invisible lizards all around us, but they were too fast for us to catch, gave off no heat signature, and, in fact, could not be described in any way beyond the word "lizard" you couldn't prove me wrong. Does this lend credibility to my theory?

[AlgyTaylor]

Sorry to bring this old chestnut back up again, but I've only just read some of it properly ....

FOSSIL RECORD

In ''The Origin of Species,'' Darwin noted that without the appropriate fossil evidence (which did not exist in his day) his general theory would hold no weight. He and others tenaciously clung to the hope that the unfolding of the fossil record would show all of the intermediate forms necessary to support his claims. Today, however, with more than 100,000 species represented in fossils, the lack of intermediate forms is even greater than it was in Darwin's day.

So No proof from fossils to show macroevolution.

Um, actually Darwin said that there couldn't possibly be a complete fossil record due to the way in which fossils are formed.

If you look at fossils generally - say trilobytes - you can see how they've changed over millions of years - how they became larger and soforth. You don't need a degree to see this, it's obvious to the naked eye.

irreducibly complex system

"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly
(that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism)
by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system
because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional."

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Sorry, who's the first quote off?

Anyway, that's bye the bye. Yes, you're right - Darwin knew exactly what it'd take for evolution to be proved 'wrong' - rabbits in the Permian, for example. As does every single Darwinist/evolutionary biologist. This is a major difference between science and religion. Religion doesn't like to be 'proved wrong' at any point because as soon as those pilars start falling ... science on the other hand thrives in being proved wrong, that's the point of it all! Discovering the truth.

The eye (so many parts that serve no purpose by themselves but are needed to make an eye work. Why for millions of year would a worthless part exist if it had no function only to be used later by a part that was not evolved yet but once there made an eye work?

Are you serious? The eye is a perfect example of natural selection, I find it very hard to believe that you could even cite this as an example. Anyway, Richard Dawkins writes a very elegant description of the eye - which makes it perfectly obvious how it evolved - in Unweaving The Rainbow. Buy it, regardless of whether you believe in god or whatever it's a brilliant book.

Blood Clotting
The Blood Clotting Cascade

[very long description]

These are two examples of holes in Darwin's Theory.

Yes, blood clotting is indeed very good - that doesn't mean that god created it, though. I have to say I've precious little knowledge of this area of biology so don't want to state something that might well be incorrect.

All I'll say is that it's probably worth reading up on bacterial evolution, that'll almost certainly answer any questions you have regarding how a mechanism for blood clotting might evolve.

[AlgyTaylor]

Evolutionists please explain the following:

1. Why do we not see apes walking upright or shedding hair. Did evolution stop? All the apes I have ever seen, well.... look like apes.

Probably because they were all killed off. Why? Well, homo sapiens and neanderthals would've been subsisting off the same diet - the ones most efficient at living off that diet (homo sapiens) survived. Neanderthals slowly died out.

In addition to this, evolution tends to move towards one species rather than several. However, when these groups are seperated they don't interbreed, so you get variations which later become seperate species.

Finally, (modern) apes look like (modern) apes and humans look like humans because humans are NOT decended from (modern) apes! Apes and humans have a common ancestor, which probably looked something a little bit like humans and a little bit like apes - but not half way in between. You see, since this common ancestor humans and apes would've evolved and adapted to suit different environments, so as a consequence would've developed new attributes that weren't present in the common ancestor - for example, being able to walk on their hind legs. This might not be advantageous in the apes surroundings, but might be in a human's surroundings. Say if apes lived entirely in a deep jungle and humans lived on the outskirts of a jungle and in grassland ... I don't know, that's just conjecture - an example of how things might have gone their seperate ways.

2.It is fact that speech is a learned behavior. Tell me, who taught the apes to speak? (not 1 but hundreds of languages)

Nobody taught apes to speak, we're not directly related to apes.

I guess proto-humans managed to make some kind of variable sound, this proved to be advantageous, it followed that the proto-humans who could communicate in better 'grunts' could co-operate in a better manner and so, over time, these grunts developed in to a language. I suspect, but don't know, that walking upright has had a significant effect in this area as it might allow muscles in the throat to develop in such a way that allows more precise sounds. I don't know, it's not my area.

Vocal evolution definitely happens in finches, so I'd suggest looking in to that area if you want those questions answered. Its not my forte.

3.Tracing evolution back to the very first living thing... where did IT come from?

I don't know much about this either, Jay, but current scientific study in abiogenesis is looking in to it. Obviously the conditions required are pretty difficult to recreate. Some bloody complicated biochemistry, though. That's how.

[AlgyTaylor]

Look around. The evidence is there. Even some Scientist believe that with all the complexities of nature, the probability of all this happening by mere chance (evolution) is infinitely small. There was a creator and He still exists.

I think evry evolutionary biologist in the land will say that it definitely didn't occur by chance. It occurred by natural selection, which is anything BUT chance.

Here is a great book that explains exactly why it ISN'T chance,

[AlgyTaylor]

I could go on and on and on about this (in fact, I do ).

If you're in any doubt there's many, many books that explain natural selection. I keep going to Richard Dawkins because he's a very good author, but The Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins) is a good book on this. Stephen Jay Gould writes some interesting stuff too, I think The Wonderful Life is one of his ... plus the classic "On The Origin Of Species" by Charles Darwin

[unriggable]

I've got another one for you, WM. Iron is one of the most magnetic elements on this earth, and its weight makes it very common within the core of the planet. Because it is common in the core, it also appears in lava. Now since it it is magnetic, it lines up to the magnetic North-South of the planet. In recent lava flows this is completely normal. However travel back in time, and you will find that the iron is skewed, over time it changes dramatically. For example, the lava flows of North America all point to a magnetic north being near the equator, even though we know this cannot happen since the lava flows in Europe at the same time period point to a different magnetic north. Case and point - continental drift.

[Neoteny]

::feels obliged to poke around::

[comic boy]

Morality is one of those subjects where I tend to deviate from the Church in some ways. I just think that certain things can be right or wrong, depending on the situation.

The best arguments are like this one because the other side has nothing to counter with

I really don't think comic boy has even read what I have to say. We don't have anything to counter with, but you don't have any way of proving the nonexistence of God. It's sort of a deadlock. That's why the debate hasn't been settled after centuries of debate.

As a side note, Conquer Club just recorded it's 180,000th member. Don't ask me how I know.

I dont think you read the title of this thread, I am not talking about God I am comparing evolution and creationism. Huge amount of evidence for one and zilch for the other, there is no debate !

[unriggable]

Has WM been 'in' recently?

[Neoteny]

Has WM been 'in' recently?

Nope. Wanna take his place?

[unriggable]

Has WM been 'in' recently?

Nope. Wanna take his place?

Sure. Anybody have any evidence for creation?

[Neoteny]

Has WM been 'in' recently?

Nope. Wanna take his place?

Sure. Anybody have any evidence for creation?

I read the Bible once.

[Neoteny]

Happy V-day, all.

[Bavarian Raven]

this thread is still alive and evolving i see...