CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Its what ever you want to call it. It does not matter what you call it. People still can say he did it. As I have seen no amazing break through that has just said Christianity is a lie. If you say so then you are going against many many people and scientists themselves because they even know that the possibility still exists.
Why does God need to explain scientific knowledge? The Bible is about God's relationship with man, not God's relationship with everything. God gives us the basic story of how he made the universe (which coincidentally lines up with the big bang and evolution) because we were instructed to rule over it. Also, many people point out that ex nihilio breaks the law of physics, but so did the singularity that the big bang started from.
The Bible was as you said written by Bronze Age, sheep herders. They were not illiturate or the Old Testament wouldn't have been written down, but they had little to no knowledge in science comapred to other ancient cultures. They had no idea of their being a universe, this is apparent by them having to use "water" in place of universe or atmosphere for God to get the point across. Genesis is also written poetically. This being said, how can Bronze Age sheep herders get so accuratly close to the Big Bang and Evolution theory?
Gensis 1:1-5 God created the universe. Light was seperated from the dark.
Science: The origins of the universe started with the big bang. Light was literally formed as the universe cooled enough for electrons to bond to nuclei, and radiation could move outward unimpaired.
Genesis 1:6-8 God formed the heavenly firmament.
Science: Gravity caused material to clump together, the galaxies formed, as did our solar system.
Genesis 1:9-13 God seperates land and the oceans; God brought into existence the first plant life on Earth.
Science: As the Earth cooled, water allowed the existence of bacteria and algea and subsequent life.
Genesis 1:14-19 God caused the sky to show the bright lights of the heavenly bodies.
Science; The atmosphere becomes transparent, and more active photosynthesis leadas to an oxegyn-rich atmosphere.
Genesis 1:20-23 God filled the waters and then the air with animal ife.
Science: Animals appaered in the ocenas; birds appeared above the water and land.
Genesis 1:24-25 God called forth the animals.
Science:From the animals in the ocean came the animals of the land.
Genesis 1:26-27
Science: At the pinnacle of all the events that began with the big bang, man appeared in the universe to marvel at it all.
The big started with a massive release of energy that came off as light which then cooled to begin to form the universe.
did not happen in one day. :D :D
The word for "day" in Hebrew can mean age or unspecified amount of time or I would have never considered the big bang.
before creating sun :D :D ...two light? moon is a light source? :D
No, it does not say the moon is a light source. Light is nevertheless given off during the night during the night. That argument is very weak.
by magic a assume ...am I right? :D
No, evolution. Once again time is not specified
how is that relevant to anything? :D :D
How animals came about?
by magic again? :D
No, created divinely by God. As i stated in an earlier debate, evolution does not provide a close enough match for humans to come from another species and my view of shifting from evolution to divine creation is supported by literary shift in Genesis 1.
No, it started with release of overheated gluon plasma. Universe was not even transparent for a long time.
Correct the universe did not become transparent for a while. It was not till 3,000 years after the bang and the universe had cooled 4 thousand degrees Fahrenheit did the universe become clear were light and dark discernible (light and dark sepearting :D). However you are wromg to say it started with gluon plasma. Matter didn't exist till I believe 3 minutes after the bang happened. So at first their was only pure energy as light.
'And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day'
"big light for day and small light for night" Obviously related to the moon
Yes it is, but it simply said that the moon gave off of light, it did not specify if it came directly from the moon or the moon reflecting the sun's light.
How exactly is creating sculpture of a man from mud and making alive by magic Evolution???? Women from a rib How is that evolution??
I didn't say man was evolved. I said plants to animals were. I said man was created divinely. And i showed why i believed this scientifically and biblically.
Because you don't know Hebrew culture. I was not born into, but i have done research. It is simply means from the chaos/disorder to order, the blank time.
No it does not. Bible does not need additional explanation. It's written in very simple way. So don't try too "shapeshift". I know when I say word Day and it's description.
You don't have a vote on words meaning unless you are 4000 years old.
Like day, if you read any of the articles I listed you would understand. The unique construction of evening then morning points this out. Only a few other places in the Bible have this construction, and when it does it is not a twenty four hour day.
No, the Genesis account is open to interpretation by nature. It is written in poetic format. However, this is dismissed by you because ironically you are also ignoring this because it fits your opinion of the Bible. I think we can agree to disagree at this point.
The big started with a massive release of energy that came off as light which then cooled to begin to form the universe.
did not happen in one day. :D :D
The word for "day" in Hebrew can mean age or unspecified amount of time or I would have never considered the big bang.
before creating sun :D :D ...two light? moon is a light source? :D
No, it does not say the moon is a light source. Light is nevertheless given off during the night during the night. That argument is very weak.
by magic a assume ...am I right? :D
No, evolution. Once again time is not specified
how is that relevant to anything? :D :D
How animals came about?
by magic again? :D
No, created divinely by God. As i stated in an earlier debate, evolution does not provide a close enough match for humans to come from another species and my view of shifting from evolution to divine creation is supported by literary shift in Genesis 1.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (This is obvioisly just a summary of what the chapter is about).And the earth was without form, and void (sounds a lot like the singularity from the big bang); and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light(the big bang was initiated). And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness (the universe begins to cool enough for electrons, protons, and atoms to form allowing for galaxies and stars to form). And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters (earths atmosphere is formed). And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so (land was formed). And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind (this could be god using evolution), whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so (first life was plant life). And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day (when the clouds cleared to allow the sun, moon, and stars to be seen, plants can grow wity cloud cover because they suns rays still get through) And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind (first birds came from fish) and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day (the rest is allowed by evolution outside the creation of man which is divine. Evolution has still to find a link to humans)
According to creation myth Earth was created before the sun. And light was here also before sun. Then he literally made man from dirt.... So no big bang, no evolution in bible.
"According to creation myth Earth was created before the sun" that was declarative in purpose only, the cloud cover disappated letting the sun to be seen and used to tell time of day. Did you even read? I copied and pasted Genesis 1. The big bang is still parallel to genesis 1.
young earth creatars have no real fossils they just falsify everything. Old Earth creatards are Cherry picking bible in combination with data obtained by real scientists.
What link is their between humans and another species?
I have heard of the DNA and its off by enough to not have me convinced. For example, the cytochrome C of a dog is about 90 percent similar to that of a human, and the hemoglobin of a horse is about 88 percent similar to that of a human. In view of this, a 98 percent genetic similarity between apes and humans is not surprising. It is interesting that some sources put the difference between humans and apes much higher, as high as 10 percent. At least for one gene, human and chimpanzee alleles seem to differ by 13 base pairs out of 270, for a difference of about 5 percent.
Which is why I am asking if their is something that has a greater similarity to humans than that of the apes.
I have heard of the DNA and its off by enough to not have me convinced. For example, the cytochrome C of a dog is about 90 percent similar to that of a human, and the hemoglobin of a horse is about 88 percent similar to that of a human. In view of this, a 98 percent genetic similarity between apes and humans is not surprising. It is interesting that some sources put the difference between humans and apes much higher, as high as 10 percent. At least for one gene, human and chimpanzee alleles seem to differ by 13 base pairs out of 270, for a difference of about 5 percent.
Which is why I am asking if their is something that has a greater similarity to humans than that of the apes.
Exactly! Their is none that I have found in my research. Many scientists actually can't agree what percentage apes are like us, or gorillas. I've seen 99.9% and 98.6% on the same site. Which is why I believe humans didn't evolve.
Exactly! Their is none that I have found in my research. Many scientists actually can't agree what percentage apes are like us, or gorillas. I've seen 99.9% and 98.6% on the same site. Which is why I believe humans didn't evolve.
You do not follow evolution because you are retard, it has honing to do with percentage of shared DNA. Get better source, ask someone who is not creatard ...Junior high science teacher he will explain you how it is.
No, I know evolution. The previous species that evolved to the current human species would have died off, but we have no fossils of them. So the only thing close to humans we have are apes and it would have taken a few more generations evolution to form humans, but we currently do not have the fossils of those generations.
Why would he of? If you were omnipotent then you wouldn't need a bang to create the universe, it would be much easier if you just created it out of nothing.
Theory of Evolution is a result of more than century of intensive research, that has been done by tens of thousands of highly skilled experts that has dedicated their lifes to the science. They have managed to gather an incredible amount of evidence that gives us an overall picture of how he evolved. All of it, all the huge amount of data they have collected are freely accessible trough the internet.
Creationism originates in mythology. It was created by completely illiterate desert goat dwellers living in Bronze age. No single piece of evidence ever offered. Myths are inconsistent, sounding more like kids tales.
Evolution for sure. Creationism is just being okay with remaining ignorant about biology, chemistry and the laws of nature. It's just lazy, has ZERO evidence, and literally makes no sense whatsoever when you actually use an educated brain.
If I have to pick one, I'd pick Evolution. But only because Creation makes less sense. But I've heard many theories including that of creation and the only thing that has made me actually believe there MIGHT be a supernatural entity, is science and maybe the conspiracy topic.
If there happens to be a conspiracy group named Illuminati, it actually makes me believe that there might be a god behind all this. But then again, the conspiracy theory goes a long way back, perhaps even BC. It makes me think that IF the Illuminati does exist and they go back years BC, then they could easily have came up with Jesus and planned a whole mass destruction plan just to take over the world as rulers themselves and not for another entity as they claim it's to bring Lucifer as world ruler. So even if the Illuminati exist, and the Illuminati theory claims there is a god and a devil, then I'd think it's actually just a theory to distract people and that neither God nor Lucifer exists. Just a plan to take over the world.
Then there's the Evolution theory that we came from monkeys or whatever. But where did that monkey came from? It says it was a fish that evolved into a frog and then it touched ground and kept walking offshore. OK, that makes sense (to me). But what about the fish, the water, and earth itself? Planet earth was created by...an explosion? Like the Big Bang Theory or something? That doesn't really make sense to me at all. We'd still be left wondering about how exactly was it that stars were formed and when and how did that cosmic dust and those meteors and crap were created. Then scientists come up with things like the 'multiverse' and it's like...OK...where's the theory and where does all of it keep coming from? Because I can easily invent a theory that says we were in fact an evolution from penguins, but where exactly did that theory come from?
Unless god himself or aliens make an appearance into society to explain to us our existence, we'll always have doubts about it. And right now I have doubts about every theory because it's a matter of faith and when you have faith in something you don't question it and when you don't question something you don't see beyond the possibilities that it might actually be wrong, and that's actually what the Evolution theory does just like the Creation theory; both of them keep looking forward to theories that prove that they are right, but ignore theories that may prove they are wrong.
So since I've no faith, I'd be stuck in the middle of both theories and not believe in either 'cause even if aliens or god happen to exist, I'd still ask where did they come from.
To answer this first you need to answer the question what is logical to a creationist, creationism is perfectly logical they've got it all worked out via their beliefs and the bible and vice versa an evolutionist sees evolution as the only logical way everything on the planet came to be. To me evolution is practical and the only logical way as I do not think the bible story of god making the world in seven days etc holds water but if we keep asking the question why about evolution we end up at the big bang and before that nothing, to me that's were the logic of evolution runs out as we have nothing to prove how the big bang happened. Maybe a god triggered the big bang to see what would happen and the universe is one big experiment, which would make both creationism and evolution sort of right!!
Both positions make logical sense. There's nothing illogical about creationism or evolution. The difference between the two (and why no one can be serious about disagreeing with evolution) is just that the assumptions creationism makes are basically incapable of being taken seriously after scrutiny. The exact opposite is true of evolution.
With what we've seen definitely evolution. I won't post a link because every time I grace this topic I post the same one, but it basically showed a group of birds adapting, and evolving, to live near a highway that was made around their nesting ground.
Evolution is pretty much proven, and biblical creation only has a history of belief to back it. Evolution is a scientific theory, and with new evidence we can add more to what we know. No-one edits the bible which is ancient, unreasonable and as mistranslated as Cinderella. Evolution as a theory only explains the diversity of species, and can work with the concept of intelligent design if you so wish it.
Evolution, to me, makes more logical sense. Of course, that depends on what 'logical' means to you. Evolution, I suppose, is something that is very hard, and maybe even impossible to prove. But I can tell you that I believe this concept (almost all the time): The more you practice, the better you get at something. Same goes for evolution, except that the change is so much that it's visible. Still, I'm a kid, so I can easily say that I know very little compared to some others about both evolution and creationism.
there is enough evidence to support it, but the thing is that the bible isn't meant to be taken literally, the earth was created by god, god created us humans through natural selection
Creationism does not mean intelligent design. In fact any idea of intelligent design that includes creationism ends up making the intelligent part disappear.
There are different forms of creationism. One involves creation of the universe by an intelligent designer. It varies between individuals. In fact Creationism demends an intelligent designer which just means a higher being.
Even with respects to evolution? I don't think so.
One involves creation of the universe by an intelligent designer.
But, this is separate from evolution. The creation of the universe and evolution should be considered separately.
In fact Creationism demands an intelligent designer which just means a higher being.
In fact, that's not true. Creationism needs a creator, no intelligence or design is required. Higher being, yes. And if you look at the duck billed platypus he must have been very high. ;)
Even with respects to evolution? I don't think so.
That is your thought so that is your opinion.
But, this is separate from evolution. The creation of the universe and evolution should be considered separately.
Not really. If God made the universe did he make the first self replicating molecule or did it just appear? That is what people are arguing about and it is all relevant.
In fact, that's not true. Creationism needs a creator, no intelligence or design is required. Higher being, yes. And if you look at the duck billed platypus he must have been very high. ;)
Not true. Intelligence is required and I think the duck billed platypus is fine. You think it looks funny? In its environment it wont be able to see far so it has chemo-receptors in its nose that can sense different chemicals and it can sense when its prey is near or far so the duck billed platypus is nothing to make fun of. Even so it takes intelligence to create something of such uniqueness. Creationism must have an intelligent creator. All of the Gods in any religion that claim to have created earth are intelligent. They all must be intelligent. You cant just have a creator that isn't all knowing. So before you say he was "high" when making the duck billed platypus you should figure out why it has that duck like nose in the first place. Which is to help it adapt to its murky environment friend.
no intelligence or design is required.
This is problematic. First if there is no design there is nothing. Just nothing. Not even the quantity of nothing but a void. We cant even fathom true nothing. Second without intelligence you cant create. Our universe is spectacular the way it works. It would take a being of high intelligence to make that all possible so you statement is very problematic.
Not really. If God made the universe did he make the first self replicating molecule or did it just appear? That is what people are arguing about and it is all relevant.
Neither of these has to do with evolution. Evolution comes into play after the universe exists, after the first living organisms comes into existence. Saying God did those 2 things does not mean God didn't allow evolution to happen.
The duck billed platypus is a mammal with a duck bill and it lays eggs. Those are weird features.
Your use of the word creationism is clouded by your closed mindedness. You are not treating creationism as a general term. The only requirement for creationism is a creator. Period, end of story. Your argument is that there must be intelligence for what our world has.
Neither of these has to do with evolution. Evolution comes into play after the universe exists, after the first living organisms comes into existence. Saying God did those 2 things does not mean God didn't allow evolution to happen.The duck billed platypus is a mammal with a duck bill and it lays eggs. Those are weird features.Your use of the word creationism is clouded by your closed mindedness. You are not treating creationism as a general term. The only requirement for creationism is a creator. Period, end of story. Your argument is that there must be intelligence for what our world has.
Man this is why I love debating with you. I learn so much. Okay. Here is my argument against what I bolded above.
The features on a platypus are weird to us. We are weird to many species.Jellyfish are weird. Leaping clams are weird. Everything can be called weird but only by opinion.
Here is the definition. Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.
Here is intelligent design. Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute.
They both involve each other. I am arguing that a creator must be intelligent.
Yes it need a creator but that creator must be smart enough to make us. Thats what I am saying. It isnt the "end of story" the designer must have. I say this because a creator must have a conscious mindset and thus must be able to have a level of intellect.
No, the features on a platypus are weird for a mammal to have. Sorry for the mix up.
Here is the definition. Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.
I disagree. I am going with the idea that creationism is the supernatural being creating all creatures at the same time and that each species is unique and do not come from each other. That's why it is in direct opposition to evolution. If we go with your definition their is no conflict with evolution.
Here is intelligent design. Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute.
I believe this is only one form of intelligent design. In fact I think your definition for creationism fits better for intelligent design.
Yes it need a creator but that creator must be smart enough to make us.
You are thinking at a lower level then I am. I am talking about the cookie cutter and you are talking about the cookie. I am saying in general that in order for something to be created there only needs to be a creator. I say this to make a differentiation with intelligent design. I would like to think that if there was a creator for our universe, then yes intelligence and design were used. Although, maybe it was trial and error, it could be that.
That's my point. She seems to be arguing that if the universe can't exist without a creator, then evolution doesn't make sense. But, like you have said a creator of the universe doesn't mean that evolution can't work.
I am saying that evolution exists. I am saying that it is possible to also believe that a God created evolution. And of course, I believe it is possible to have evolution occur naturally without God.
For something to exist it would have had to have been created; if we weren't created by something, in this case God, there'd be no existence in the first place. Therefore, we were created. At least that's my logic.
Evolution to me is a way of saying what was created has a process and so I do believe that humans came from a sort of process; that is, there was A at one point, and right now we're at B, and we're heading towards C.
It's like talking to a retard. Evolution deals with the diversity of life and how it develops. I does not deals with it's origins. Maybe you should read actual textbook instead of broken wiki.
Then I guess all those evolutionists that have done much more research than you have a just wrong then arent they? Because in order to understand it completely one must find the origin of life. Not that hard for science right? I mean you guys found out what caused the big bangs and stuff so it shouldnt be hard for you.
Then I guess all those evolutionists that have done much more research than you have a just wrong then arent they?
If you are talking about the scientists who work in the field, the research you are refering to would relate to abiogenesis (the origin of life) not evolution (exploring the mechanisms behind the variation within life). Related? Sure. Synonymous? No.
Because in order to understand it completely one must find the origin of life.
Does one need to know how to make a guitar in order to master playing it? Does one need to study the OS of the world's first computer to program a modern computer? Do you have to know all of the ins and outs of a Model T to be a champion race car driver?
Not that hard for science right? I mean you guys found out what caused the big bangs and stuff so it shouldnt be hard for you.
Funny thing is, there are now dozens of known ways to get a self-replicating protobiont that, if subjected to natural selection, could feasibly become primitive life within the accepted time frame. The trick is, trying to find out what the exact environmental conditions were when life first appeared, so we can determine which one played a role here on Earth. Finding out extremely specific information about environmental conditions 4 billion years ago at locales that probably haven't existed for 3.5 billion years might be a little tricky. For the Big Bang, everything that moves provides evidence. Its like saying that because you can put on a band aid, it should be no problem to perform surgery.
Oh sweet you seem knowledable. Please. Can you tell me a few of the multiple ways life can start from like abiotic matter? Lile the leading theories as of now?
Even if wikipedia isn't scholarly enough for you, there are 170 links that you can peruse, study and evaluate at your leisure. I can simplify it down to the basics if you like.
For something to exist it would have had to have been created; if we weren't created by something, in this case God, there'd be no existence in the first place. Therefore, we were created. At least that's my logic.
That's not a problem of biology and evolution. That's a problem of physics and is therefore irrelevant.
I have no idea. I'm guessing it (God) was always there, and nothing before it. I don't really know.
In fact, I do not really care where God came from. I'm more concerned and curious with where we came from. Where God came from is of no concern to me, however, when I ask "did God create us?", I want to stress that I do not ask "Well, where did God from from?" I know humans and attempt to "know" (believe) in God, there's a big difference.
The dismissal of one thing being illogical when people worldwide are trying to solve it the hard way because it's not yet 'fully detailed', when your 'picture' is unfinished. (or maybe floating?)
Creationism. There's a reason evolutionism is still only a theory: it can't be proven, despite countless scientist's attempts. It was a handy pseudo-scientific theory that served the powers that were (and are) very nicely; how to create moral-free consumers? It was biblical law they needed to separate mankind from to move forward into the future they envisioned, and Darwin provided that. Not really a strong theory, but good enough for the purposes it was used for against the unlearned commoner. Modern scientists are trying to find what actually created the world, because some time ago it became painfully clear to the cutting edge scientists that the world cannot be an accident; that flies in the face of mathematics and all other disciplines. All attempts to prove evolution true once and for all had only succeeded in proving it was not true. Only low-grade scientists are still in the dark about that one. It's actually a dead theory, disproven by all the attempts to prove it. So this is actually a dead debate. However, they will leave evolution being taught as fact just like they did when it was clearly an unfleshed theory, because they haven't figured out what they want to replace it with, and 'God' is an abhorrent thought to them. They'll let us know when they've thought up the creator they attribute the world to.
Once you study biology (or genetics or physics or whatever) you see how precisely everything is built together. Countless perfect sums working together in preset programs and processes can't be a happy whoopsie; that defies logic itself. Evolution as per Darwin's theory works from the whopper of a presupposition that mistakes kept being evolved away from until a species was created, and happy mistakes kept happening in cohesion. The real world is far too complex to result from such a haphazard method. We live in the midst of the most complex, precisely orchestrated symphony imaginable; it could not possibly be a result of trial and error or unguided happenstance because the failures in the process of evolution into a living organism would have doomed that species to never become a species in the first place.
What guided evolution to work? If you believe in evolution, for it to work, something had to be making the right accidents happen perfectly and stay happening; otherwise we'd still be trying to emerge from the primordial ooze, constantly being retarded back into single cells. Everything around us, from each cell to each ecosystem, is built of so many interacting molecules and cells etc, that it is literally impossible for evolution to occur due to the sheer number of mistakes that would be fatal to the entire race. Maybe we could swallow the idea of one cell 'evolving'; but uncountable cells 'evolving' in cooperative harmony with one another and their environment and the planetary organism itself? That's sheer untrammeled fantasy.
Leading scientists are now leaning towards creationism because the best science tells them there is no way this all happened by accident; that's the greatest fairytale of all, and requires learnt ignorance which is fostered and taught under the facade of educated scientific knowledge. It's ancient ignorant pseudo-science and has been and is progressively being debunked. Whether or not you want to believe in God, the facts/sciences/maths actually support creationism, in the most nonreligious sense of the word, and now world leading science, while trying to avoid inciting a stampede of panicked evolutionist lemmings, is seeking the means and method of intelligent or guided creation. It's a fact that we are created and live in creation; now, it's time to seek the creator. It's still pretty hush-hush because the cult of evolution reigns strong, as do all of the most ignorant belief systems, but bit by bit common media is starting to come around to the idea that evolution is a failed doctrine, and the truth is yet to be accepted.
Creationism doesn't answer ANYTHING though. It is a postulate, a potential possibility. But without any corroborating evidence that does not rely on speculation, without any source mechanism positively identified, yet with VERY clear evidence that life has gone through countless stages of change that appear to be in synch with changing environments, it is in a know way a definitive answer.
Meanwhile, on those rather few "questions that evolution can't answer"...a) so what? Just because we don't have an immediate answer doesn't mean we jump over to something that pretends to answer questions without being falsifiable, b) science is constantly improving. We know a lot now that we didn't even know when I was born. Some questions are dificult to solve, but "difficult" does not mean impossible.
But some possibilities are more realistic than others. We know already that allele frequencies vary among and between groups of a given species over time. We can alter an environment for certain lifeforms and draw realistic prediction of just how those allele frequencies will vary. We can clearly see the differences between organisms in lower strata (older) and upper (more recent). So the theory of natural selection (which is what people really mean when they are refering to biological evolution) is not only very possible, it would be very difficult to account for all of these things without it. Biology would be nonsensical.
On the contrary, we have never observed anything that has no limits or is truly immortal. We have never seen life just poof out of the air without coming from another life form. We notice that every species has inefficiencies which would presumably be unlikely if designed by an omnipotent entity. Using God as an answer to these questions is like using "Yellow" as an answer to a calculus equation.
A theory is the highest label in the fields of science, it is an idea based on observations that have been tested and proven over and over. Creationism barely qualifies as a hypothesis, the idea that we were all molded into existence by an invisible magic man in the sky has no basis in fact or observation, only within the 1000 year old writings of primitive man. Even many religious people accept evolution. You have no ground to stand on
1. That's a question about how the environment was in the early phases of earth, and which chemical processes that could occur in that environment. Evolution predicts that everything started from common ancestors. We haven't disproved that life could have a common ancestor, so evolution can't be rejected on this basis. There's however substantial work showing that complex organic chemicals, even amino acids can 'evolve' spontaneously given the right environment. So it looks like a sure possibility that a common ancestor could have originated out of inorganic matter.
2. Extension of what I said above.
3. Sex serves the purpose of mixing the genes. Mixing of the genes is beneficial, because it catalyzes adaption to new environments. An ancient organism that evolved capability to have sex thus had an advantage over other organisms in a large range of environments, which is why sex was preserved, after it had evolved.
4. The same as 2.
5. Not sure I am following you here.
6. Intelligence can be advantageous in a lot of scenarios, although intelligent animal tend to evolve slower and thus adapt to changes in environment at a slower rate than say bacteria. Technology is merely an extension of intelligence. Game theory can be used to explain the moral side of natural behavior. Game theory has been used to prove that certain social strategies outperform others, etc, and the ones that outperform the others are those we tend to see in nature and in human beings. The optimal strategies correlate with what we normally think of morality. Morale behavior is thus merely game theoretical optimal behaviour.
I am not a student of Physics and Biology so I will just answer based on my meager knowledge. (I found this questions in some sites, raised by scientists themselves)
1. You won this one
3. I fail to see how the first microorganism evolved to have sex with another. I see no biological reason of how they will see the need for it.
5. I won?
6. I see the explanation for animals to gain intelligence and technology. But what I cannot understand is of how we evolved to have an insight for morality. I see no evolutionary need for us to question the concept of things that does not affect our survival rate (e.g animal cruelty, gay marriage, cloning)
3. The beauty of evolution is that incorporates random mutation. Sex evolved because an organism had a random mutation. That mutation happened to beneficial and thus was preserved.
6. I am afraid I might not have been clear enough. Game theory basically deals with assigning values to different choices and calculating which sets of choices (i.e. strategies) that are most beneficial to the particular organism cooperating or competeting with other organisms. Game theoretical strategies tend to correlate with our insights for morality, so I believe with a certain degree of confidence that morality may just be nothing but patterns of behavior that infact does affect survival rate. But as you correctly pointed out, it's weird that we deal with topics like animal cruelty. My simplest answer would be that these more foreign morale questions basically revolve around the same fundamental ideas. And because we are so clever, we can see that these questions are related, and we therefore try to answer them with. But yeah, this is a real problem for ethical naturalism.
3. I agree. It would be very peculiar if we couldn't formulate a mechanism for the evolution of sex.
6. No worries, I think morality is pretty hard to get to grips with myself. One point though, it is quite important to note that not all normative questions are ethical (although a fair amount of the interesting ones are). Things like manliness probably has more to do with aesthetics than ethics. Things like chivalry and love has a lot to do with trust, which in turn has a lot to do with how well we relate to each other. Prostitution is quite unique because the topic deals with the interplay between personal sovereignty and criminal networks. As I mentioned earlier, my position is called ethical naturalism, which basically proposes that ethical principles can be reduced to non-ethical principles. These non-ethical principles revolve around individual and shared interest and profit. And haven't we all heard things like "love is the solution to all our problems", which would be love reduced to a basically non-ethical statement. I have yet to find any ethical principle that can't be reduced like that.
5. How did living fossils remain the same after their era ended?
This question doesn't make sense. The eras you speak of were not punctuated by cataclysmic events, in fact it was more like our tun of decades.
6. How did the sense of intelligence, technology and morality came to be?
Quite an interesting question really, the leading theory is that these traits were advantageous for a social society and were selected for in said societies. Carl Sagan wrote "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" on this.
3.The link tackled only the evolution of sex and its maintenance. It said nothing about its origins. "However, since the hypotheses for the origins of sex are difficult to test experimentally, most current work has been focused on the maintenance of sexual reproduction."
5 Surely, you have heared of ancient animals found within the depths of the ocean. The question here is that, how did they managed to remain unchanged despite the massive changes in the atmosphere, pressures and salinity of the ocean, and the chemicals of polution
6 Still doesnt explain why we had to question things that does not affect our life (e.g animal cruelty, gay marriage, chivalry, etc)
5 Surely, you have heared of ancient animals found within the depths of the ocean. The question here is that, how did they managed to remain unchanged despite the massive changes in the atmosphere, pressures and salinity of the ocean, and the chemicals of polution
The organism you are referring to is the Ceolacanth. Found off the coast of East Africa, and specifically Madagascar. To say that the animals have remained unchanged is misleading, of course they changed, however it does not seem to be very much. Also as you well know East Africa is not particularly well developed and the problem of pollution specifically in the Mozambique Channel is little to none. The salinity and pressure changes have been minimal for millions of years. The amount of energy needed to change the pressure of the ocean is astronomical, and the amount of salt present in the ocean has fluctuated due to the sea level rising and falling. However it mainly affects surface zones.
6 Still doesnt explain why we had to question things that does not affect our life (e.g animal cruelty, gay marriage, chivalry, etc)
Ummm, in case you hadn't realized humans no longer suffer from environmental selective pressures unless they are self imposed like adapting to an urban environment. The social issues you speak of are just that social, based on different perceptions on what is socially acceptable opinions differ. Ask a gay person if gay marriage doesn't affect their life.
5. I just found that question in some random sites, so I cant argue. You won this one
6. In case you hadn't realized humans no longer suffer from environmental selective pressures unless they are self imposed like adapting to an urban environment.
- I still cant see any point as why we have the sense of morals towards things that has no connection with our survival. Such as
Warriors Honor
Prostitution
Manliness
Cloning
Justice
Honor
Love
It doesnt make any sense at all. I cannot see any biological reason for animals to formulate a sense of what is right and wrong. Shouldn't it be just survival of the fittest? And what do we care for justice?
I still cant see any point as why we have the sense of morals towards things that has no connection with our survival.
That is the point. Humans no longer need to "survive" the danger of being eliminated by predators, disease and the elements is reduced almost to zero. The History channel did a special on this called Mankind the story of us, or something close to that which explained how hunter-gatherer societies became agrarian ones and the need to defend ones possessions increased. This later down the line caused people with admirable traits that suit their environment to dominate the gene-pool in certain regions. Japan for instance grew, most commonly, rice and developed a society based strongly on cooperation, however in Denmark resources were scarce so those who were effective raiders were selected
It doesnt make any sense at all. I cannot see any biological reason for animals to formulate a sense of what is right and wrong. Shouldn't it be just survival of the fittest? And what do we care for justice?
fittest doesn't mean strongest it means best suited to the environment.
That is the point. Humans no longer need to "survive" the danger of being eliminated by predators, disease and the elements is reduced almost to zero
- And did it said anything about why we develop cultures and what for we need it? I understand that morals maintains order. But what bugs me is the need for the things that ive already mentioned.
One is based on Myth made up by Bronze age goat dwellers without any empirical evidence. The other one is based on research done for more that century by thousands of the smartest people on Earth.
The alternative would be Creationism. Evolution has not answered everything. You just told people to google it which we did and there is no official answer.
How is Creationism an alternative? There is not eve a standardized myth of creation. More then 3000 different stories. without giving a single answer to anything. How you actually ever go trough some actual biology class/. How can you even be so ignorant.
Yet Science still has not answered something a silly myth did? Have you done all of these studies yourself to qualify them? Also biology never answer the question either.
Yet Science still has not answered something a silly myth did? This is the most retarded thing you have ever posted.
Have you done all of these studies yourself to qualify them?
I did undergrad degree in Natural Sciences so I thing that I've covered biology quite well, even if I hit a therm that I don't understand I can self study. Which is an activity that you obviously aren't capable of.
Also biology never answer the question either. How can biology even answer that if it deals with living things?
There's nothing magical about creationism. Such a statement would be a form of argument from ignorance, since you appear to be saying that what God (possibly) did can't have taken place, because we haven't yet shown that such a thing could have happened. That's a fallacy, and you should know that.
The fact that you don't even care to defend your position, doesn't really strenghten your position either.
Re: the theory of gravity being used to defend the theory of evolution: obviously a big difference there, because despite the spin doctoring of pro-evolutionists, there is still no evidence of the existence of evolution, whereas there is evidence of gravity. A rose by any other name...
People shouldn't take it as a personal attack or some kind of command to submit to religion when I point out that many scientists themselves have abandoned the THEORY of evolution, while others still work to prove it. All the so-called 'proof' accumulated since the theory's advent doesn't stand up to any scientific validation testing. The facts of the matter is that evolution itself as a theory does not stand up to scrutiny and has collapsed under testing, every time, even when the testers were seeking to remove its 'theory' prefix tag by proving it. For the purposes of this debate I will use 'evolution' as a term including the 'big bang' theory, and all related/correlated theories of those two, to cover the 'accidents happen' explanation for the world's existence.
Science and scientists are fallible, it's a human fact. Much idiocy has sailed into the safe harbour of being publicly accepted under the flag of 'fact' despite gaping holes in the logic and criteria of their studies that supposedly render the proof. From there it's unquestionable, unchallengeable until pop science loses its hold with age and new information comes to light. Often it's the non-scientist who decries the new facts the loudest.
If you're so sure it's the truth then why do we have world-leading scientists seeking another explanation for the world - namely, creation - that is in complete opposition to the old theory of evolution? Maybe you should teach them the 'proven facts', and why it's a flawless theory. After all the hype died down, the best minds of our day have woken up to the realization of it simply not being a working theory. It's sacrilegious to question against evolution but gradually we are emerging into a modern world capable of questioning without lynchings.
Instead of merely reacting with the learnt-by-rote propaganda you were indoctrinated with in high school, perhaps take a moment to stop and think. Like the modern scientist is. If evolution were a proven theory no scientist would be seeking the means of intelligent or guided creation. But they are.
Not all those called scientists are making progress; many learn about science too worshipfully to ever question the old findings that have gone before, and instead of advancing science or contributing, they teach the flawed 'facts' of last century. That sort tends to rabidly and fervently (religiously) swallow piecemeal, and propagate/preach evolutionism. The rather self-righteous, hysterical, completely illogical behaviour evolutionists tend to erupt into when their faith's ideology is questioned is identical to the behaviour of the religiously fanatical. But, like all good fanatics, the most faithful of the closed-minded evolutionists are blind to their own behaviour.
I think evolutionism should be classified as a type of cultist religion; in fact in future it will almost certainly go down into history as a quasi-cult doctrine perpetrated upon the ignorant common man who had not the education to save himself, for the purposes of liberation from the control of the big churches into the hands of commercialism and industrialism. Certainly some people are fanatical and willfully blind enough in their support of it. I understand it's comforting and liberating to many, but the truth is not encompassed by evolutionary theory. I too was all abuzz when evolutionism was first taught. But even to me the faults became obvious, and this late in the day the rats (a.k.a. leading scientists) are finally deserting the sinking ship. Very reluctantly though. They're not saying it's not a plausible explanation for the world because they believe in God; (most of them don't); rather, they're saying that evolution/big bang theory etc is not a plausible explanation for the world because they have inquiring and evaluating minds, have done the studies and maths, and know it doesn't work. Not by a long stretch. It's a laughable fantasy, in all truth. I bet there'll still be devoted believers of evolutionism when it's been discredited for centuries, in future. When people believe so blindly they lose the ability to see or seek truth, they are lost. I'm glad it's freed the commoner from the complete and hypocritical dictatorship of the big churches, but it's still not a working theory. Many of the scientists back then were mis-educated and intimidated sycophants. Be a little more open minded if you dare.
Pretty much all information scientists reject evolution because the information in DNA could not come about by that process, its impossible. Evolution is a religion supported by falicy, not fact!
Re: someone thinking I've copied and pasted my opinions: I do understand that's actually something people do these days but much prefer to simply state my own opinions. If I ever do copy and paste information from another site I give credit. I'm not bent on anyone believing in God or evolution, I'm just stating my reasons why evolutionism is not an acceptable theory to me.
Genetic Mutations are an atomic bomb in the middle of the theory of evolution, the only thing holding us back from detonating it are brainwashed skeptics whose worldview would crumble if evolution were proved false.
you mean the common sense that nothing exploded and created everything and that, contrary to the known laws of physics, energy came together to form stars and then contrary to scientific observation, life came from nonlife and then thanks to mutations which are harmful 99% of the time, simple DNA codes became more complex by themselves and then we evolved a brain to understand this all even though it we dont need it to survive we kinda just evolved that random ability anyway and we know this is true because of radiocarbon dating even though a rock just made in a volcanoe 40 years ago dates the same age. That common sense?
Evolution suggests that humans and all other organisms that are around today evolved from other animals and organisms. They believe that apes evolved into humans. What doesn't make sense to me is the fact that apes are still around today with no significant signs of evolutionary changes. The Bible states in John 1:3, "Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made." The Bible doesn't say anything about apes becoming humans or any other species evolving. I believe the Bible because God promises us that everything in there is true. Humans fail. They lie, they cheat, and they will do anything and everything they can to get what they want. And I just don't think it makes sense to believe one person's beliefs who is lying to all of their fans for attention. Evolutionists are taking advantage of the people who actually believe their theories and that just isn't right.
There is an awful lot of faith in far reaching abilities thought capable in biology. Evolution purposes to assembe mutations for purpose of progress, and to further adaptation.
Evolution without a Creator is only selective of biological attractions based on these three basic needs to sustain durability, for survival and to further evolve toward progress through adaptations. But biology has no selection ability for preference!!
This kind of faith in evolution's ability absent a Creator is fairy dust!
It's a heavy acid trip to think evolution without a Creator can manage its designs selective also of preference, attracting mutations that will lead ultimately to design and artistic beauty too. It would actually look like crowded desolate waste with creatures durable and more likely ugly.
Thinking biology can evolve to select mostly beauty is unrealistic!
There are not enough care Bears and fairy dust to sustain that dream!
I'm sure organized artistic beauty can evolved through preferred biological selections for beauty in your make believe word of evolution But really... That's pretty neive faith in evolution's biological focus and creative abilities!
There is an awful lot of faith in far reaching abilities thought capable in biology. Evolution purposes to assembe mutations for purpose of progress, and to further adaptation.
Evolution without a Creator is only selective of biological attractions based on these three basic needs to sustain durability, for survival and to further evolve toward progress through adaptations. But biology has no selection ability for preference!!
This kind of faith in evolution's ability absent a Creator is fairy dust!
It's a heavy acid trip to think evolution without a Creator can manage its designs selective also of preference, attracting mutations that will lead ultimately to design and artistic beauty too. It would actually look like crowded desolate waste with creatures durable and more likely ugly.
Thinking biology can evolve to select mostly beauty is unrealistic!
There are not enough care Bears and fairy dust to sustain that dream!
I'm sure organized artistic beauty can evolved through preferred biological selections for beauty in your make believe word of evolution But really... That's pretty neive faith in evolution's biological focus and creative abilities!
How would you deal with the hypothesis that the energy content of the universe is exactly zero? It's not a stupid idea, because it makes a whole lot of sense to numerate gravity as negative energy. If you than add all positive energy to all the negative gravity you arrive at exactly zero. The conclusion is that it takes no energy to create a universe.
If you agree with the premises, then it's quite easy to explain why something can evolve out of nothing.
Theres tons of energy in the universe, I don't believe it cancels out, It's unlimited on both ends, and we know nothing about dark matter pretty much, I think there has been billions of universes that have banged and crunched (lol)
As a consequence of the natural processes that occured in the environment in the early phases of Earth. I don't think anyone has the exact mechanism, although it is possible for complex organic molecules to form spontaneously from inorganic matter given the right type of environment.
Yes. But that doesn't however mean that Creationism is as probably or believable as evolution is. The proposition that the entire world was created 5 minutes ago with an inbuilt record that it has lasted longer is possible as well. Doesn't mean it's probable.
The reason why Creationism is improbable is because it relies on personal belief which can differ from person to person, unlike evolution which is based on solid data which is the same no matter who is looking at it.
I disagree. Have you done any of these studies for yourself to confirm? You have to have faith in your studies. You have to believe what each person says is true. You never know what may be a lie or not. So until a person actually does this themselves then they must have faith and believe that everything science says is true.
To propose that I need to personally confirm this in order to be sure is absurd. Every serious scientific paper gets reviewed by independent parties, every experiment has to be retested by other scientists. If it can't be restested then it's rejected, if the reviews are bad then it's ignored.
The only thing I need to have faith about is that scientists haven't been manipulating data since 1859, but I wouldn't really call that faith. It requires faith to believe that incredibly coordinated mass lying has been going on for 154 years, without the general public having ever caught a glimpse of it. So no. Unless we need to have absurd standards of certainty then I don't need to confirm it myself. Also, the thing about this critique is that it falls right back on you. If science needs these absurd standards than you also needs such standards about your personal beliefs.
I am sure manipulation of science is not hard. Just make it sound good and bam. Since you say it is "absurd" that shows you have a strong faith in science. Same for the Creationists. Also just like you said in your last two sentences it all comes down to personal belief.
It's not really a matter of faith as I pointed out. It's a matter of common sense. Literally everyone involved in the science behind evolution need to have been in on the lying in order for it to have been possible. To say that such well orchestrated a process is what is in fact going on is absurd, unless you give very good evidence to support such a claim.
Faith is believe without proof, but I do have very strong reasons to believe that science is spot on, so no. I don't have any faith in science.
Also just like you said in your last two sentences it all comes down to personal belief.
That's irrelevant to the point. I meant that you (I'm talking to you specifically) need to enforce the same standards on your own beliefs (creationism) if you want to enforce them on science. Such standards would basically render all the reasoning useless, that you use to back up creationism. So unless you want to undermine your own opinion, you can't argue like that.
You can actually order kits online that allow you to do exactly what is being described. You cannot order a kit online that will cause God to come down and poof a griffon into existence. Again, possibility comes in many varieties. In this case we have one that is possible because we can do it, and one that is possible because the premise automatically and axiomatically precludes investigation. Which seems more worthy of support.
Evolution attempts to explain the diversity within life. In order to have diversity in life, you have to have life. In order to have life, you have to have a fostering environment. In order to have such an environment you have to have...well, something. Therefore, there is absolutely no way any evolution supporter would claim that something could evolve out of nothing. I don't think you understand evolution....
couldn't people ask the same about "god"? where did he come from? you cant argue nothing from nothing when "god" came from nothing. well, god did come from something.. peoples minds and ignorance of the world around them.
The classic "Something can't come from nothing argument made by Theists"
3 major flaws in this argument:
1. If you are stating that the world had to be created because something cannot come from nothing then you must explain where God came from, if you are like most theists your reply will probably be "God doesn't need a creator, he's eternal." Then why can't the universe be eternal? Why did it need to be created?
2. Even if something did create the cosmos, it wouldn't necessarily need to be a God, it is more likely that a rock created the universe, not very likely but more so than God because we know that rocks exist, we can see them, touch them, etc. But God we have no evidence for.
3. Even if it was a God, Goddess, Gods, etc. that created the universe, how likely is it that your God of your faith is the correct one? Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Thor, Shiva, etc. have about the same probability, it may even be none of these Gods, but a God we don't even know of
It exists outside of time and space, the universe, obviously, is within the constraints of time and space.
it is more likely that a rock created the universe Then that rock is considered god.
The only reason we attribute the word "god" to a creator is because there is literally no other way to explain it, and the word is different in every language so this point is kind of invalid...
Actually, you need to do a simple search on evolution, and a simple search of the meaning of a theory, and you will find the theory of evolution is still a theory. It has not lost its theory prefix for many, many good reasons. Scientists have tried long and hard to prove it, and all failed. And this is accepted and common knowledge. You need to educate yourself.
Saying 'blah' makes someone lose all credibility is not the same as debating, if anything it's like a little child saying I'm 'it' somehow.
Honestly I have no clue as to what to believe on this subject, I just put my argument under creationism because they were behind. I think both ideas have HUGE flaws. Evolutionism: One organism magically changes into about 73329048 other completely different organisms over time. Also, a bunch of random atoms somehow came together to make a living thing. Creationism: A supernatural power/bearded man made the universe and everything inside it out of absolutely nothing. That is obviously not true. So basically I will think long and hard about this and formulate my own idea and theory.
