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.
I can acknowledge it is possible whilst also not having to consider it at all. You must also consider the possibility that a cosmic flying spaghetti monster created the universe, but obviously none of us actually take that seriously for a second.
Why would a ultimate omnipotent being choose if anything, a spaghetti monster. If this deity is capable of creating humanity and the universe give it the credit to make itself more suitable. It is in fact the pinnacle of all perfections. Hence, god could be whatever so it could be anything.
Nothingness has no flaws, God doesn't even need to be a being it could just be a mere essences or thought. So, I guess we could assume god to be something we can't comprehend. I would assume god would be something we couldn't comprehend since he is of ultimate perfection.
I just wanted to throw that in the mix since many atheists seem to interpret god to be anything while that is true, god has the "ultimate" intelligence therefore, he wouldn't choose to be something ridiculous unless he/she/it feels like it or maybe spaghetti is the ultimate perfection of the whole matter of existence and space/time and we are ignorant of it. Maybe on Mondays he wants to be spaghetti and on Fridays he wants to be AveSatanas. Either or, there is nothing you can dub him that will make him seem less powerful, its god we are talking about after all.
Why would a ultimate omnipotent being choose if anything, a spaghetti monster. If this deity is capable of creating humanity and the universe give it the credit to make itself more suitable. It is in fact the pinnacle of all perfections. Hence, god could be whatever so it could be anything.
....what? God by definition is omnipotent. So sure it could take any form. doesnt make him any more likely to exist.
Nothingness has no flaws, God doesn't even need to be a being it could just be a mere essences or thought.
But were talking about a deity right now. Im not gonna go off on the "god could be anything" tangent. Were keeping it on the track of a deity, a supreme being as described by abrahamic religions.
So, I guess we could assume god to be something we can't comprehend. I would assume god would be something we couldn't comprehend since he is of ultimate perfection.
Holy books claim to comprehend him. People claim to comprehend him. Only when questioned do they backtrack and claim that he "works in mysterious ways" and stuff like that. I dont care what adjectives you want to use or how you wanna shape him in your mind. Empirical evidence. Thats what i want.
I just wanted to throw that in the mix since many atheists seem to interpret god to be anything while that is true, god has the "ultimate" intelligence therefore, he wouldn't choose to be something ridiculous unless he/she/it feels like it or maybe spaghetti is the ultimate perfection of the whole matter of existence and space/time and we are ignorant of it.
How do you know were ignorant of it? You cant know youre ignorant of anything without having an idea of everything. Like when people say our knowledge of the universe is really really small. Well how do you know that? You cant know how small it is unless you have an idea of how much the whole is.
Either or, there is nothing you can dub him that will make him seem less powerful, its god we are talking about after all.
Wonderfull. He could be the most amazing perfect being ever. But he still created disease and death and pain and saddness and all the evils of the world among countless other things described specifically by religions and designed a shitty planet for his "favorite creation". Hes an ass
What creationist website did you copy that bullshit from? It's actually 100%. Well since science can't actually declare fact we'll say 99.99% but you can't actually even assign a % chance value to it because its not something you can calculate. There's no numbers to use because it's all based on fossils and biology. I suggest you drop whatever load of crock those fish oil salesman creationists sold you.
By evolution I meant in it's beginning which i abiogenesis. Now if abiogenesis did occur and has a 99.99% chance of occuring, it would happen everyday, it doesn't. And that is why evolution is a joke.
By evolution I meant in it's beginning which i abiogenesis.
Though they are associated they are two very different theories. Talk about each seperately please
Now if abiogenesis did occur and has a 99.99% chance of occuring
I described evolution as being 99.99% fact (not a real value just rhetorically). NOT abiogenesis. Now that the topic has shifted to a different theory do not use my previous wording. I would not say abiogenesis has a 99.99% chance of being fact. It definately has less support than evolution and there are multiple theories on how it happened. Though technically if we go back to a totally dead earth it must have happened, we just dont know how.
it would happen everyday, it doesn't
WTF? Do you think that right now our planet has conditions exactly like a billions of years old Earth? No not even close. Abiogenesis doesnt have the elements needed to occur today except maybe near geothermal vents deep in the ocean where the heat and pressure cause pre-earth type conditions where proteins and bacteria can thrive and evolve. So actually, maybe it is happening today. But not spontaneously, abiogenesis, like evolution takes a very long time. Things dont evolve overnight. It takes thousands to millions of years.
And that is why evolution is a joke
You were trying to refute abiogenesis and now evolution is a joke? What are you talking about dude? Theyre two different things. Talk about one at a time.
And i could even throw your own responses back at you:
If god is real and creation is true, how come he doesnt spawn more creatures into existence every day? And thats why creationism is a joke.
It is not 100%. Evolution does NOT always happen. Entire species are going extinct because of the human impact on the world. They don't evolve. They don't have the time to do it. You claim evolution happens 100% of the time; that means that every time something happens, the creature in harms way evolves to overcome it. Technically, this should happen every time if the statistic were 100%, meaning every time something happened the creature would almost immediately evolve. 99.99% isn't close either. There are way to many variables we're dealing with here for the number to be anywhere close to that high. What kills me is that you actually say after that that you can't assign a percentage to something like this, right after you did that yourself! If it's all based on fossils and biology, what gives you the right to invent percentages by yourself?
I wasnt saying that it 100% always happens. Just that 100% it DID and DOES happen. Obviously if you remove the factors that promote evolution it will slow down. For instance humans: we have removed the need to hunt, and made it easy to stay warm/cool and get water. Our evolution has slowed down considerably since ancient hominids were alive. However, we are still evolving through natural selection. or rather. somewhat artificial selection. Scientists predict that humans thousands of years from now will have big eyes because of the mates we choose. since we decide who we mate with, as a whole humanity has certain traits that are attractive like large breasts and big eyes or certain color eyes, ect. Eventually these traits will be emphasized years from now.
Entire species are going extinct because of the human impact on the world. They don't evolve. They don't have the time to do it.
You just negated your own point. They dont have time to adapt to increased temperature or CO2 levels. If they had time they most certainly would. you cant just take a bunch of lizards for instance and put them in a box, then pump tons of methane into the box and kill them and go "why didnt they evolve huh?!".
You claim evolution happens 100% of the time; that means that every time something happens, the creature in harms way evolves to overcome it
Wrong. see first response above. However yeah, i would say with enough time and over enough generations most species might evolve to overcome the adversity. But probably not always. Many have died and many will die out.
meaning every time something happened the creature would almost immediately evolve
Nothing immediately evolves.
99.99% isn't close either. There are way to many variables we're dealing with here for the number to be anywhere close to that high. What kills me is that you actually say after that that you can't assign a percentage to something like this, right after you did that yourself! If it's all based on fossils and biology, what gives you the right to invent percentages by yourself?
1) once again i didnt mean that it 100% always happens to every species for every change in climate, ect.
2) its not a calculated percentage, its a way of expressing certainty of how true evolution is:
EX:
100%-i am certain this is true
50%-it could be right or wrong
0%-this is totally false.
I made no calculations, it was used as a figure of speech
You contradicted yourself. "I wasn't saying that it 100% always happens. Just that 100% is DID and DOES happen." Same exact thing.
You just negated your own point. They dont have time to adapt to increased temperature or CO2 levels. If they had time they most certainly would. you cant just take a bunch of lizards for instance and put them in a box, then pump tons of methane into the box and kill them and go "why didnt they evolve huh?!".
Yeah... once again, what I said. You're just proving yourself wrong here. You said previously "100% it DOES happen", yet now you say it doesn't in these conditions? I believe that "100%" encompasses that circumstance as well as all other possible ones.
Wrong. see first response above.
I did. You contradicted yourself.
Nothing immediately evolves.
Oh really? Then why do you think that everything can? Again, you said "100% it DOES happen". Again, that includes instantaneous evolution, something I said before didn't happen, hence why I said the human race has caused the extinction of so many animals.
100%-i am certain this is true
50%-it could be right or wrong
0%-this is totally false.
So by saying "100% it DOES happen" you are apparently "certain this is true" that anything can immediately evolve?
Your arguments are getting worse and you should try not contradicting yourself; you may find it works a lot better!
You contradicted yourself. "I wasn't saying that it 100% always happens. Just that 100% is DID and DOES happen." Same exact thing.
100% evolution DID and DOES occur today and WILL occur in the future. I am saying that evolution is true. Scientific fact. But evolution wont always happen in every single case 100% of the time per the example off rapidly increasing CO2 levels.
Yeah... once again, what I said. You're just proving yourself wrong here. You said previously "100% it DOES happen", yet now you say it doesn't in these conditions? I believe that "100%" encompasses that circumstance as well as all other possible ones.
It will always occur in all situations where it is possible. That is a better explaination. Youre nitpicking at stupid examples of rare occurances and going "nu-uh!". Like if i took a balloon and put it in water and said "this balloon will always float" then you saying "well if i tied a rock to it it wouldnt float! I thought you said it would ALWAYS float?!"
So by saying "100% it DOES happen" you are apparently "certain this is true" that anything can immediately evolve?
Your arguments are getting worse and you should try not contradicting yourself; you may find it works a lot better!
100% true but I thought we were arguing like big boys and only speaking it terms of situations where evolution is possible. Apparently i was mistaken.
You're not even making arguments anymore and instead acting like a 10 year old. Try increasing your mental age a bit and you may find people will take you seriously!
Things cannot immediately evolve. This not some fantasy world we live in where everything lives and nothing dies, and the unicorns prance in the fields because the horses evolved into them simply because humans though they looked prettier with horns. That is not how it works, no matter how much you wish it were true. Once again, you say everything 100% immediately evolves instantaneously to survive any given circumstance, and yet you once again contradict yourself, this time by talking about CO2 levels. According to your logic things should just immediately evolve to survive CO2, but then again you say they can't? Make up your mind please!
You're not even making arguments anymore and instead acting like a 10 year old. Try increasing your mental age a bit and you may find people will take you seriously!
This part cracks me up; you're just getting angry because you're losing. Calling someone 10 doesn't solve your problems, it just gives your opponent something to laugh about because it becomes clear that you know you are losing.
For the 1000th fucking time no shit things don't immediately evolve! HOWEVER, given enough time species will adapt to environmental factors like increased CO2 levels IF those levels increase slowly enough to not kill the species off first. So if the CO2 levels rise slowly over a long enough time span then things will evolve to adapt to it. If the levels rise too quickly too fast they will NOT. I have never and will never say things evolve immediately.
Its anoyying when you get accused of saying something when you've clearified to your fucktard of an opponent a dozen times and they still insist that you mean something else. Now would you kindly read a damn SCIENCE BOOK and fuck off.
pretty sure youre just a troll but what controversy? It only exists in the minds of creationists who would flatter themselves with the thought that their baseless beliefs are on par with real science.
Except for all of the fossil evidence and knowledge of genetic variation over time and the countless experiments performed that have supported these findings. Scientists only love truth. I don't lie or steal or kill any more than you do.
wow, lets all clap for that great argument for evolutionism.
Finally you are cheering for the correct side.
Personally, I'm not sure why this is being brought up again.
It is funny how many of you religious people are so sure of your faith, but can't stand to see other people talk about how observable data doesn't fit with it.
"It is funny how many of you religious people are so sure of your faith, but can't stand to see other people talk about how observable data doesn't fit with it."
Atheists can't account for observational data, so no it doesn't bother me, I just think this debate has happened too many times on this site, lets move on.
Atheists can't account for observational data, so no it doesn't bother me, I just think this debate has happened too many times on this site, lets move on.
how in the world does creation not explain fossils? See this is the problem, you don't actually know what we believe so you attack straw men. On top of that you can't justify your sense of sight without God so your logic is a fallacy. Why don't you actually go to a creationist website like creation.com, Answers in Genesis, or gotquestions.org to see how we explain fossils.
Prove that they are anything but a human. The only difference is the eyebrows are a bit bigger and the back of the skull is a but father back. Please explain how that proves we evolved from apes?
Besides the whole point your trying to make is futile. Lets say we find an ape-like skeleton that walked upright and looked slightly like a man, the fact remains, you can't prove we evolved from that. It is an assumption you take to the evidence when all it proves is that once upon a time there was an animal that looked like this...BIG DEAL.
So, your explanation for the Homo Erectus skulls are "Beh, I don't care about fossils." See, I am right, you have no explanation for the fossils. Right now I am not even arguing for evolution. My claim right now is that you don't even have an explanation for fossils. If you can't get past that claim I don't need to go any deeper into it.
"So, your explanation for the Homo Erectus skulls are "Beh, I don't care about fossils."'
no, my explanation for homo erectus is it's a human, it looks like a human, even the reconstructions of him look like very hairy humans.
The fact that you put words in my mouth and that you didn't provide the proof I asked for proves you have no explanation for anything. You reply was quite humorous actually, it gives me the idea you didn't even read my reply and instead made up a reply and then replied to that.
" Right now I am not even arguing for evolution. My claim right now is that you don't even have an explanation for fossils."
what about fossils? Most of them were likely made during the global flood, big deal. How about you go and explain the Taylor Trail that has human foot prints and dino footprints in the same layer of rock. Maybe I should start working on my reply to your reply now, maybe I'll even post it before you :-s
no, my explanation for homo erectus is it's a human, it looks like a human, even the reconstructions of him look like very hairy humans.
The fact that you put words in my mouth and that you didn't provide the proof I asked for proves you have no explanation for anything. You reply was quite humorous actually, it gives me the idea you didn't even read my reply and instead made up a reply and then replied to that.
Why don't we see those very hairy humans in the world today? You claim they exist.
what about fossils? Most of them were likely made during the global flood, big deal. How about you go and explain the Taylor Trail that has human foot prints and dino footprints in the same layer of rock. Maybe I should start working on my reply to your reply now, maybe I'll even post it before you :-s
It appears that I didn't read you post because your post was "hey, I don't believe that the fossils are of a different species." That was your only reasoning. The Taylor Trail has been abandoned by creationist as human tracks for about 20 years. Even you guys don't believe those are human tracks any more. The tracks turned out to be dinosaurs and the toe marks eroded.
"Why don't we see those very hairy humans in the world today? You claim they exist."
because the hair was added by an artist, probably the same one who created a whole piltdown man from a pig tooth. IT'S JUST A DRAWING. My point was that even the evolutionists' attempt to make it look half ape half human still leaves it looking totally human.
"That was your only reasoning."
What proof do you have that they are a different species?
"The Taylor Trail has been abandoned by creationist as human tracks for about 20 years."
So basically your argument is "I don't care about evidence" lol jk
I admit I spoke out of ignorance here, I had never done any research on the Taylor Trail and named it off the top of my mind, thank you for pointing it out ;-)
because the hair was added by an artist, probably the same one who created a whole piltdown man from a pig tooth. IT'S JUST A DRAWING. My point was that even the evolutionists' attempt to make it look half ape half human still leaves it looking totally human.
If those fossils were from the people of today, why don't bones of dead people today look anything like those bones?
What proof do you have that they are a different species?
Sorry, but if we saw those as dog bones you would consider them different species.
So basically your argument is "I don't care about evidence" lol jk
I admit I spoke out of ignorance here, I had never done any research on the Taylor Trail and named it off the top of my mind, thank you for pointing it out ;-)
Did you just insult me for ignoring your evidence and thank me for pointing out that your evidence was fake? See, you are crazy.
2. If we were analyzing dingo bones, you would agree that it is a different species of dingo. You are biased because you are human. Why not just go back to your claim that it is microevolution and macroevolution still doesn't exist.
3. Funny, when I put words in your mouth they totally sound like they came from your mouth. When you do it, you just contradict yourself. When I say the evidence is no good it is because everyone says the evidence is no good. When you say the evidence is no good it is because you don't see the evidence as enough to convince you.
3. Lets have a look back; I say "Prove that they are anything but a human. The only difference is the eyebrows are a bit bigger and the back of the skull is a but father back." You quote me as ""So, your explanation for the Homo Erectus skulls are "Beh, I don't care about fossils." Ya dude, that sounds pretty similar, the very fact the you misquote me proves you couldn't debunk me. At least I admit when I make a mistake, you just hang on because you can't be wrong. You and I both realize we make mistakes, why not just own up and go on instead of refusing to admit you made a bad argument.
"When I say the evidence is no good it is because everyone says the evidence is no good."
No discussion with an atheist would be complete without a logical fallacy. This statement is fallacious because majority opinion doesn't influence truth. In Galileo's day, everyone though it was common sense that two objects of different weight would not fall at the same rate, and they were wrong.
Hehe, you were the one who said there was something to see, good job.
2. Variation /= Macro Evolution
So, what you are saying is that it is impossible to prove to someone like you that macro evolution exists.
3. Lets have a look back
Bad idea for you.
"Prove that they are anything but a human. The only difference is the eyebrows are a bit bigger and the back of the skull is a but father back."
Translation - "I don't care that the fossils are clearly different, I will argue forever and ever that the clear differences that I point out are not a big deal."
Which, means "I don't care what the fossils say, I refuse to believe that it is a different species"
"So, your explanation for the Homo Erectus skulls are "Beh, I don't care about fossils."
See? Now after translating for you it is pretty obvious that you said that.
Ya dude, that sounds pretty similar, the very fact the you misquote me proves you couldn't debunk me.
I did not misquote you, I summarized.
At least I admit when I make a mistake
When you admit that you made a mistake it is in direct conflict with what you said right before it.
You and I both realize we make mistakes, why not just own up and go on instead of refusing to admit you made a bad argument.
I am sorry you thought it was supposed to be a great argument. I admit that it was not a great argument because you do not possess the ability to handle a good argument.
"When I say the evidence is no good it is because everyone says the evidence is no good."
No discussion with an atheist would be complete without a logical fallacy. This statement is fallacious because majority opinion doesn't influence truth. In Galileo's day, everyone though it was common sense that two objects of different weight would not fall at the same rate, and they were wrong.
Wow. So, you used a terrible terrible piece of evidence, then insulted me for shooting it down without giving you the explanation you wanted, then pretending to admit that you made a mistake for using the terrible example, then insult me for telling you that everyone agrees that your terrible example is terrible when you misinterpreted what I said. When I said that everyone says the evidence is no good, I didn't mean by opinion. What I was trying to say was that the example you provided was debunked, and nobody has any reason to believe that it shouldn't be debunked. Sorry you try to make up fallacies committed.
Ha Ha now that's what I call a good old fashioned ass kicking you just dished out , your just like me a mean ole Atheist can you not dumb it down for them ..., they are kind of slow on the uptake ......
lol, so this is what happened, I ask you what proves that they aren't fully human skulls and you completely avoid the question and misquote (or mis-summarize, whatever you want to call it) and misrepresent your opponent's view, while still completely avoiding the question. lol you have proved something in this discussion, you've proved your view is completely emotional and has nothing to do with reasonable discussion. If it did, you would answer the question instead of creating straw men.
"See? Now after translating for you it is pretty obvious that you said that."
Your job as my opposition is not to 'translate' my view but to refute it. And since you couldn't do that you resorted to strawman arguments.
"I admit that it was not a great argument because you do not possess the ability to handle a good argument."
I found this quite amusing, sorry.
"Sorry you try to make up fallacies committed."
lets have a look at what you said earlier:
" When I say the evidence is no good it is because everyone says the evidence is no good."
I don't make up fallacies, the fallacy you committed is known as Argumentum ad populum, if you studied logic instead of emotional argumentation, you would know that.
If you provide another emotional, strawman argument don't expect a reply.
You keep waving your hands saying you don't believe the fossils represent different species. When are you going to reveal what it takes to tell what is needed to show that the fossils represent a different species?
Is it a fallacy if you agree that it is correct? I don't see how it could be a fallacy and you still agree with my fallacious statement. What does that say about you?
You like to pick and choose what I have said and use it against me. Let's look at what I fully said: "When I say the evidence is no good it is because everyone says the evidence is no good. When you say the evidence is no good it is because you don't see the evidence as enough to convince you."
Oh look, in the sentence that I followed up with I spoke using the same theme, what people say. It turns out I was just describing what happened and not trying to convince you that your argument was wrong. So, I wasn't actually saying I was right because everyone else agrees, I am saying that I am right, and it turns out everyone agrees. The fact of the matter is, the Taylor site has been explained as non human fossils, and you agreed with me.
You are the only one who thinks that the Homo Erectus fossils are not a different species without any proof, aren't you begging the question?
Oh no you will get no where with these deluded creatures they are trying to fight you with the ramblings of Bronze Age goatherds , against modern science I admire your tenacity .
My friend would you go back in time and argue with bearded Bronze Age idiots ? I think not but alas that's what your dealing with here .
Again you are misunderstanding my position. I never said homo erectus is not a different species. I said there is nothing in the homo erectus that implies it is anything but a human. You are trying to make the point that I can't explain homo erectus, I gave an explanation, and you said I'm wrong. The burden of proof is on you and if you don't give then you are begging the question. If you can't provide proof the that skull is a great ancestor of ours, then I have no reason to explain it because it doesn't conflict with my worldview.
"You are the only one who thinks that the Homo Erectus fossils are not a different species without any proof"
No I'm not and your the one saying I can't explain it. You brought it up, where is your proof?
"Is it a fallacy if you agree that it is correct? I don't see how it could be a fallacy and you still agree with my fallacious statement. What does that say about you?"
Again you are misunderstanding my position. I never said homo erectus is not a different species. I said there is nothing in the homo erectus that implies it is anything but a human. You are trying to make the point that I can't explain homo erectus, I gave an explanation, and you said I'm wrong. The burden of proof is on you and if you don't give then you are begging the question. If you can't provide proof the that skull is a great ancestor of ours, then I have no reason to explain it because it doesn't conflict with my worldview.
We have found skulls that don't match what skulls of today look like. Since you are saying that it isn't conclusive you have to provide evidence that your claims are true. You are saying that those could be regular human skulls just because. But, you have already accepted that they are different from humans today, so you need to support your claim that the differences don't matter.
Not sure what your talking about here.
You said it was a fallacy for me to say that the Taylor site is worthless. You also agreed that I was correct about the Taylor site being worthless. Why did you agree with my fallacious argument?
"We have found skulls that don't match what skulls of today look like. Since you are saying that it isn't conclusive you have to provide evidence that your claims are true. You are saying that those could be regular human skulls just because. But, you have already accepted that they are different from humans today, so you need to support your claim that the differences don't matter."
The only thing your skulls prove is variation, a concept all creationists accept. There are small differences because variation makes small changes in living things. So again the burden of proof is on you.
"You said it was a fallacy for me to say that the Taylor site is worthless. You also agreed that I was correct about the Taylor site being worthless. Why did you agree with my fallacious argument?"
I never said that was a fallacy, I said appealing to the masses to support an argument is a fallacy.
The only thing your skulls prove is variation, a concept all creationists accept. There are small differences because variation makes small changes in living things. So again the burden of proof is on you.
The Homo Erectus skulls found are outside the standard deviation for what is expected. Humans today will not have skulls that look like Homo Erectus. This is considered a different species for every other species of mammal. Why doesn't it work for humans?
I never said that was a fallacy, I said appealing to the masses to support an argument is a fallacy.
So, what you are saying is that when I mentioned something about everyone agreeing, you took that as some fallacy when we weren't actually talking about the argument in question. Since the "fallacy" was not part of an actual argument your claim is invalid. Since your claim is invalid I was correct in my assessment that you made up reasons to call things fallacies.
"The Homo Erectus skulls found are outside the standard deviation for what is expected. Humans today will not have skulls that look like Homo Erectus."
Neither will a poodle have a great dane, that really is beside the issue. We have lost genes since that time, so this actually kinda goes against evolution because if evolution were true, we could evolve back into that. But since it isn't we've lost those genes and we won't look like that again. Besides that, the lengthening of the skull is not likely a genetic thing. Your jaw muscles attach to the back of your skull so when you chew it pulls on that back of your skull. This suggests that these people were nomads.
"Since your claim is invalid I was correct in my assessment that you made up reasons to call things fallacies."
You were comparing how my argument is believed by only me and your argument is believed by a bunch of people. That is a fallacy.
Neither will a poodle have a great dane, that really is beside the issue. We have lost genes since that time, so this actually kinda goes against evolution because if evolution were true, we could evolve back into that. But since it isn't we've lost those genes and we won't look like that again. Besides that, the lengthening of the skull is not likely a genetic thing. Your jaw muscles attach to the back of your skull so when you chew it pulls on that back of your skull. This suggests that these people were nomads.
Wow, you actually gave reasoning instead of just saying "Pfft, I don't think the fossils are good enough." Way to go, much better.
You were comparing how my argument is believed by only me and your argument is believed by a bunch of people. That is a fallacy.
Pointing out a true statement is not a fallacy. I was not claiming that I was correct because everyone agreed. My comparison was not being used as evidence. So, no fallacy.
What kind of a designer would have designed cordyceps? Or parasitic larvae? Or terminal illnesses? Or pain, death and starvation? Or an ecosystem based on hungry animals murdering each other to survive? If they were the product of an intelligent designer, you would not find me worshiping them...
The fact that you don't like the way God does business, doesn't mean He doesn't exist. And the ultimate destination that a believer is supposed to arrive at, does not contain these evils.
If creationism has a shred of truth why are there no noble prize winning papers written up by Any of the creationist people , the babbling of lunatics has a better chance of a noble prize so I suppose creationists are in with a decent shout
Let's look at the line up initiators of popular origin theories: the big bang and evolution.
Georges Lemaitre- a Belgian catholic priest who theorized the primeval atom, theorized the big bang, and came up with the falsy named Hubble's constant before Hubble
Charles Darwin-creationist who was forced to write a more conclusive book ending
There are no nobel peace price because there is a lot of dogma in science. So much dogma that you think scientists have figured out many things. When in reality they have not.
I rely on both to point out the flaws in each others beliefs. Creationists are the only ones who point out the flaws in radiometric dating for example, without them the fact that penguins have been dated to be 8000 years old or that the dating on the lava flow at mount Helene in 1986 was grossly inaccurate would have never been known.
I am not really sure if scientists point out flaws in religion but I am sure atheists do and I do not mind.
Hi my problem with this statement is the minute I hear creationist I cringe ,where I come from (Ireland ) we find it unbelievable that people can accept this ,seriously you would be laughed at for expressing creationist viewpoints in Ireland ,it's similar to saying your a scientologist.I do admire your honesty in expressing your views ,but for me it has to be science for explanations . One more thing put a google search in on that creationist data and you will see its incorrect ,check the science first and see whats more credible . Best wishes from Dublin
Ok my friend if you google carbon dating and creationism you will get more than enough about scientific carbon dating you see the problem is if any creationist could disprove the science he would win a noble prize for disproving accepted science, why do these people not get printed up in any reputable journals books etc surely if science is wrong they can give proofs that can be scientifically evaluated.Ifyou don't wish to do a search just give me the name of the creationists who you claim have disproved science and I will check them out
This isn't a debate, evolution has evidence, creationism has only assumption, even many religous people I know accept evolution, creationism is as accurate as believing the earth is flat
It would be ridiculous to believe young earth creationism. I am happy to believe either old earth creationism or evolutionary creationism but I cannot accept the ludicrous idea of a 6000 year old earth/universe (especially considering I want to be an astrophysicyst one day).
There is absolutely no evidence for creationism but heaps for evolution also the whole idea of the Abrahamic creation story just is ridiculous and is really far fecthed
Intelligent design makes a LOT more sense than spontaneous assembly (i.e. the big bang). And Darwinian evolution could not be responsible for the transformation of a fish-like organism to a human. There was no need. Fish operate well in their environment as fish. Apes do well as apes. And humans do well as humans. Without an environmental demand of some sort, none of them change. And if they do change, it's not significantly --- only enough to defeat the challenges of the land.
Clarifying your argument rather than casting a vote to either side, because I think where I stand is "both."
Why not both? A creator using evolution as a tool, even as an experiment. We ourselves use self-modifying so-called 'genetic' algorithms for some tasks- initially only as interesting experiments, but more recently to actually accomplish tasks.
I don't disagree that it could be both --- the possibilities are endless. However, my particular religious beliefs and the theory of evolution can't find harmony with each other. So due to the fact that 1) I don't tend to credit evolution for the existence of mankind anyway, and 2) The story of the specific Creator I believe in clashes with the theory on so many levels --- I can't effectively believe in both.
My particular religious beliefs are more ambiguous than that- they don't exactly match up with any of the religions I've studied. Few are even close, heh.
Don't even know what I would call it, really. But I don't personally believe that intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive, which is all I was going for.
Intelligent design makes a LOT more sense than spontaneous assembly (i.e. the big bang)
Evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of life or the universe. Also the big bang is a lot more than "spontaneous assembly"
Small changes have noticeable effects in the long term. Also, there is plenty of incentive for creatures to evolve, for example the fish: a fish may move closer to the shore to evade predators or competition
I know that evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of life or the universe --- that's why I put in parentheses "i.e. the big bang". I know that it appears to be more than spontaneous assembly, but something coming from nothing would be spontaneous (the very first "something"). I know that the big bang theory claims that there was always something, but every type of something comes from something else.
I understand that fish have plenty of incentive to evolve. But when the larger demands run out, and the fish has defeated the challenges of its environment, what more reason does it have to continue along this path? Was the transformation from fish to human primarily made up of billions of years of beneficial mutations passed onto offspring? That would be a very, very successful series of accidents, so much so, that I highly doubt it happened.
" All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed."
The belief in God doesn't suggest that everything came from nothing, it just simply means that it came from God. I find it much easier to come to peace with that notion.
Natural selection wouldn't turn fish into humans over billions of years, either. A field of green and pink beetles may just turn into a field of green beetles alone, but it doesn't justify such a magnificent change. All we can actually observe is types of organisms evolving into better versions of what they already are. There is no series of demands, mutations, etc. that would cause or require one type of organism to transform so much that it would join an entirely new kingdom.
That's because the fish didn't evolve with humans in mind, they just evolved into a slightly different fish that would be better adapted to it's environment. A creature doesn't evolve into whole new kingdom or class based on a single situation, millions of situations alter the creature until it is no longer recognizable. Concepts like kingdom, class, order etc. are man made terms to classify existing creatures. If you looked at the evolutionary tree of the horse, for example, the change is so slow and gradual you would't be able to tell where one genus started and another one ended
The tree doesn't matter to me; I'd like the reasons. The environmental demands, the series of incentives, etc. that could have possibly caused this transformation. We can't assume that just because one organism shares similarities with another, directly implies that one came from the other, or even that they share a common ancestor. We share like 86% DNA with carrots, that doesn't mean that either comes from the other. I don't believe that people should be trying to make that connection when it is neither needed, nor able to be proven. You can prove that we're similar to, not that we're the result of.
I already know how that goes; providing you with a link will only lead to a "your source is unreliable or biased" argument. Look it up for yourself, I'm surprised you've never previously heard it.
He doesn't say where He came from, obviously. I think you already knew that. I could ask you where your first something came from, and chances are you don't know either, unless you have some amazing retrocognition. I don't think existence is a "logical" thing that you can just put in a box and explain. There are so many things in the universe that the human can neither see nor reach. Dismissing intelligent design as if it's this preposterous idea is severely limiting oneself. The design of complex things is seen every day, it's not some new, alien idea. You can't use the skillet to disprove the chef. But, to each his own.
I don't dismiss intelligent design. If I did, I wouldn't be here debating with you. To me, intelligent design seems like an interesting hypothesis, which unfortunately has not been given a chance to prove itself due to many people assuming it's the same as creationism, thanks to people who were trying to pass creationism off as a new theory
I don't believe that intelligent design has any help from science for one reason: It would only hurt the scientific community. Because science is a tool in life, and it needs things it can go on, physical proof, findings that they can show the public to cement this tool's legitimacy. Using science to prove God, or trying to fit God into science, is like... trying to row a boat with a giant straw. There's nothing they can do for one another --- and I heavily resent that, because it has only succeeded at leading many people to dismiss the existence of God. I'm not suggesting that it has had that affect on you, but there are some extremely arrogant people, confident that they are right about everything, and that God is impossible.
WTF? fish didn't evolve into humans overnight. It took millions of years and thousands of ancestral branches and mutations. Intelligent design makes no sense at all. Man came from dirt and woman from rib in a magical garden? Really? It's dependent on a god that hasn't been proven. And explain Noah's ark please because I'd be thrilled to see how you explain that nightmare of a fallacious story.
Evolution has more supporting evidence than gravity. We literally know it happens. It might be alot more complicated than "god did it", but it ain't that hard to learn.
First of all --- I never said that it happened over night. It doesn't matter how long you think it took. I am demanding the reasons and incentives for the transformation. But thank you for an excellent grasping of straws.
Also, Christianity is not the only religion in existence. Why is it that you choose to pick on it alone? Just curious.
Evolution in terms of adaptation, natural selection, etc. are basic functions of nature. The transformation from fish to human, however, is not.
Since it seems that you are one of "those" atheists (the kind that feels so intellectually advanced and superior), I have no further reason to argue with you.
First of all --- I never said that it happened over night. It doesn't matter how long you think it took. I am demanding the reasons and incentives for the transformation. But thank you for an excellent grasping of straws.
Your wording insinuated you assumed a relatively small time scale. If not I apologize.
Reasons and incentives? Wtf? Things don't will themselves to evolve. There is no incentive or reason. It just happens. Random mutation followed by natural selecton. That's it.
Also, Christianity is not the only religion in existence. Why is it that you choose to pick on it alone? Just curious.
Because the debate is evolution vs creationism. That word nowadays only refers to abrahamic religion creation myths and most commonly christian genesis intelligent design kent hovind blah blah blah. It was a guess. Seeing as I've never met someone propogating that norse creation myths were true...its an easy assumption.
Evolution in terms of adaptation, natural selection, etc. are basic functions of nature. The transformation from fish to human, however, is not.
Simplified: evolution is true except for this example of evolution.
Since it seems that you are one of "those" atheists (the kind that feels so intellectually advanced and superior), I have no further reason to argue with you
So anyone who argues with you is instantly labeled "one of those". Yeah you seem fun to talk to. Grow up. You're the one acting high and mighty not me. Oh and pretty much any atheist is "one of those" because on average we have higher IQs than theists just saying.
If you can please quote where my wording insinuated a relatively small time scale, it would be greatly appreciated. False accusations don't help your case --- at all. Especially when my post specifically included the term "billions of years".
"Reasons and incentives? Wtf? Things don't will themselves to evolve. There is no incentive or reason. It just happens. Random mutation followed by natural selecton. That's it."
This is why I stated earlier that the only explanation is a series of successful accidents. If you knew anything about nature, you would realize that most significant changes require an environmental demand of some sort. Perhaps a climate change, insufficient oxygen levels, a shortage of food. I would think most could understand this. But considering your excessive use of "Wtf? WTF! Wtf??", I'm guessing you don't.
"Simplified: evolution is true except for this example of evolution." --- Again, let's not put words in people's mouths, shall we? Darwin was the first to observe and name these obvious functions of nature, and he deemed them evolutionary processes. A field of green and pink beetles becoming a field of only green beetles does not justify a fish to human transformation. The flu virus changing every year and requiring new vaccines does not justify it either. The only thing explained here is organisms becoming better versions of what they already are.
"You're the one acting high and mighty not me", followed by "on average we have higher IQs than theists just saying."
Thank you for the laugh, I've never seen such a deliberate display of hypocrisy.
If you can please quote where my wording insinuated a relatively small time scale, it would be greatly appreciated. False accusations don't help your case --- at all. Especially when my post specifically included the term "billions of years".
You never used that term. From your use of the word spontaneous assembly it sounded like you were insinuating a small time scale for darwinian evolution as well as the big bang to me. Either way this is irrelevant to the real argument.
This is why I stated earlier that the only explanation is a series of successful accidents. If you knew anything about nature, you would realize that most significant changes require an environmental demand of some sort. Perhaps a climate change, insufficient oxygen levels, a shortage of food. I would think most could understand this. But considering your excessive use of "Wtf? WTF! Wtf??", I'm guessing you don't
1) I know that but when you use the wording "reasons and incentives" it sounds like you mean the orgsnism needs something to strive for which as we both know isn't how it works. The correct wording would be environmental factors and/or variables.
2) I said wtf ONCE. Stop exaggerating you dishonest prick.
- Again, let's not put words in people's mouths, shall we?
I never did. I simplified what you already said. Moron
Darwin was the first to observe and name these obvious functions of nature, and he deemed them evolutionary processes. A field of green and pink beetles becoming a field of only green beetles does not justify a fish to human transformation. The flu virus changing every year and requiring new vaccines does not justify it either. The only thing explained here is organisms becoming better versions of what they already are.
Over a short time span yes viruses become more advanced but remain viruses as do beetles. However, increase the time span and you get such drastic changes it results in new species. Ie: ape/ human common ancestors branching off to become for example, humans and Bonobos.
Life on earth began as single celled organisms (well technically protein strands came first but we don't know what they looked like so I'm skipping them). Then we know they thrived in liquid H2O, and became multicelled organisms. Then they became fish-type creatures and eventually they evolved to leave the water to escape predators because land is safe for breeding. These were the first lungfish. Then they grew legs and we have amphibious creatures. Thrn reptiles. Then rodents. Then mammals. And what are apes and humans? Mammals. So fish and humans are related but very very very very distantly. But all life did originate from those first amphibious creatures. Meanwhile during all of this, some creatures became well adapted to their niche and their evolution did not progress the same way others did.
Thank you for the laugh, I've never seen such a deliberate display of hypocrisy
Says the person doubting the most widely accepted and supported theory in scientific history in favor of a long disputed myth. Get over yourself
I never used that term? You're extremely dishonest, and most of the things you derive from my arguments to use against me are false and twisted.
"Was the transformation from fish to human primarily made up of billions of years of beneficial mutations passed onto offspring?" --- Said by me, from the very first argument you replied to.
[And your use of "wtf" once is a lie too, but that's unimportant.]
No matter how you assume the transformation happened, it cannot be proven. It is not observable, it is not testable. The only thing close that we've had is the fruit fly experiment, since you can observe several generations in a very short timeframe. Yes, the eventually evolve into something that (probably) couldn't have mated with their ancestors. But the change was not that significant.
The theory used to be thousands of years, then millions, then billions, because it is unreliable and scientists know that it would take a long ass time --- OR they just know that it's a far-fetched idea that they'll never be able to solidify.
As I said before, two organisms sharing similarities does not mean that one sprang forth from the other, or that they share a common ancestor. It's silly to believe that these similarities make Darwinian evolution, in terms of fish to human, factual.
Normally, if a fish is presented with an oxygen shortage, or whatever the case may be --- it will either move or die. That's the circle of life. The transformation of FISH to HUMAN would be nothing short of miraculous. Humans have been around for quite a while now, and between written history and cave drawings, we've seen virtually NO change in ANY creature aside from perhaps the beak on a bird. Nothing significant at all. And I highly doubt that in another few billion years, that creatures will be that much different. Some will go extinct, and some will have become more advanced versions of the same kind. I would think that evolution would've taken care of some of our human problems since we've been around a while. But no --- only people creating things for people has helped us with our natural flaws that have been around forever. It hasn't happened naturally, except perhaps tolerance to certain bacteria and sicknesses.
We don't even have the transitional fossils. Remember back when scientists were so sure that they had found the 'missing link'? It was national news --- and then they had to come back and admit that they were wrong. The transition can't be proven because it didn't happen.
WTF? We have tons of transitional fossils. Every fossil is a transitional fossil. What you creationists do is every time we find a fossil it makes a smaller gap. And then another is found and that makes two more gaps. And so on and you point out these gaps and pound your chests and say "there's no transition here!!!". Newsflash, not every hominid, Neanderthal, or homosapien will leave a fossil after it dies. That doesn't mean these transitional fossils in the tiny gaps never existed. They most certainly did. We have enough of a complete list of fossils the evidence that we evolved is undeniable.
When you put on your jesus blinders that tends to happen. Its evidence for tetrapods and the evolution from sea creatures to land mammals. Weve mapped it all out. it isnt speculation anymore. Every living thing on the planet evolved from the first bacteria. And every single creature that lives on the land evolved from the first prehistoric fish.
Beyond that, they're only trying to hit the tip of the iceberg. They're working on connecting us with apes, and that's it. Considering the trouble they've had doing that, how can you trust them to tell you that you ultimately came from fish? Do you expect them to provide you physical proof for that, or are you just going to operate on faith? (*legasp)
Like what? We literally know thats how it happened. We might not have every single little link and every single fossil of every ancestor but the evidence shows that we undoubtedly came from apes. That isnt even debatable anymore.
how can you trust them to tell you that you ultimately came from fish?
We came from apes. Fact. Apes evolved from earlier mammals. Fact. The earliest mammals evolved from reptiles. Fact. Reptiles evolved from amphibious creatures. Fact. Amphibious creatured evolved from the earliest lungfish type creatures. Fact. Those evolved from tetrapods. Fact. Tetrapods from prehistoric fish. Fact. Prehistoric fish from multicelled fluteworms and the like. Those from multicelled eukaryotes. Those from single celled bacteria. And fin. Weve mapped it all out. We dont have every single little fossil from every year with every link but the evidence is overwhelming that no matter how it happened everything comes from those fish roots. Even if we didnt know all the stuff about reptiles to mammals ect ect. We know two things: 1) the first creatures were ocean bound fish.
2) were here now
It logically follows that we came from fish through millions of years of evolution. The only debate now is over how exactly it happened and how the whole map fits together.
Because there is evidence there is no faith necessary. On the other hand to believe that a supernatural agent from a story book created everything. That requires complete faith.
Do you expect them to provide you physical proof for that, or are you just going to operate on faith? (*legasp
Ha Ha superbly reasoned and honest points my friend ,but your dealing with a Christian ,they believe in a God who is an evil brutal dictator , by definition they are all mad if you believe in something can't be seen heard or felt ,but yet exists ...you are mad ....you have soundly beaten your opponent let them go off and lick there wounds ...or read there bible
Ha Ha I hear you ,they can be very annoying like flies buzzing around , you are correct and very patient to try and educate them it i fear is a lost cause
Even if evolution is wrong ( which according to all the evidence we have been presented with) the opinion that we were all created by an invisible magic man in the sky still isn't the truth, you still need evidence to back up your claim (which evolution has). "Believing" in evolution doesnt take faith, btw I dont "believe" in evolution, i ACCEPT evolution on the basis of scientific facts that have been studied, tested, and observed over time, you on the other hand are going on faith (which means belief without evidence) that we were all create by god simply because you read it in a book written 1,000 years ago by primitive man that contains heavy contradictions.
The fact that you seem to think you already know everything about why I believe what I believe --- proves that there is no sense in arguing with you. You're the one speaking in absolutes and believing that mocking my religion at its core makes you more intellectually advanced than me.
I will say this again --- evolution in terms of adaptation, natural selection, etc. --- is a basic function of nature. These things come from simply observing the obvious. They do not, however, justify the idea that fish-like organisms ultimately became humans in billions of years. We know that animals can transform to become better versions of themselves, to defeat the challenges of their environments, etc. But there is no justification, no amount of incentives, no amount of successful accidents/mutations --- that can clearly justify such a complex transformation. At least that's how I view it, anyway.
How do you know it wasnt a flying spaghetti monster? How do you know it wasnt a rock? What evidence is there to show that a God created us? Evn if so, how do you know its YOUR god and not Allah, thor, zues, shiva, or all other Gods? I am a science major in college, I study biology and the great majority of scientists in the world are athiests, how do you know more than people who make a living by devoting their lifes work to figuring out how the universe came to be? Stop listening to Rick Warren and start listening to Carl Sagan
Btw, im not making a claim that there are no Gods, I am saying I personally dont believe in God because of lack of evidence, you are making the claim of absolutes not me. I am sating I dont know how the world came to be, maybe it was a God but i dont believe so because there is no evidence to say that there is. You are saying that you DO know how everything came to be and that it was God despite having no evidence for such a claim
"...the opinion that we were all created by an invisible magic man in the sky still isn't the truth."
"...you on the other hand are going on faith (which means belief without evidence) that we were all create by god simply because you read it in a book..."
"...You are saying that you DO know how everything came to be..."
These are absolutes, and they are [mostly] unsupportable. Had you actually read my replies earlier in the debate, you would've realized that I admitted anything is possible. And you couldn't know [at all] why I believe in God, when you don't even know for sure what my middle name is. That horse is pretty high and weighed down, you might want to step off and give the poor thing a break for a moment.
I am not alone in this "burden of proof" --- trust me. I can present several questions to you that science has not effectively answered regarding evolution, and I doubt you'd be able to effectively answer them either.
I have unique reasons for believing in the God that I believe in --- and no, they don't pertain to "how awesome and fuzzygooey it makes me feel inside". There was quite a while when I wanted NOTHING to do with religion, and I walked away from it. I am not indoctrinated, I am not illogical or irrational, and I don't need a crutch or security blanket. I'm not an infant, and believe me, you are not anywhere near the first person to make the same old "points" to me. If you're expecting a "Wow, I never thought of it that way!", then you're wasting your time.
Trying to mold God and the pursuit of scientific discovery together is like trying to row a canoe with a straw. They do nothing for one another; any scientist who even attempts to suggest that intelligent design is a plausible explanation for existence is immediately considered useless to the scientific community. They are "dreamers", they are "wasting their time". Why? Because the only "evidence" most atheists would be satisfied with is if God Himself came down here and showed Himself to them. Why then do they not expect the same of evolution or the big bang? These are not testable, observable, or verifiable theories; they just make sense, and they have a lot of factors that contribute to their likelihood. The belief in God is no different --- all it means is that believers view the world around us as a creation by a higher power. Atheists view it as a result of mere chance and chaos, essentially.
There are a LOT of things the human cannot physically see or reach, science itself tells you that. So your repeated comment about "the invisible man in the sky" proves absolutely nothing. Nothing --- because invisibility to the human eye does not render something nonexistent. It's a very arrogant and limited way of thinking if you believe that the inability to see something makes it a fairytale.
Well duh I believe in evolution because it makes sense, and yes it is testinle look up all the experiments that have been done by scientists, and yes there are many things that scientists do not know, but they are working every hour to find out the answer, you theists want to just insert god whenever we find a nlank, this is called the god of the gaps argument, i repeat even if you disproved evolution tat still wouldnt prove that we were created by a god, brsides, there are many religous people who accept evolution, the reason why creationists arent taken seriously in the feilds of science is just the same in how the flat earth society isnt taken seriously, there are making a claim that has no proof and contradicts clear evidence to the contrary of their belief.
Fish-like organisms ultimately becoming humans does not make sense --- however, organisms evolving into better versions of what they already are does make sense. There is no series of environmental demands or incentives that would cause one type of organism to transform and join an entirely different kingdom --- which means you have to accept that this transformation was simply a series of beneficial mutations passed onto offspring throughout generations (in layman's terms: "a big, awesome friggin' accident"). I personally feel that "gaps" and "blanks" is an understatement when describing this. Just because one organism resembles or shares similarities with another, does not mean that one came from the other. There's no way to prove that it happened, there's no way to prove a past that we can't see --- you just take the evidence and believe that it leads more toward spontaneous assembly (the big bang), and a very long string of chances/accidents (evolution). I take the evidence and believe that it was formed by a higher power. That's it.
But on a side note, thanks for educating me about what "god of the gaps" means --- I'd never heard that retort before either. You're quite a refreshing atheist! Lol.
Every argument youve made is typical of all creationists arguments, its people like you that prevent us from exploring the cosmos, you know that computer that your using to debate me right now? What gave us that technology? Science!!! Its science that put us on the moon, its science that gives us modern day medicine that prolonges our already short life span, its science that gave us cars and transportation, religion gives us nothing. Btw we didnt just evolve from fish like species, its alot more complicated than that, so stop your limited knowledge of science and go back to your worship, I have no problem in general with religous people, but i do when they demand that everyone should bow down to their beliefs out of "respect". Kinda like how gays arent allowed to marry eachother in this country and enjoy the equal benefits as straight married couples simply because a portion of the population read in a book (that justifies rape, genocide, incest, bestiality, murder, slavery, eyc.) written so many years ago demands it. If you dont like gay marriage then fine, dont marry someone of the same sex, but in this secular society we live in, other people shouldnt bow down to your paticular beliefs.
Oh no. this argument is baseless and self-cancelled. Because at the same time the insane idea of anything doesnt need a creator also fall instantly. because till today, living things are creating living things, they are not being created by itself. :P
God used evolution to create our race. The bible says it took six days to create the universe. In the original Hebrew text, it uses the word "Yom". This word does not literally mean "day". The word also means year, age, time period, decade, etc. Therefore it could mean He spent a hell of a lot more time on the universe than we think. It took us a couple million years to evolve, and this could have been God's way of creating us.
I have to go with Creationism because I'm sorry, I just can't accept the fact that I could have evolved from a Monkey's Uncle (or Aunt, as the case may be!) :))
Sigh....this again. Let's lay the ground work for both of these. The big bang was theorizes by a catholic priest who studied the expansion of the universe. Evolution was started by a man who set out on a journey to support intelligent design (wow the irony). It was a premature book ending that forced him to write about evolution as it today. Darwin was originally just writing on adaptation. But you don't want to hear that part.
Main Points
1.The big bang was started by a catholic priest and it lines up with creation outside of the timeframe. Creation gives a start to the big bang which the big bang does not have within itself.
2. Evolution is a worldview and takes just as much faith to believe in as creationism.
3.The big bang was theorized from studying Gods creation.
4.Evolution was used almost purely used as a way to void God because their is as much proof of it was their is creationism.
4a. Creationists compare biological processes to mechanical processes. They two are similar but it is a flawed comparison. However they go upon faith that creation is true.
4b. Evolutionists have limited "traditional fossils" with few being kind to kind evolutionists. Evolutionists point out that creationusts have little proof. However they fail to realize neither do they and they need just as much faith to believe what they do.
Excellent. Yes, disown museums. They are worthless. What is next after museums? Ooh, books, let's ignore those next. What book do we start with? I say Bible would be a good way to go. Since you want to ignore museums, it makes sense to ignore the Bible. So, why are you against the Bible?
1.The big bang was started by a catholic priest and it lines up with creation outside of the timeframe. Creation gives a start to the big bang which the big bang does not have within itself.
Cite the source for this info. All scientific sources cite Georges Lamaitre with starting the hypothesis for what would become the big bang called his "hypothesis of the primeival atom".
Source: talkorigins.org
2. Evolution is a worldview and takes just as much faith to believe in as creationism
Evolution is a scientifc theory and takes zero faith to ACCEPT on account of it having empirical data supporting it. Creationism is a worldview and more accurately a religious belief that requires 100% faith in multiple myths on account of them having ZERO supporting evidence.
3.The big bang was theorized from studying Gods creation.
Presuppositions will get you nowhere. You must prove that god exists and that he created the world before you can use this. Two things you can't do.
4.Evolution was used almost purely used as a way to void God because their is as much proof of it was their is creationism
No. Evolution is an observation of reality. It voids god as a side effect of being true. That wasn't its intended purpose as darwin WANTED to prove creationism
4a. Creationists compare biological processes to mechanical processes. They two are similar but it is a flawed comparison. However they go upon faith that creation is true.
Ok? So you admit it..
4b. Evolutionists have limited "traditional fossils" with few being kind to kind evolutionists.
1) you mean "transitional fossils"? Because if so every fossil we have is a transitional fossil. If you suggest we should be finding half dinosaur chickens you're nuts. That isn't how evolution works.
2) kind to kind isn't real science..you won't find any crocoducks. Sorry
. Evolutionists point out that creationusts have little proof. However they fail to realize neither do they and they need just as much faith to believe what they do.
Wrong. We point out creationism has ZERO evidence. Not a little. That would be too generous. Evolution on the other hand has more supporting evidence than gravity. It literally happened(s). Fact. It takes zero faith to accept something with evidence
Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, (French: [ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[1][2] He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[3][4][5][6] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.[7]
LOL you are so funny!!! Do RESEARCH!!! This is from wikipedia. It can be wrong, but I don't think its that wrong.
Also, sorry I misspelled transitional fossils. I know what transitional fossils are. No sorry, you dont use dino chickens, you use croc fishes and land whales. I have disputed these points elsewhere. Basically they can be other species (crocfish) and they're is no fossil given for the land whale ever.
Your scientific fact is laughed at in my church. Not ridiculed, or trying to be cruel, they just think its funny. Your "concrete" evolution theory is seen by you as concrete because of your worldview. You believe their is no God so you make conclusions supporting this worldview. Creationists do the EXCACT same thing. Both creationists and evolutionists look at the EXCACT same evidence. You and a creationists have the excact evidence, excact same amount of faith in your beleif, and ironically support your belief in the same way (pointing flaws in design). What is the flaw in evolution? The inability for intelligence to become greater in species. You can adapt to an enviorment and theoretically evolve traits until you get a different species and eventually kind. But how do you evolve intelligence? Humans have been able to.more greatly apply their intellect recently, but the amount of available intelligence or level of intelliegnece never changed. So as a recap, both have flaws, and both require the exact same amount of faith. It is simply a difference in worldview.
Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, (French: [ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[1][2] He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[3][4][5][6] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.[7]
LOL you are so funny!!! Do RESEARCH!!! This is from wikipedia. It can be wrong, but I don't think its that wrong.
Okay that is embarrasing but it isnt really my fault. Upon reading your first argument i went straight to my physics textbook from school because i knew it had info on the big bang and inside is had Georges Lemaitre but only referred to him as an astronomer and physicist and not a priest nor where he attended school, and then his hypothesis on the primeval atom. I figured the info from the book was good enough so i didnt go online. Thats my bad
Also, sorry I misspelled transitional fossils. I know what transitional fossils are. No sorry, you dont use dino chickens, you use croc fishes and land whales. I have disputed these points elsewhere. Basically they can be other species (crocfish) and they're is no fossil given for the land whale ever.
I hope this was sarcasm...
Your scientific fact is laughed at in my church.
"Your scientific theory is laughed at in the place where scientific literacy is extremely low". Thats what i heard. If you had said something like: "Your scientific fact is laughed at in my science class/science lab/science magazine then we'd have something to talk about.
Not ridiculed, or trying to be cruel, they just think its funny. Your "concrete" evolution theory is seen by you as concrete because of your worldview. You believe their is no God so you make conclusions supporting this worldview.
There are many theists (the catholic church included now i think) that accept evolution and reconcile it with their religious beliefs, namely the belief in god. Mind you i have no idea how they do it but they do. So...how can my "worldview" be based on lack of faith but include those with faith?
Also, why the quotations around the word concrete? Evolution is the most widely accepted and supported theory in scientific history. Dwarfing the evidence for gravity by comparison. Id say thats pretty concrete.
Creationists do the EXCACT same thing. Both creationists and evolutionists look at the EXCACT same evidence
You're either correct or incorrect with this because im not sure what you meant by it. If you mean that both evolutionists and creationists look at the same evidence for evolution but make different interpretations then youre correct. But if you're saying that evolutionists and creationists have EQUAL evidence for either side youre way off.
excact same amount of faith in your beleif
Nooooope. Wrong. If something has supporting evidence for it then faith does not apply to it. Evolution has a large amount of supporting evidence. It takes no faith to accept evolution. Creationism on the other hand is a religious belief and thus requires faith because of a lack of evidence supporting it.
and ironically support your belief in the same way (pointing flaws in design).
Not sure what you mean here. Evolutionists dont make a case for evolution by disputing creationism and saying that evolution is the only other option. In fact they hardly even mention creationism as barely a consideration. They use the evidence they already have to support evolution.
What is the flaw in evolution? The inability for intelligence to become greater in species
1) if there were a flaw evolution wouldnt still be accepted.
2) intelligence does become greater in species. IE: neanderthals vs homo sapien sapiens. We can map out the evolution of the brain. Ours is currently the most advanced.
You can adapt to an enviorment and theoretically evolve traits until you get a different species and eventually kind.But how do you evolve intelligence?
1) just because you dont know how it would happen doesnt mean all of science doesnt or that it never happened
2) intelligence isnt special. Its a trait just like sharp claws and dorsol fins. Humans are squishy things. We arent very strong and have barely any defence systems. Why? Because were smart. We didnt need claws, we developed the intelligence to make a stick sharp and stab shit.
Humans have been able to.more greatly apply their intellect recently, but the amount of available intelligence or level of intelliegnece never changed.
Because in modern times we've removed the environmental factors that would warrant a need for higher intelligence. Our intelligence right now is the highest it needs to be. We dont need it any higher because we dont have as much use for it. We dont need to think very hard to get our food, and get shelter and water. And i would even argue dispite this our intelligence is still growing if at a slower rate. Humans are alot smarter today then we were in 1920.
So as a recap, both have flaws, and both require the exact same amount of faith.
Not really. You didnt even point out a flaw. If evolution did have flaws it wouldve been thrown out years ago because science favors truth over anything and doesnt hold on to things insisting theyre true when theyre not. Creationism on the other hand is absolutely riddled with massive flaws branching from a massive, unsupported presupposition of an omnipotent being in the sky. Among many many many many other things. It is a religious belief that has been stubbornly clung to as theists plug their ears and yell "lalalalala!!!" whenever its challenged and insist it is the absolute truth. It requires complete faith of the blindest sort.
Sure, you could say that we have different worldviews but its not evolution vs creationism worldviews. Its scientific vs religious worldviews. Skeptic vs faithfull worldviews. Im part of a worldview that looks at everything critically and will only accept the absolute truth. Your part of one that has propogated the same wishy-washy faith based bullshit since its beginning with complete disreguard for truth of any kind.
Sorry, that comment ablut research was completely kidding around.
Also let's begin with this. Because its such a scientific fact, give one example of a transition of kind to kind evolution. Don't research it, no internet, none of that. Your brain only since its such a fact.
Sorry, that comment ablut research was completely kidding around
No by all means youre justified in calling me a moron because thats what i looked like lol.
Also let's begin with this. Because its such a scientific fact, give one example of a transition of kind to kind evolution. Don't research it, no internet, none of that. Your brain only since its such a fact.
"kind" isnt scientific terminology. How do you define "kind"? Would amphibians vs mammals be two different kinds? Im assuming youre meaning two things that are very distant and different from eachother. Well we know prehistoric "fish" were the first complex multicelled organisms and that they evolved into tetrapods and then to lungfish-type creatures. Then they became amphibious and moved onto land. Then amphibians became land reptiles, and reptiles became small mammals. Then the chain of mammals continues until we have apes millions of years later and eventually humans. So i guess we start with one "kind" being fish and end up with another "kind" be it reptile or mammals.
I mean please give me a documented example from fossils. Let me back away from the no internet thing. Please provide fossils evidence of this transition. Without it its like me trying to convince you to be a Christian with only the Bible for evidence, you wouldn't buy it. Make sense?
There's one source which in my experience has consistently valid data. That is a list of the fossils (which you can individually google easily) with a little background info on the transition from reptile to mammal.
Hold up. That link above was in response to a creationist claim (which they have a large list of with appropriate rebuttals you might wanna check out).
Haha I feel you bro. AveSantanas is such an ass; it's really funny. He lists out everything you say and tries to sound philosophical in his rebuttal and ends up sounding like a hilarious ass making a fool of himself. I was arguing with him before about religion and just stopped because his arguments were so retarded.
