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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is Earth the product of creation or evolution
Some people say that the earth is a product of a series of scientific changes and processes that were known as Evolution, while others argue that it is not about evolution but rather the creation of God. Some even argue that even if it is evolution, there has to be a divine force behind it which makes it the will and power of God to make Evolution take place.
Hope to hear from everybody what your opinion on this topic is.
Im going to go ahead and say Created just to grab some attention here and then drop the bomb that the term has more than a theological meaning. If Im thinking correctly, The Big Bang caused the creation of the universe by cyclic destructionism in a Black Hole SINGULARity system. Thats creation, right? Though, one could very easily argue that space crud would have to clod together to form the Earth to begin with anyway, correct? Thus resulting in an "Evolution" Answer? Or one could easily make the obvious observation that this argument is the result of very zealous arguers of either creationism or biological evolution. Hmmm.
I think it could be both of them, because i don't understand how a big bang and evolution could make something as great as we are, it just doesn't make any sense. To me it seems more believable that God created everything. But then again, if their is a God which out of the many religions is the right one.
I don't have a religion, but i do think their is a God and i think God or the Higher Being made the big bang happen and the all the evolution stuff.
See here's a theory that involves God and Evolution. Everyone is Happy! :)
because i don't understand how a big bang and evolution could make something as great as we are
1. Ignorance does not equate to evidence.
2. The reason that you cannot establish a connection between the concepts is that you have never actually educated yourself on them.
To me it seems more believable that God created everything.
If you find the idea of a magical being willing all of space into existence more believable than credible extrapolations and conclusions based on what has been observed (i.e science), then you may be advised to seek medical help.
But then again, if their is a God which out of the many religions is the right one.
Simple; none.
I don't have a religion, but i do think their is a God and i think God or the Higher Being made the big bang happen and the all the evolution stuff.
This is what I call ceding territory. As more and more of your theories are discredited by scientific progress, you try to make the discoveries fit into your beliefs. It's sheer stubbornness.
See here's a theory that involves God and Evolution. Everyone is Happy!
I'm not happy with it. We first came to the concept of evolution by observing regional variations of organisms over multiple generations. Religion is based entirely upon the wild imaginings of persons whose ignorance left them knowing no better.
fair enough, all though an all powerful god wouldn't need to use the process of evolution and use the big bang, we could come into existence perfectly at the snap of his fingers.
"because i don't understand how a big bang and evolution could make something as great as we are,"
I can, its not that complicated, saying we are impossible to be created naturally based off of your subjective opinion of us being so great isn't logical. I think I might be misunderstanding your statement a bit, I don't see how putting god in the equation makes it any simpler...
"To me it seems more believable that God created everything."
really? how? theres not really a good reason to believe it other than "its possible" which still it pretty bogus itself.
"But then again, if their is a God which out of the many religions is the right one."
probably none of them
"See here's a theory that involves God and Evolution. Everyone is Happy! :)"
Im not so happy, trying to come up with a possible conclusion that makes everybody happy isn't scientific at all, but looking at the facts and coming up with conclusions based on that is scientific.
I only mean to dispute your first point. That God could create the universe at the snap of His fingers is irrelevant. The question is did He? The answer is most probably not. I, for one, accept the scientific revelation that the universe is 14.7 billion years old, and that every element within me, with the sole exception of hydrogen, came from an expired star.
I should like to point out, however, that it is entirely possible to believe in a universe completely deterministic and yet to believe in a divine Creator. Though poorly articulated, the argument which you disputed indeed has some merit.
well if he did exist why wouldn't he make it all come into existence at the snap of his fingers? of course being all powerful he could do it either way, he could have made it perfect. I do see what the person I disputed was coming from, that you can believe in both god and evolution. which I agree plenty of scientists do. Im also putting out the logic why others think that wouldn't make complete reasonable sense though as well.
"to me it seems more believable that God created everything"
how believable something seems bears absolutely no relation to what actually occurred. Many people think that 'it doesn't seem believable' that such a complex being could have evolved through the mechanisms of natural selection... as if this somehow provides a credible refutation of evolution. Truth is not determined by what SEEMS most likely to you, truth is determined by what actually happened.
[Also EVOLUTION has nothing to do with the genesis of the earth....so I can't really say that my answer is "evolution" because the would be doing a disservice to general knowledge]
Firstly, I don't mean to suppose creationism in terms of human life, or anything like that -- that's not the topic. I don't particularly like the scope of this debate, the options aren't 'creationism' or 'evolution'. That's rather naive. I'll side with creation for the simple reason that it's arbitrary to me, so I'll pick the one I'm expected to pick.
Evolution as a cosmology is nonsense. The universe is not building up, it is in fact winding down. All physicists agree on this point. Eventually the universe will die. As we are talking about the creation of the earth this seems to suppose a matter of cosmology, and as such evolution is not that case.
The reason I suppose creation is my own conviction, I have reasons, but my conclusion is implicit. My siding with creation here is arbitrary. Farewell.
well lets look at it this way Atheists and evolutionists and agnostic-atheists (contradictory name) all believe that there had to be a first cause. god is that first cause. but lets leave religion out of it and just focus on God as all of religion combined. we cannot make the argument that since we cannot see god we shouldn't believe, due to this being ignorant of god's reason for not letting us understand (see) him in the first place because that is what establishes a relationship between the creation and the creator.
its simple . no matter what a human has done or will do to find a reason (purpose) for this life whether its science or doing mushrooms or acid lol. Those people will never find any other solution but to know that God was the big bang that you evolutionists believe is the cause. so this discussion is merely an argument about one thing. Evolutionists believe the big bang is god.
I support creation because evolution is believed to have started from algae, but how did the algae know how to mutate in the right time? And how did it evolve suddenly into an ape, which then turned into a human? Surely if we all evolved from the same thing we would have same DNA's right? But we don't so evolution is not something that I would believe.
Neither. Creationism is a Christian Myth and Evolution is the process of how life changes and diversifies after it's already started. The formation and process of the Earth and how it came to be is something else entirely.
"Furthermore, not only christianity believes in creationism but almost every religion on earth believes the same thing."
That's because they had no knowledge of what we know now. They had no methods of examining deep space and watching how stars and planets form. God was a concept used by the ancients to explain that which they couldn't understand. Nothing more. Man created god. Not the other way around.
This is an opinion which cannot be used in a debate. The truth is no man can say there is no God, because he is not all knowing. He would therefore be a liar, because he is in fact giving an opionion on what he believes and cannot state that God does not exist. Unfortunately God has created everything in way which excludes man from saying He doesn't exist - it says in his word that all men are without excuse. Sorry for those who don't accept Him!
Secondly, God has given us absolute proof of His existence. He says in His word, that if anyone will obey his commandments in His word, then He will know that what was said came from God, and will know that God exists. He therefore gives each man the oppurtuinity to receive absolute evidence from Him himself.
Again, sorry for those who don't accept Him.
The truth is simple, God makes it possible for all men to meet Him and have a personal relationship with Him. He speaks with a voice. Simple. Men are without excuse.
But you still have not answered my questions? If they had dni knowledge of what we now know, then how come the Quran (and i used this because of the strong scientific details inside of it), mentioned many scientific facts that scientists later found to be accurate? Including at the point where the Quran described the outer universe exactly as it appears. How did these people figure that out if there were no modern technology and no advancement in knowledge?
"then how come the Quran (and i used this because of the strong scientific details inside of it), mentioned many scientific facts that scientists later found to be accurate?"
Although the Quran is essentially religious text, the writers and their people were probably a little more curious and a little smarter than those who wrote the bible. That's all it takes to discover: Curiosity.
Marginally smarter, yes. The Quran (or koran) was written long after the bible...so the people had plenty of time to learn about their environment in that time. Both still contain parables, myth, and fables. Muslims claim that their sacred text contains many scientific facts, most of this is either due to knowledge that was already available at the time or a very "liberal" interpretation of what was written in the Quran.
But Historians proved that the Prophet was illiterate even though he was responsible for producing the Quran and spreading the message of it. If according to you, it was out of curiousity, then prove it.
The general idea is that the scripture can be translated in many ways, one of which is illiterate, although this is considered unlikely as merchants of this time era had rudimentary writing ability
here is a thesis in support of his illiteracy, due to the etymology of the time. FYI, it is in French.
Am I mistaken in thinking that planetary evolution seeks to explain how the earth formed and then slowly changed into the environment it is today? I may be wrong about sayyad99's intentions, but the debate makes a little more sense if you assume he is referring to that type of evolution.
Evolution hasn't been proved - only those aspects that are in line with the word of God in evolution have been proved, hence supporting creationism and the word of God. Science has never disproved the bible, in fact is is a common fact, that the bible has only always corrected alternative scientific views. Where scientific views have appeared to contradict the word of God, they have always been subsequently corrected, when evidence comes up to challenge their assumptions. This has and always will be the case:)
I genuinely don't know whether to take your post seriously or not, is the emoticon meant to mean that you are being sarcastic. If not, read on if so ignore.
Creationism hasn't been disproved.
That is because basically it cannot be.
Evolution hasn't been proved
Yes it has, there is mountains of evidence that prove evolution. Including actual evolution being observed.
only those aspects that are in line with the word of God in evolution have been proved
Such as? Tell me where in the bible anything relating to the evolution of life is discussed.
Science has never disproved the bible
Indeed it has what about Noah's flood, completely rubbished. Also the common accepted age of the earth as told by Christians and the like to be less than ten thousand years when radiometric dating clearly puts it at around four and a half billion years old.
in fact is is a common fact, that the bible has only always corrected alternative scientific views.Where scientific views have appeared to contradict the word of God, they have always been subsequently corrected, when evidence comes up to challenge their assumptions. This has and always will be the case
How so? Do you know anything about the scientific method? I'm not aware of any professor or researcher that I've dealt with that immediately turns to their bible in order to obtain guidance or reference. If this were true, then the bible would be used to lecture science and it is not.
Exactly, as you said yourself, it cannot be disprove - the real reason is because it the truth.
The creation of the earth was only observed by God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus himself testified to having created all things - and He himself proved himself to be the creator.
It is a false statement statement saying that actual evolution has been observed. The original creation WAS never observed and will never be - therefore man will not EVER have absolute observable evidence on what happened, Nor will be EVER have absolute evidence of all assumptions that were valid at the time everything began.
Therefore evolution will always only be a theory based on assumptions, and not evidence.
To correct your statement - what you call is evolution is not the initial creation event, but a current event, which there are only things being observed are things coming together - a lifeform or whatever you may call it. The reality is that this evolution being observed is not evolution, but a natural process. It does what it has always been doing. Because scientists haven't been able to proove evolution, they have now taken a naturally occuring process and calling it evolution. So that take what God has created, and now give it another name:)
This demonstration of an "evolution process" by evolutionists is so stupid (my apologies here) it is actually rediculous!!
It's like (similar) watching a man and woman have sex, the sperm and the egg comes together and a child is born - they say this is evolution.
In the same way they observe a set of substances and events under certain conditions and then call this this their so called proof of evolution - they are simply observing a process happening in the way it would always happen, the way God created it to happed. They substances are simply following their predetermined course.
It's God created way, doing what things were designed to do, under those conditions and circumstances!! It's not doing anything that it would do under those circumstances.
The reality is they only only following their divinely created (by God) instruction on what they are supposed to do, under that particular circumstance. All you are observeing is what God created. That is all you will be able to observe.
The reality is that at whatever point you start your ingredient base - God has given it a set of instruction which it follows. That is why you see it recting in that way it does - yes, divine order and purpose. Secondly, before all (ingredients) i.e. those pieces of matter that you are observing - God created them - you have to answer who created the matter in the first place - because God said clearly in his word that He created matter from nothing - only God can create, and this was the first aspect of creation. Once he created matter - he formed (made) things from the matter. Evolutionsists so called brilliant theory of evolution, only begins way way after God actually created all these wonderful things, and then tries to take him out of that picture. The problem with this wonderful theory of evolution is that it will need to start before creation, to be a valid theory, but unfortunately it doesn,t because it cannot prove creation, it can only deal with the changes in matter and other substances once they actually exist.
Regarding the flood - the whole world is full of the evidence of the flood - EVERYWHERE!! There is so much evidence on so many aspects, one would almost dare to say it is everywhere! Oh - God was good enough to prophecy about this current generation who wouldn't accept the evidence of the flood - how nice of Him, and how nice of him to write it thousands of years in advance:) You see, He is thinking about you:)
The wonderful ageing theories:) we all know about the live chickens that are 40 000 years old.
The best one i have heard - prob by Dawkins - this is wonderful - we all know how that how "4 billion years ago" theoretically the sun was so big that it would have consumed the entire earth, and probably big enough to physically be in contact with the earth. We obviously don't believe the age - because any idiot knows that even a small % larger would completely anialate anything here. The evolutionists say, and probably Dawkins himself, that the biggest mistery that they cannot explain is how the intesity of the sun was so much less when it was larger, as to not anilate us. I feel sorry for all the evolutionists that are so baffled, and i wonder whether they have ever made a fire in their lives before - Oh how the wisdom of man is foolishness to God - He says in Romans, although they see his invisible attributes everywhere, they neither acknowledged Him as God, so He gave them over to a debase mind.
Regarding the last comment i made, anyone doesnt know this, doesn't really know much (I don't say this to offend you, I am just stating it as a matter of fact) - there is so many examples and evidence of this. Even to this day. All these wonderful so called "NEW" discoveries have been written about long ago in the bible. There is nothing new under the sun. I would recommend reading your bible and studing this. It would take months to go through this, as their is so much to say. A simple internet search will start you off. Most true scientists, engineers etc, turn to God, because they see evidence of Him in creation. I can give you the number of a top engineer to talk to, if you want.
A word of caution, and that is also why i say I am not trying to offend you - the Word of God says that knowldge puffs up - it leads to pride. People pride themselves on what they know, and in the end of the day, it (pride) leads them away from God, because God resists the proud, but gives grace to teh humble.
Jesus demonstrated that He was ALL-Knowing. He didn't go around boasting about it, and showing off. If you humble yourself before God, and seek the Lord with all your heart, He will reveal Himself to you, and answer every question you may have, in His time.
The fact that the bible is not used to lecture science, is not proof that it is invalid - in fact it is proof that it is valid - because the word of God says that people love the darkness more than light, and they don't come to the light because their deeds are evil. It' s a simple truth from the beginning of creation, people have always tried to cover up their sin, and hide, or reject God, but He still loves the people and died for them. God's word is true - read it and obey it, and God will reveal this to you Himself.
Exactly, as you said yourself, it cannot be disprove - the real reason is because it the truth.
So by this logic, fairies, unicorns and the like are true while actual scientifically proven facts are false, correct?
The creation of the earth was only observed by God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus himself testified to having created all things - and He himself proved himself to be the creator.
So did he create or observe? How exactly did Jesus prove anything, the only evidence of his existence is the word of someone else, written well after his death.
It is a false statement statement saying that actual evolution has been observed.
Firstly, it is not a false statement, you obviously do not know what evolution is about, evolutionary theory backed up by hard evidence proves the lifeforms change it is called descent with modification. Actual evolutionary theory as set out by Darwin and followed by most creditable scientists hypothesize a single progenitor, these ideas are backed up by several theories such as the Iron Sulfur World Theory and the RNA world theory to name but two.
Secondly actual descent with modification has been observed such as Lenski's work with E, Coli and John Endler's work with Brazilian Guppies.
Craig Ventor, a genius American Geneticist earlier this year created a synthetic organism, that is life from non life, proof that if man in his limited time working with genetics can do it then a nutrient rich earth with 1.5 billion years to work could easily have and it only needed to happen once.
Therefore evolution will always only be a theory based on assumptions, and not evidence.
Evolution is backed up by hard fact, creationism has none, so in reality creationism is a hypothesis in the scientific sense and yes evolution is a theory in the scientific sense, I would advise checking these out.
To correct your statement - what you call is evolution is not the initial creation event, but a current event, which there are only things being observed are things coming together - a lifeform or whatever you may call it. The reality is that this evolution being observed is not evolution, but a natural process. It does what it has always been doing. Because scientists haven't been able to proove evolution, they have now taken a naturally occuring process and calling it evolution. So that take what God has created, and now give it another name:)
Of course it is evolution is not the inception of life it is what happens after it.
Tell me how observed evolution is not evolution, I find that interesting.
Again scientists have proved evolution as mentioned above.
Evolution by Natural selection is as its name suggests a natural process, putting a name on it does not make any difference to that, saying God created it is only stating opinion, there is no evidence to back that up.
This demonstration of an "evolution process" by evolutionists is so stupid (my apologies here) it is actually rediculous!!
Which demonstration is that now?
It's like (similar) watching a man and woman have sex, the sperm and the egg comes together and a child is born - they say this is evolution.
How is this so, the fact that genetic materials passed from parent to child is in itself a process on which Natural selection can act, in the form of mutant alleles.
In the same way they observe a set of substances and events under certain conditions and then call this this their so called proof of evolution - they are simply observing a process happening in the way it would always happen, the way God created it to happed. They substances are simply following their predetermined course.
What are you basing these wild assumptions on? The scientific method is all about observation. It is how science advances.
Also are you saying that everything is predetermined? That brings with it a whole set of extra issues.
It's God created way, doing what things were designed to do, under those conditions and circumstances!! It's not doing anything that it would do under those circumstances.
Well, that is your opinion and from your posts I gather that evolution is not a subject that you have given much time. The matter at hand though is that evolutionary scientists have put forward tons of evidence to support and prove Natural Selection as a sound explanation for the diversity of lifeforms in existence and that includes Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Creationism has yet to this day provided one indisputable argument that either disproves evolution or proves God's existence.
i.e. those pieces of matter that you are observing - God created them - you have to answer who created the matter in the first place
Unfortunately it is you and the religious that has to explain this, others merely desire to, the pursuit of knowledge being noble, but not an absolute necessity, and to my mind there is no supporting proof for God having created anything and there is the other burning question of "Where did God come from?" if you can explain that I'd like to hear it. Regarding the flood - the whole world is full of the evidence of the flood - EVERYWHERE!!
Where exactly is this evidence? How big was Noah's boat that he could fit so many millions of animals on it with enough food and safe drinking water to sustain them and themselves. How could a boat of that size, made of wood, survive that sort of hostile mass flooding of the earth. Why would an omni-benevolent God send so many innocents to a horrible agonizing death? Does it not occur to you that the older the Bible story the more outlandish and fantastical it becomes?
Oh - God was good enough to prophecy about this current generation who wouldn't accept the evidence of the flood - how nice of Him, and how nice of him to write it thousands of years in advance:) You see, He is thinking about you:)
If God is omniscient and omnipotent as the Bible suggests then this was his plan that he set out.
we all know how that how "4 billion years ago" theoretically the sun was so big that it would have consumed the entire earth, and probably big enough to physically be in contact with the earth.
About 4.5 Billion years ago our earth is said to have formed around that time the sun would have been a T Tauri star, large yes but not as hot. Just because a scientist today cant fully explain the working of a T Tauri star (and that is a big ask) does not mean that they will not in the future. Life on this planet is theoretically supposed to have occurred about 3.5 billion years ago, plenty of time I think for life to occur.
After this point your post descends into preaching, and by the way you don't offend me, I actually respect someone that takes the time to have a debate about something they obviously feel passionate about, however I feel from your statement that you consider me a fool, this is a mistake but it is yours to make, also why would I wish to call and engineer that is your friend, is obviously of the same persuasion as you and cannot be verified as a person who's opinion matters?
The fact that the bible is not used to lecture science, is not proof that it is invalid - in fact it is proof that it is valid
How exactly? People of a religious bent often see science as an anti-religion, it is not, it is though, a systematic approach to assessing and recording the world as we know it, if it had been proved that the bible was a scientifically sound piece of predictive literature it would (and I can't stress this enough) be used by all sane members of the scientific community. The very fact that it is not is evidence that it is not as mentioned.
Again after this more preaching. Do me a favor and cut down on the preaching please, I've heard it all, I was brought up in a devout Christian home and still hear it every day so there is nothing new, I've read the Bible and it was this reading that sent me the other way.
Yes it has, there is mountains of evidence that prove evolution. Including actual evolution being observed. "
Actually, every piece of evidence produced by evolutionists amounts to conjecture, not prov- able facts. In reality, the true evidence supports creation, not evolution.
I agree with you to a certain extent. However, in many holy scriptures, many scientific details are discussed at which no time, no scientific equipments were developed. Like in the Quran states that the appearance of the gum already chewed with the teeth marks on it resembles a fetus at its early stage in the womb. Scientists found this statement to be accurate. The Quran also describes the front of the brain as being responsible for thinking, logic and reasoning. Scientists later found this statement to be true. The Bible also has some miracles which i have not examined as yet but will do so. I believe that there is a God who is behind every single thing that happens. If there is no God, then how come we cry and have emotions as part of our feelings?
"I believe that there is a God who is behind every single thing that happens."
Feel free. But that won't make it so. The god excuse is the last resort of a man with all questions and no answers.
"If there is no God, then how come we cry and have emotions as part of our feelings?"
That's probably the weakest argument a Theist could use. That's like asking, "Well, if there is no god, then how does the next tissue pop up from the box?"
Emotions are caused by chemical reactions in our brains in response to external stimuli. If you want to believe that God pushes emotions into our heads everytime we see or hear soemthing that affects our moods, by all means, don't expect others to take it as a compelling argument for the existence of your God.
However, in many holy scriptures, many scientific details are discussed at which no time, no scientific equipments were developed.
This is fallacious reasoning, essentially an argument from ignorance followed by a non sequitur. You don't know how the Quran could describe certain details that agree in some abstract or vague way with modern knowledge, so you assume that an infinitely complex magical being is behind it.
The simple explanation is that the Quran makes many guesses about the natural world and universe, and some vague predictions might be correct but most are not.
Like in the Quran states that the appearance of the gum already chewed with the teeth marks on it resembles a fetus at its early stage in the womb.
Abortions have occurred almost as long as pregnancy was possible. There are miscarriages, natural abortions that occur without anyone the wiser, and there are various natural compounds that cause women to abort.
I believe that there is a God who is behind every single thing that happens.
Then you had better prove it.
If there is no God, then how come we cry and have emotions as part of our feelings?
Emotions are natural things, and evolution is the natural process that derives these complex mechanisms.
I chose the Quran especially since it was written in a time when modern technology was absent. Why would it be fallacious argument when it was approved by scientists to be true and accurate information. And it is also a religious book? Didn't the Quran mentioned that the Romans would fall in their power which later came to pass. Historians traced the time the Quran came into existence eway before the empire of the Romans fell apart.
I agree with you that Abortion has always occured but how did you know if chewing gums existed then? How did you know that these people hundreds of years ago had some sort of modern technology to know what the functions of the cerebrum are?
I proved it by using a religious book.
So what do call the term love? Is it part of emotions too? And out of your own consciousness, why when someone does something bad, you refer to them as being "evil"?
"So what do call the term love? Is it part of emotions too?"
Actually, yes. Emotions such as love aren't that complicated. They're chemically based. You should start looking for answers rather than just asking questions.
"why when someone does something bad, you refer to them as being "evil"?"
Morals that spawn from the right side of the brain. That's the emotional, creative side. When somebody does something that goes against your morals, you consider it to be "evil". There is no universal right or wrong. There's only the socially acceptable morals established by the human race.
I chose the Quran especially since it was written in a time when modern technology was absent. Why would it be fallacious argument when it was approved by scientists to be true and accurate information.
It is only as true and accurate as the literature of the age it comes from, which is to say, not very much. For example, there are no Djinn. There was no Adam and Eve.
Didn't the Quran mentioned that the Romans would fall in their power which later came to pass. Historians traced the time the Quran came into existence eway before the empire of the Romans fell apart.
The Roman Empire collapsed in the 500s, the Quran was invented in the 600s.
I agree with you that Abortion has always occured but how did you know if chewing gums existed then?
Didn't you just argue that the Quran itself compared a foetus to chewing gum in shape? Besides, chewing gum is ancient, almost as old as agriculture itself.
How did you know that these people hundreds of years ago had some sort of modern technology to know what the functions of the cerebrum are?
They knew what the organs in a body were, no doubt after impaling and dismembering people in battle, so why wouldn't they have simply guessed?
I proved it by using a religious book.
Proved what? God? You can't prove a claim from a book using that same book.
So what do call the term love? Is it part of emotions too? And out of your own consciousness, why when someone does something bad, you refer to them as being "evil"?
These are all natural processes. Everything we experience is chemically driven. This is why neurobiology and medicine have been able to develop many amazing drugs that change our moods, perceptions, and can inhibit disorders. Our brains evolve programming that guides us as social creatures, and we learn programming as we live. Evil is a concept that is part of that programming.
Didn't the Quran mentioned that the Romans would fall in their power which later came to pass. Historians traced the time the Quran came into existence eway before the empire of the Romans fell apart.
Aside from the dubious chronological order you have produced, all empires fall. Any idiot could predict that.
there. it is published. Now when my statement comes true, as it is inevitably going to given enough time, it will be known that I am psychic, magical, and wonderful.
Not just any idiot predicted the future. It takes a special kind of idiot.
And one more thing, the messenger who was tasked with spreading the word of the Quran in ancient time was illiterate as several historians has testified. So it is not like he was all educated and went to high prestige schools in those times.
And one more thing, the messenger who was tasked with spreading the word of the Quran in ancient time was illiterate as several historians has testified. So it is not like he was all educated and went to high prestige schools in those times.
It doesn't mean that he couldn't speak, dictate to writers, and guess ideas and predictions. It also doesn't mean that he himself existed. Although it is probable that he was a real person, he could have been a group of people who collaborated, or his statements may have been altered before being written into the final draft. All sorts of guesses and ideas may have been inserted.
Can you show me these data please. Evolution by natural selection is purely a biological theory, and fossils are preserved biological matter, samples of rocks, and other inorganics are used only to date the fossils by radiometric dating or simple comparison of strata.
Go research the lenski experiments: simply put he starved bacteria and over generations became larger and larger until some evolved the ability to consume the filler material he mixed with his glucose.
Are you completely ignorant of how scientific fields interact? Geology can show us when fossils were as can radiometric dating. Both of those show us when different life forms existed and the transition in between.
Go research the lenski experiments: simply put he starved bacteria and over generations became larger and larger until some evolved the ability to consume the filler material he mixed with his glucose.
I am well aware of the Lenski experiments and I fail to see how bacterial consumption of citric acid as a food source helps to prove anything about the planet, what it does prove is evolution as a biological theory.
Are you completely ignorant of how scientific fields interact?
No, why?
Geology can show us when fossils were as can radiometric dating. Both of those show us when different life forms existed and the transition in between.
What exactly are you arguing here? I made virtually the same point in my original post.
Some people say that the earth is a product of a series of scientific changes and processes that were known as Evolution
Who said that? How could scientific changes occur before science was invented? How could a biological system influence the mechanics that resulted in the earth's formation?
yes, it struck me as odd that the Earth was undergoing a process of natural selection when, as far as I have seen, the Earth has not reproduced at all.
I suppose if you want to argue Gaia theory, the Earth is a superorganism, but even then a better term could be used.
I opted for "natural causes" as opposed to "divine causes"
I personally believe it is creation. The experts say it is evolution but still has not proved it is evolution. There are many facts showing that some of the studies done to prove evolution are false. Also, in the Bible it talks about many things to come, which many things that are in the Bible have come to pass. Could you tell me how someone, so many years ago new everything that was going to come to pass but still it's possible it's evolution?
my vote is for evolution, with how humans and other species around the world came to be.
However I thought that i would bring up a point that science has not yet answered. "What caused the big bang" if all matter was in a stable state of singularity, what triggered the explosion/expansion? something triggered it, and can that something be called a "higher power"?
Just a thought, hope to hear your views on that. thx.
We don't know yet. It is a very difficult question to answer, and we probably do not have the technological or intellectual capabilities to find or interpret the evidence at this time. That does not mean the answer is not there, or that we should superimpose an answer just to satiate our curiosity.
There are some wild hypotheses proposed by very intelligent and respected physicists, but none of them are accepted by the scientific community because they cannot provide falsifiable evidence. Thus, while they are interesting to talk about and possible answers, there is no reason at this point to accept them as truth. Much like God.
So yes, science cannot answer the question yet, but there is no reason to think we never will. Can that something be called a "higher power?" We won't know until we figure out what that something is. I just hope we find the answer before I die because I am quite curious :)
I for one am for creation For all of u thinking already about how stupid I am or I would know the truth if it slapped me in the face, hear me out. First of all evolution is not a proven fact it is theory and only that. For one where is ur "missing link" that is a big fault in the theory of evolution. Second if we evolved from monkeys then y don't the monkeys now a days don't evolve into humans ? I for one haven't seen a half human half monkey baby being born.
First of all evolution is not a proven fact it is theory and only that. For one where is ur "missing link" that is a big fault in the theory of evolution.
The fact that our bodies is made up of cells is also a theory, called cell theory. Just because something a theory does not necessarily mean there is any significant amount of doubt, just that science is careful to avoid absolutes.
For one where is ur "missing link" that is a big fault in the theory of evolution.
This is an outdated argument probably stemming from a misunderstanding of evolution. Every generation and in fact every reproducing organism is a part of the puzzle of evolution. It is better represented as a tree than a chain.
Second if we evolved from monkeys then y don't the monkeys now a days don't evolve into humans ?
Humans did not descend from monkeys just like you did not descend from your cousins. We share a common ancestor like you and your cousin share grandparents.
I have seen no one able to recreate anything 'God' had made, but I saw a recent article and video on a debate that showed birds are adapting to highway life.
So I believe evolution because there is more evidence in it's favor.