CreateDebate


Debate Info

194
97
evolution creationism
Debate Score:291
Arguments:150
Total Votes:368
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 evolution (96)
 
 creationism (53)

Debate Creator

jamesvarner(11) pic



evolution vs creationism

This is a debate that never seems to go away Evolution (science) Vs. Intelligent design (creationism's new name) being taught in schools.

evolution

Side Score: 194
VS.

creationism

Side Score: 97
6 points

To me this is a simple one Evolution all the way. It is science plain and simple when and if creationists can show evidence for creation beside the bible then and only then should it even be considered. The fact of the matter is all they have are criticisms of evolution which does not amount to evidence of creation.

Side: Evolution
saohire(5) Disputed
2 points

You say the bible is the only proof of creationism. Um, biblical archaeology?? Archaeology is science too.

Isn't evolution's bible Darwin's "On the Origin of Species..."? It has been proved by other branches of science.

And also, you think all things just appeared and began to evolve?

Was life created out of thin air? And, if so, how was the air created?

I beleive evolution could be, but as a stage after creation, that would progress life.

Both could be one in the same. Just, I beleive, for evolution to exsist, that creation must have preceeded it.

"The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared..."

How did they appear? What?

"... and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began. The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred..."

Unclear? Hmmm?

"Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool. Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA, and the assembly of simple cells."

How did RNA first become?

I do not believe this debate is fair, because evolution has so many gaps in its reasoning. How can it be compared to creationism? They are two different things.

I would say I agree with both, but the blatantly ignoring theology in scientific theory makes a rift between the two. So, creationism.

Side: creationism
simsoy(10) Disputed
3 points

actully, uncomplext compunds bonded to geather to create chemicals and very very uncomplect cell fragments that then banded to geather with otherthings for survival and formed the first very simple cells that then became more complext. (also, we have proof of human civilization that started with writings and buildings and history and bones before the bible says it all just happened)

Side: Evolution
Locke5(27) Disputed
2 points

Nothing "appeared"- its very simple. A very long time ago, after the creation of the oceans, simple chemical reactions occurred that became more and more complex, and eventually created RNA, which developed into 2 cells. those cells began to multiply, and random mutations occurred, changing them ever so slightly. (Also, cyanobacteria developed, which developed that thin air you were talking about). Millions and millions of years of this evolutionary process, and now we have websites where we can debate about how we started.

Side: Evolution
cottontop Disputed
1 point

If humans evolved from another species and we are the most intelligent species on earth; why aren't all species evolving into humans? I mean if you were a cow and you knew you were on the food chain and you've been on the food chain for millions of years; wouldn't you want to evolve to get off the food chain? In order for there to be evolution the way you want to explain it, we would continually be evolving. I have yet to meet anyone who can point out from who or what we evolved from. Sure some say we evolved from ape; well if that's true; wouldn't all apes have evolved to humans? There's some that say we evolved from a fish; wouldn't all fish eventually have evolved to human? Yeah, it's the easy way out to try and explain we came from something that was already here, but there has never been any exact science to prove your theory. As you said all are accepted as a valid description, but none are proven.

I've worked in the science field almost my entire adult life and I can tell you nothing evolves without a human's touch. Not a single cell will do anything without the intervention of someone or something feeding it or programming it.

Could you imagine evolution actually existing? You have a pet fish in an aquarium tonight and tomorrow you wake up with a man or woman sitting on your couch. I mean, you have to come up with a better argument than it's been accepted as so.

Side: creationism
bookends12(5) Disputed
1 point

What is evolutions proof? Nothing can be proven of evolution cause it is a lie and not a fancy one either easily foolish and so are you to believe it!

Side: creationism
StayReady(2) Disputed
1 point

This is a logical fallacy. Its assuming the false presupposition that evolution has already clearly shown evidence. In the same sense, using a scientific method -- show me how darwinism evolution has been observed.

Side: creationism
5 points

To each their own as a personal belief I have nothing against those that subscribe to creationism but feel strongly that it does not belong in schools. There is no theory of creation it is not even a hypothesis it is a belief or faith. Given the current state of education I dont think america can afford to put faith in schools.

Side: Evolution
beaty(52) Disputed
0 points

Life consist of nothing but creations. Scientist create medicines such as, anti-biotics, and anti-dotes to fight bacteria and poisons to treat the problem and make you well. Other types of scientists that we wonder why are they getting paid such as (not all agree with me) marine biologist. I believe they study the ocean and sea and all that reside in them. What I'm trying to say is, If man have the ability to create something besides the sun, moon and stars. Who in their right mind would think that it doesnt take time and effort and a little thought into creating these beautiful things you wake up to each day?

Side: creationism
4 points

Contrary to some belief, Evolution doesn't conflict with creationism~

You just have to read the first story of the bible, Adam and Eve, in a less literal sense.

Side: Evolution
4 points

Evolution has been basically proven... Other than that, the only source for creationism is the creation story in the Bible. And although that's a nice story and all, I believe it was only put there as an allegory for other messages we should know, like "God is all powerful (He created everything)" and "God is all loving (the line "and He saw it was good")".

Side: Evolution
StayReady(2) Disputed
1 point

".. has been basically proven" <-- ambiguity logical fallacy. Misleading the truth through use of ambiguity language. Show me ONE proof of darwinism evolution.

Side: creationism
MKIced(2510) Disputed
0 points

Here is a simple source explaining microevolution. The interesting thing about it is that it's evolution on a time scale we can see. A population is studied by scientists and put under some sort of stress. Gene frequencies change within the population and evolution is driven by this because only those organisms that can overcome the stress will pass their genes (which code for proteins that enable them to survive) to the next generation.

Also, here is a biological definition of evolution: "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species."

Now for an example. You obtain a sample of single celled amoebas. The species typically lives in a water environment at 20C. In an experimental setting, you force the population to live in a water environment of 25C. Some amoeba will die, while others will survive and reproduce. Their offspring will be able to survive the 25C environment. After several generations, the population went from (let's say) 5% having this trait to maybe 90% having it. And that, my friend, is evolution in action right before your very eyes.

I certainly apologize that we cannot witness the effects of millions of years of evolution in our lifetimes.

Supporting Evidence: Microevolution (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: evolution
4 points

I think evolution is an actual truth, since we are able to prove it and all. However, i think the two are closely linked.

But seeing as how everyone has their own beliefs, bleev what u want. My religion has already influenced me, so i'd like to believe God created the Big Bang and designed how evolution would occur. The Bible is not all truth sometimes, because the story of creation could just be a way to improve faith, not to state the way people came to be, we hav science for that

Side: Evolution
2 points

hey, i feel the same way! almost took the brain cells out of my head!

Side: Evolution
3 points

Intelligent Design doesn't refute evolution. it simply says that it was "guided" or "started" by something beyond explanation (at this time).

creationism says "God created man in his image"... nothing like Intelligent Design. Despite its origins, Intelligent Design has become something much more than just "God did it". Think of it based on the philosophy of Plato.

and, Evolution is not a theory saying God had nothing to do with it. even its origins were not perfect but BECAME something better as we went along with it (like Darwin saying that the cell was very basic). the cell is actually another Universe.

Side: Evolution
6 points

Evolution may not have been perfect when it was first thought up, but it was still pretty damn good. Why? Because it was based on observation, and evidence. It employed the scientific method to come up with an idea that changed the way we view our world. It is the foundation that unites all fields of biolgy.

Intelligent design, on the other hand began as an attempt to discredit evolution, for religious reasons. It was put in text books (such as Of Pandas and People) as a replacement for creationism, because the supreme court ruled that creationism was a violation of the first ammendment. I'D has no scientific evidence to support it's claims and never will because it requires an unobservable "inteligent agent." That which is completely unobservable cannot be scuentific because science requires observation.

Could ID be taught in schools? Sure...in a philosophy class, or in a science class as an example of what science isn't. As long as there is not one iota of evidence for ID, then it can never be taught as a theory.

Side: Evolution
heggert(6) Disputed
1 point

Can you describe to me what part of evolution is observable? Have you witnessed the process (supposedly over millions, nay, billions of years)? The fossil record is woeful and proves nothing except that man will believe anything but God. Almost all of what science currently puts forth to be intermediary beings is based on either remains that are obviously human, primate, or are tiny fragments that have been surrounded by artist's renderings of what that creature "must" have looked like. Much of what science trumped up as those "missing links" have now been revealed to be hoaxes. See Nebraska man (Scopes trial), and Piltdown man. Even the famed "Lucy" is said to have walked upright by nothing more than similar leg bones to humans. Other apes living today have similar leg bone structures and don't walk upright. Again, where is the observation of Lucy's walking upright? In addition, Neandertal has been touted as some transitionary creature, but his brain capacity was actually larger than ours, and the skull features can be found in our current human population. As for ID, it is not a replacement for Creationism, but it a smarter and more supportable position than is evolution.

Side: creationism
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
0 points

no scientific evidence, of course. but plenty of mathematical evidence. mainly because the mathematical answer for Life or the Universe is Undefined. ID doesn't say God directly (anymore, unless you are a creationist who believes in ID).

back to math. The existence of the Universe and Life itself is considered mathematically impossible. But if something that's impossible is happening, that would be illogical. but it's also illogical to say that the Universe and life within it doesn't exist because we see with our very own two eyes that it is happening. So how is the impossible possible? Intelligent Design may not answer it, but it does open our minds to the idea that things aren't always as they seem. The very fact that our brains are the rational animal kind, we see things, often, in irrational ways. Our perception, in trying to be rational, has obscured reality into matching what is logical. But, it is both illogical and logical to say that these obscurities are right.

idk, maybe what pisses me off is the harsh reaction to the idea of ID. I don't accept it as truth because there is not enough evidence to support it. but when working it out mathematically and looking to philosophy, it's not that improbable.

You're right about ID not being taught as a science. But, science teachers should be able to bring it up as a possible answer. My Chemistry Professor (who despised creationists) would sometimes answer "God did it" because he knew there was no answer for certain questions (like how and why). He was able to dissect the Universe and Life as we know it into the smallest terms, but he was still unable to answer the most simplest questions on why certain things did things.

Side: Evolution
2 points

Evolution has more supporting details than the theory of intelligent design. Though, both still remains as a theory because it is still not proven to be otherwise. The evolutionism concept is more based on logic and radical studies. But though I still don't believe that our origin is that of a primate; I like to think that we are an origin of human at the beginning of time and mutate over time. Darwinism concept of primate origin has still a big void that is still left unresolved. So it really comes down to what you want to believe in because both still runs unsupported facts.

Side: Evolution
2 points

Evolution has been proven many times. The fossil records, DNA analysis, geographical distribution, real-time observations all point to evolution. It all makes perfect sense and no discovery has contradicted it yet.

Side: Evolution
DJSNuva1(78) Disputed
1 point

Evolution has not been proven. Were you there when evolution was happening? Are there any videos? Records? Pictures? No, there are not. Therefore, there is no concrete proof that directly points to evolution. Believing in evoluition requires an element of faith, because there isn't any concrete proof for it.

Side: creationism
Elvira(3445) Disputed
1 point

There are fossils- they're not concrete, they're better than concrete :)

Side: evolution
2 points

I have no problem with creationism I just don't want it thought in schools. Its a nice PERSONAL fairy tail, just don't bring it out into society.

Side: Evolution

OK. Here's the way I think about it.

Creationism is most often related to Christianity's form of creation. So, if we taught creationism in school, shouldn't we all have to learn about each religion's form of creationism? That way we keep the divide between church and state. We can't indoctrinate our students one way or the other, and being fair with religious education would mean we spend years talking about each religion's ideas on evolution, creationism, or whatever other ideas are out there. We just can't let there be Evolution and then Christian Creationism. There are others.

Side: Evolution
Brewer(1) Disputed
1 point

"evolution has basically been proven", "there is no evidence for the Biblical story" common claims made by evolutionists. Out of all the claims, I've never heard any solid evidence to support them. There's no evidence for the biblical story? Then why is the top of Mt Everest covered in fossilized clams? Why have sets of human footprints have been found on top and next to dinosaur footprints? Why are there so many "fossil graveyards" (the result of swirling water eddies)? Why did the earth have to be created instantaneously (www.halos.com)? Evolution is a fact? Then why have fossilized whales been found standing vertically on their tails? Why are the layers of coal formations connected? Out of the billions of fruit flies/bacteria generations observed, why have they only produced after their kind? Why is the age of the earth severely limited?: The moon is moving away from the earth each year, and would have been touching earth 1.3 billion years ago; long before then lunar tides would have wiped out life. Earth's spin is slowing down, so less than a million years ago it would it have been going much too fast for anything to survive (centrifugal force, 5,000 mph winds). Need more questions?

Side: creationism
frenchieak(1131) Disputed
15 points

OK. Great. But I don't understand why you opposed my argument...

Everything you said sounds so ridiculous it borders made-up. Many of your questions don't even make sense. I don't need more questions. I need more answers. I think andsoccer said most everything that needs to be said other than that.

Side: Evolution
5 points

Wow...where to start?

First, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". Evolution is not a religion or belief system, but instead a well tested theory backed up by evidence in many scientific fields such as geology, embryology, genetics, and other fields of biology. A more accurate term to use would be scientist because over 99% of scientists agree with evolution. But hey, what do they know?

I will talk about the evidence for evolution later but first allow me to answer some of your questions:

Then why is the top of Mt Everest covered in fossilized clams?

That's simple. The surface of the earth is covered by large masses of land known as tectonic plates. There are two types of tectonic plates, oceanic and continental. When two continental plates collide, mountains form. In this case, the Indian subcontinent collided with the Eurasian Plate forming the Himalayas. In fact this collision is still occurring and Mt. Everest is rising a few inches each year. What does this have to do with fossilized clams? At one point during earth's history, the rocks that currently make up the Himalayas were underwater and during this time the clams would have been fossilized. The mountains were raised later. In addition, if you are trying to say that these clams are evidence of the biblical flood (if you are not please correct me), then you should know that fossilization of the type witnessed on the top of Mt. Everest could not have happened in a short amount of time. They would have to have been covered for thousands of years. Didn't the flood supposedly only last 40 days?

Why have sets of human footprints have been found on top and next to dinosaur footprints?

Short answer: They haven't

Long Answer: Although creationists originally claimed that "man-tracks" appeared with dinosaur prints near in Glen Rose Texas, these assertions were later proven to be false. The supposed human footprints were in fact shown to be dinosaur footprints that had been eroded, natural features, and some doctored and carved specimens.

Why are there so many "fossil graveyards" (the result of swirling water eddies)?

Could you be more specific? I have never heard the term fossil graveyard, and I fail to see how this could possibly point to "swirling water eddies."

Why did the earth have to be created instantaneously (www.halos.com)?

This theory was thought up by Robert Gentry, who based his conclusion on what he called "halos" found in certain primordial rocks. Gentry is a physicist not a geologist however, so his method of observations, and the conclusions he comes to are flawed. You might as well ask a plumber to falsify string theory. The problems with his research are numerous, but for the sake of brevity I will give you the basic reasons why he's wrong.

- The rocks he was examining were not part of the primordial crust of earth, but instead much younger, and therefore not reflective of earth's formation.

-He does not show that polonium is the only possible cause of the "halos." In fact, other scientists who reviewed his work have determined that Uranium (which decays much more slowly) is the real cause. This is because the rings were most common in areas that were Uranium rich. If the cause had been Polonium, this would not have been the case.

-Gentry attempts to rationalize the apparent conflict between his results and all other geological evidence for the age of earth, by proposing that decay rates have changed. There is no evidence for this, and the phenomenon is impossible according to current atomic theory. If he is right, then there is no reason that Polonium decay rates couldn't have changed as well, and therefore his entire conclusion is baseless

-His theory requires at least three instances of divine intervention. Science does not deal with the supernatural.

Then why have fossilized whales been found standing vertically on their tails?

What does this have to do with anything? I don't know specifically what your talking about, however, if I were to speculate this could be because either rocks containing the fossils were pushed vertically by volcanic or tectonic activity, or that an underwater avalanche buried a whale vertically. Until you show me specifically what your talking about though, these are just guesses.

Why are the layers of coal formations connected?

Once again, I'm not sure what your talking about.

Out of the billions of fruit flies/bacteria generations observed, why have they only produced after their kind?

I assume by kind you mean species. If that is the case, then you are severely mistaken. There are numerous examples of observed speciation, especially among bacteria. In fact, in 1975, a strain of bacteria was found that could digest nylon. Nylon was only invented in 1935, so this was obviously an evolved trait. Fruit flys have also been observed in laboratories to evolve. In addition we see bugs evolving all the time, to become resistant to pesticides. If you want more examples of instances of observed speciation look here.

Why is the age of the earth severely limited?: The moon is moving away from the earth each year, and would have been touching earth 1.3 billion years ago; long before then lunar tides would have wiped out life. Earth's spin is slowing down, so less than a million years ago it would it have been going much too fast for anything to survive (centrifugal force, 5,000 mph winds).

Your figures are out of date. The whole, moon touching the earth 1.3 billion years ago, was a problem in the 1960s. Since then, newer and more accurate models of the earth-moon system put the moon a good distance away from the earth 4 billion years ago. Scientists had to take into account how shifting landmasses on earth (due to tectonic activity) had an effect on the moon's movement.

Your second claim is laughable. I don't really know how to answer you other than to say that it's not true. Yesterday the temperature was one degree colder than today. Does that mean I can conclude there as an ice age less than a year ago? The earth is slowing down, but not nearly in the way that you described.

Okay, now that that's over with we can talk about evidence for evolution.

Out of all the claims, I've never heard any solid evidence to support them

I'd say that's probably because creationist blogs don't have much information on the topic. I however do. Let's break it up into a couple catagories:

Fossils

Scientists have been able to date fossils that are millions of years old, using numerous different techniques. What we see, when we look at the fossils we've found is a very clear representation of the evolutionary tree of life. Scientists have found literally thousands of transitional fossils, and not a single fossil has not fit within what evolution predicts. There were no mammals found during the Precambrian period, and no dinosaurs that dated less than 50 million years ago.

If evolution were not true then how could you explain:

1) How every dating technique used to identify the age of the fossils, turned up the same result? and how all of these results were consistent with evolution

s predictions?

2) How these transitional fossils exist?

Observed instances of speciation

As I said earlier in the debate, we can actually see species evolving. The reason that the flu vaccine must be updated every year, is because the flu virus evolves each year. In this case, our knowledge of evolution actually saves people's lives. So you must ask yourself:

3) If evolution isn't true, then why do we still see things evolving?

I could go on, but this argument is already too long. If you have more questions go ahead and ask, but I'm much more interested in answers.

Side: Evolution
3 points

"Then why is the top of Mt Everest covered in fossilized clams?"

Because nearly all mountains used to be ancient sea floor genius. That continental drift and plate techtonics.

"Why have sets of human footprints have been found on top and next to dinosaur footprints?"

Because they are a hoax and have been proven to be so.

"Then why have fossilized whales been found standing vertically on their tails?"

Because the earth moves and shifts! Remember the mountains?

OK I'm going to stop there. If you can't go find the answers to some of these questions you are willfully ignorant. Science has working theories for most of this stuff and if it doesn't it's working on them because that's what science does. It knows it doesnt have all the answers yet but the very fact that you can make arguments that you made is because you have a basic understanding of science. Dont worry, friend, the answers are coming faster every day.

Side: Evolution

Evolution was created to counter creationism. ;)

Creationism has evolved to counter evolution. ;)

What if God chose to use evolution as his method for creating Adam and Eve?

Side: Evolution
freefallife(12) Disputed
1 point

The problem with your theory is that, according to the bible, humans did not evolve. We were "created" in gods image...as is

Side: Evolution

The problem with the bible is that it was written by men who claim to have been inspired by God. But that begs the question, why would God inspire certain men to write about him? Why not just inspire us all? And if the answer is, "Because he wanted us to have free will," then what about those certain men; did he not want them to have free will?

Side: Evolution
1 point

off course evolution...it is more logical than creationism..

Side: Evolution
cottontop Disputed
1 point

It's more logical than creationism; that's your argument? That would be like saying your heart should be where your stomach is, because it's more logical since that's closer to the center of your body. Come on people at least bring a good argument when you're trying to prove your false theory.

Side: creationism
1 point

This is one of the most commonly misunderstood and misphrased arguments. Evolution we know occurs. We have observed it under microscopes at the molecular level and tracked it in earth science. Those who try to argue "intelligent design" are really arguing abiogenesis. How the universe was created and whether organisms evolve are two completely separate inquiries and have nothing to do with one another. One is a biological question, the other is a physics/metaphyscial question.

If you believe in creationism aka the Adam and Eve story...you're a fucking moron.

Side: Evolution
1 point

It's ridiculous to debate evolution. Evolution is obvious. I think the real debate is over the timeframe.

If you want to say that the world is 6,000 year old then sure, not much has changed.

However, if we are talking about millions or billions of years then yeah, we probably came from some little organism that was brought here by an asteroid or something.

Or maybe God did create this because he was really bored and we're like the ant farm that my kid has in his room.

Side: Evolution
1 point

Ok. The Bible was passed down by word of mouth for thousands of years. They only wrote it down recently. God is there to explain the unexplainable. Evolution can explain things. Darwinism, survival of the fittest. Lizards have done it, apes have, all animals have. Ones in the fossil record did not make it because they weren't fit for the changes that they were facing.

Side: Evolution
1 point

Natural selection=survival of the fittest. Those survivors will reproduce, and reproduce, becoming a new species, if not proven just a rare mutation.

Side: evolution
1 point

If you ask me, evolution is a thing, not a debate

Evolution is what makes life possible, it allows organisms

to adapt to the environment as it changes, its responsible for huge diversity

and complicity of live on earth. Which not only provides organises with source

of food and healthy competition, it also gives us some truly awesome stuff to

marvel at. And even tho Evolution makes living thing different from one

another, it also shows us how we are all the same. All live, every single thing

that’s alive on earth today, can claim the same shared heritage. Having descended

from the very first microorganism, when life originated on this planet 3.8

million years ago.

There are people who will say that this is all random ( which it isn't ) and that this clumsy process could not be responsible for the majestic beauty of our world. And to them people I say well at least we can agree that our world is beautiful. There are 2 kinds of people in the world,

the people who are excited about the power and beauty of evolution and those

who don’t understand.

Side: evolution
1 point

I don’t understand how people book of genesis literally even though it’s completely illogical, has no evidence at all, the myth it’s self has been proven impossible on multiple occasions and there is overwhelming scientific evidence contradicting it.

Side: evolution
Enquired Disputed
2 points

Evolution has no proof either. If you can give me one proof of evidence I'll love to hear it. Creationism actually has proof. I will tell you if we have a full debate.

Side: creationism
TrumpsHair(312) Clarified
1 point

Wait, do you actually believe that evolution has no proof? Before giving you the mountains of evidence, have you tried ever looking for it yourself?

Side: evolution
1 point

The only evidence for creationism is the bible and scriptures. Where as we have more scientific evidence to prove that we as humans evolved.

Side: evolution
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

This statement is not true.

A message from the heart to debaters who fight in favor of evolution. Adaptation is not evolution no matter how you define it. Adaptation takes a formed life form and adapts within its own fully formed makeup. It doesnt adapt by becoming a different creature.

Evolution defined as used to describe the establishment of life and nature as we sknow it is not adaptation. As a term used in the debate of Creator vs self creation of evolution.

So please stick to the definition. Adaptation is subtle. Evolution is creative in a foundational sense

Adaptation would be darkening of pigmentstion or lengthening a nose to adapt to changing atmosphere. But there is no drastic changes needed for evolution.

I dont argue and poke fun out of a dislike for you. I am hoping at some point you will question reasonably and logically some of the things you accepy as truth and isnt founded in science or logic or reasoning.

I am not being mean or cruel, I'm challenging you for a greater purpose, to question and weigh reasonably.

Like evolution starts aftwr life forms are already in process and builds on it, balancing nature in the process to foster the evolving life forms and to support its progressive action to its current presentation.

Yet when proof of the Bible has connections confirmed, in front of your face, it is denied.

Arent these connections similar. Yet at least with the Bible evidence is tangable and visible, and not just assumptive, as seen in the foundation of the biginning of life, the first life form that assembled itself to start with, then the balancing act needed to progress from the beginning.

Neither of these at the foundation are logical, no matter what biology connects similarities, and no matter what adaptations we see after the fact of a living thing at its completion.

There is only evidence of biological simillarites. Not sound science in the beginning of the first formed living thing. Nor in the balance required beyond that, with entropy working against it from the creation of the first cell, and naturally beyond that!

Creatures with eyes have eye genes. But its a big jump to then say life formed and stabilized out of nonliving matter.

Its a religion of idiots.

Its the greatest insult to the Creator. The actual creator.

Man being a god created himself out of a process from nothing.

Man breathed life into himself out of evolving from a combination of dead matter.

Not even another god, a nothing god ... the earth was void, unformed, darkness over the deep. Into nothing He brought forth life, into chaos He established the balance for life to continue.

And evolution is the god nothing. The self god, nature and man created self by selection of the best. The self made man, evolved from nothing.

.

Side: creationism
3 points

There is no actual absolute proof of evolution as some of the people here have stated. Before people post things, they should really do their research first. And for those reading this I implore you to do your own.

Here are three basic reasons for why evolution is only theory and not a proven fact:

1.) Evolution has never been witnessed. Dawkin's even states that, "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He goes on to say that its like coming upon a murder scene after the murder has already taken place. It seems pretty obvious but there is no concrete evidence. Just obvious clues. "It might as well be spelled out in words of English." Well, it might seem obvious, but its not concrete evidence. It seemed pretty obvious that the world was flat once too.

2.) Science is constantly trying to prove the theory of evolution with suggesting that life itself was generated in a pool of amino acids and proteins by complete chance. However, so far all experiments to attempt to manufacture a self replicating DNA based Molecule have failed. If you don't believe me, look it up. Now, there is evidence supporting RNA based molecules. But, even if that turned out to be successful, it would still pose an interesting paradox being that science created the self replicating molecule, it did not create itself as theory of evolution suggests.

3.) The last point is the fossil record is incomplete. We do share similar bone structures with other animals but there is no defined developmental line. Not even slight mutations within each generation to warrant there being evidence of evolution. Though, I will add they are getting closer and closer every year to finding that missing link but closer and closer does not equal found.

Now speaking about creation. I have read a lot of the arguments that are saying that creationism is faith based. Well, its just as faith based as evolution is. And there is just as much evidence, if not more, supporting intelligent design as there is supporting evolution. In all fairness there is no absolute proof for intelligent design as well. However, there is more substantial evidence for it. Here is one example:

Patterns occur naturally without the need for a 'designer'. For example: snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers, ocean waves etc... These patterns are a natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos. Science, in support of evolution, also uses chaos to describe what was before the "big bang". These things are well-understood and there is no debate in the scientific community. Now, take codes. Codes do not occur without a designer (programmer). Some examples of these include stuff like music, blueprints, languages, computer programs, and even codes of DNA. The basic difference is what happens between patterns and codes. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes. Codes store information which is pretty good proof that DNA just might have been designed (programed). DNA is not a molecule with a pattern. It's a code, basically a language, and a storage device for information. All codes that we know of were created by a conscious mind. Therefore, evidence dictates that DNA was designed by a mind of sorts. The language and information of our very own DNA is proof of some sort of intelligent design.

I for one believe that elements from both evolution and creation, working in tandem, is more likely that one or the other. But if I had to pick one I would say creation.

Side: creationism
Mahollinder(893) Disputed
7 points

Evolution has never been witnessed...

All observations are retroactive. We have observed evolution in the lab and in nature. That s, we have seen novel structures and abilities rise in diversified populations in various settings, whether it by nylonase in flavobacterium or cecil valves in Italian lizards, polyploidy in flowering plants, infertile and fertile hybridization in mammals, speciation of Drosphilia and Promonella among many, many other observed instances of speciation

Science is constantly trying to prove the theory of evolution with suggesting that life itself was generated in a pool of amino acids and proteins by complete chance.

You're mixing up theories. And there are no proofs in science. Proofs exist only in mathematics and liquor.

The last point is the fossil record is incomplete.

First, your understanding of the field, which you are discussing is woefully lacking. Two, there are thousands upon thousands of fossils categorically identifying diversification over time of various phylogenetic lineages. Third, there is no such thing as a missing link. That's just a media term. Every new generation of a population consists of physiological and genetic differences from the parent lineage, thereby becoming intermediate exemplars.

We do share similar bone structures with other animals but there is no defined developmental line.

An organic, DNA/RNA replicating, protein based, metabolic and metazoic, diploid, bilaterally symmetric, gilless, internally heated, coelomate, with a spinal chord, reduced olfactory system, lacteal mammaries, a jawed skull, specialized teeth, with canines and molars, forward oriented and fully enclosed optical systems in a singal temporal fenestra in an amniote skull that is attached to a vertebrate, that are hind-leg dominant, with sacral pelvis, clavicle, with wrist and ankle bones, lungs, tear-ducts, body hair, opposable thumbs, plantigrade extremities with an embryonic development, including amniotic fluid and placental birth leading ultimately to a highly social lifestyle based on a shared complexity in the frontal lobe, enhanced limbic system all connected to a reptilian brain, shared bi-hemispheres that help process language and spatial cognition... etc. etc. That's just the apes. Of course we have a bloody idea of a defined developmental line. Don't confuse yourself.

Well, its just as faith based as evolution is.

No. No. No. No. No. Evolution is not faith based. It is observed. And it is verified by biology, virology, paleontology, embryology, genetics, population genetics, genomics, bioinformatics, phylogenetics. it is evidenced by ring species, gene frequency change, observations and descriptions of populations in controlled settings and in nature. Endogenous retroviruses, body plans, homologous structures, basal features... and the list goes on and on.

I for one believe that elements from both evolution and creation, working in tandem, is more likely that one or the other. But if I had to pick one I would say creation.

Of course you. But you also have no idea what you're talking about. At all, it seems. And that explains fully why you'd go with the fantasy instead of learning about the things that make the world you live in tick. And if you just knew--simply knew--what you are talking about, you wouldn't have to go to some ridiculous, undefined, designer using undefined terms like "information" and talk about chemistry as if it's a computer program. Do what you said: research (IT IS SO ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE NOT DONE ANY).

Side: Evolution
n0thin65(48) Disputed
4 points

The aftermath of evolution has been witnessed but never the actual process itself. Its pretty good evidence but not concrete. With that said I never once stated that I don't believe in evolution personally.

You said my understanding of the field is lacking. Well, I am not a scientist but I have researched this on both sides. If I am lacking I am open to learning more about it. But in this case I don't believe you are correct. You're are right about one thing though. There are thousands of fossils showing what look like steps but there is no gradual change. Your examples of a defined developmental line are actually examples of a fragmented developmental line. And there are a ton more you could list. What you are talking about is macro evolution. These are changes within a species but there is no evidence of micro evolution. There should be millions if not billions of transitional phases between species but we have yet to find them. Therefore, I suggest that the fossil record is incomplete.

And I was being ironic when I made a comment about evolution being faith based. What I mean is, there is just as little, or as much evidence to support both sides. It always seems to me that Creationists are open to science but science is never open to creation. It comes across as incredibly close-minded. You say that evolution is observed. Well, intelligent design can be observed by the same definition. I even gave an example of it. But all you had to say was "And if you just knew--simply knew--what you are talking about, you wouldn't have to go to some ridiculous, undefined, designer using undefined terms like "information" and talk about chemistry as if it's a computer program." That isn't debating that is childish arguing which I don't participate in. I am also pretty sure its obvious what I meant by "information". And calling what I believe a "fantasy" and trying make me look like a fool is also a terrible way to approach a debate. Its just immature and proves that you are close-minded, not to mention it makes you seem incredibly unintelligent. You didn't even try to disprove the argument you just called it, in other words, stupid and left it alone. I typically don't debate with people that are immature. It just doesn't seem fair to them.

Side: creationism
heggert(6) Disputed
2 points

You, sir, do seem to understand a good portion of the science behind this debate. However, I think you need to state whether what you are describing as evolution is molecule to man evolution or the adaptive processes that are inherent in all living things. It may seem like semantics, but it is inherently different and the science to prove each is very different. We know from research in genetics, that information can never be gained (an upward evolution), but only stays stagnate or is lost with adaption. Can you scientifically (meaning observable, testable, repeatable science) prove when information has been added to DNA (outside of intelligent i.e. "human") intervention. As a Christian, I have no problem with changes within a species (adaption), but the notion of molecule to man is far-fetched and disproven by the discovery of DNA since Darwin's time. Evolution in that sense is outdated, just like the flat-earth theory.

Side: creationism

Why couldn't God have created everything through evolution?

Side: creationism
2 points

Big Bang theory- God said Bang and the earth was created.

Seriously though, If evolution was the answer to all the begging question of how life was created then why cant isn't it still happening. Where is the other planets that is created this way. Creationism isn't that simple thought of a high being just creating us. I am sure it took a process of from within the earth and using specific dirt with other things such as his/her almightiness to create something so complex. It is funny how they say that humans started as microevolutionay combined with abiogesis to create a breathing living human. How is it that blood courses through our veins and that our hearts are betting with no end if all this is possible then why does it suddenly stop. How does evolution explain death because with creation there is death. Evolution?? what does that make you....A monkeys uncle......

Side: creationism
Elvira(3445) Disputed
2 points

No... a monkey's greatE9999999 granddaughter.

And sure, it is still happening- that's how you get new diseases.

There will be other planets- we haven't found them yet (or they have more intelligent life, and have some kind of cloaking technology).

Death is necessary for change.

Side: evolution
1 point

Though many say that there is no proof to creationism but yet so much for evolution but yet is there really. Can you not say that scientist are just humans like all the people who believe in evolution and that they may have it all wrong because none of us are perfect . People say that the bible is not real but what if the scientist stories, theories, facts wrong? I know that evolution is not real. But if it is:

Why are monkeys not all evolved?

Who created the Big Bang and where did it come from?

Why do we all have a curiosity if there is a God?

Why do we live on this Earth?

Why would the bible be wrong?

How can a bang create such a complex cell?

Why do we have a knowing of right and wrong but not monkeys?

Why do most people believe in the true Easter story but yet believe in evolution?

There are many more questions that could be asked but if you can answer all these questions than wow you must be supernatural but if you can't you might want to look into reading the bible or try checking out the site www.answersingenesis.com it might give people that can't decide which side to choose some answers.

Side: creationism
YourWorship(38) Disputed
2 points

The bible is to wrong. It has been passed down by word of mouth then only recently written down for the public to read. And survival of the fittest like Charles Darwin said.

Side: Evolution
1 point

There is an awful lot of faith in far reaching abilities thought capable in biology. Evolution purposes to assembe mutations for purpose of progress, and to further adaptation.

Evolution without a Creator is only selective of biological attractions based on these three basic needs to sustain durability, for survival and to further evolve toward progress through adaptations. But biology has no selection ability for preference!!

This kind of faith in evolution's ability absent a Creator is fairy dust!

It's a heavy acid trip to think evolution without a Creator can manage its designs selective also of preference, attracting mutations that will lead ultimately to design and artistic beauty too. It would actually look like crowded desolate waste with creatures durable and more likely ugly.

Thinking biology can evolve to select mostly beauty is unrealistic!

There are not enough care Bears and fairy dust to sustain that dream!

I'm sure organized artistic beauty can evolved through preferred biological selections for beauty in your make believe word of evolution But really... That's pretty neive faith in evolution's biological focus and creative abilities!

Side: creationism
1 point

Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex.

However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite.

The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder.

Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work.

The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.

Thus, in the long term, there is an overall downward trend throughout the universe.

Ultimately, when all the energy of the cosmos has been degraded, all molecules will move randomly, and the entire universe will be cold and without order.

To put it simply: In the real world, the long-term overall flow is downhill, not uphill.

All experimental and physical observation appears to confirm that the Law is indeed universal, affecting all natural processes in the long run.

Read more at: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

Read more at: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

Side: creationism
1 point

A message from the heart to debaters who fight in favor of evolution. Adaptation is not evolution no matter how you define it. Adaptation takes a formed life form and adapts within its own fully formed makeup. It doesnt adapt by becoming a different creature.

Evolution defined as used to describe the establishment of life and nature as we sknow it is not adaptation. As a term used in the debate of Creator vs self creation of evolution.

So please stick to the definition. Adaptation is subtle. Evolution is creative in a foundational sense

Adaptation would be darkening of pigmentstion or lengthening a nose to adapt to changing atmosphere. But there is no drastic changes needed for evolution.

I dont argue and poke fun out of a dislike for you. I am hoping at some point you will question reasonably and logically some of the things you accepy as truth and isnt founded in science or logic or reasoning.

I am not being mean or cruel, I'm challenging you for a greater purpose, to question and weigh reasonably.

Like evolution starts aftwr life forms are already in process and builds on it, balancing nature in the process to foster the evolving life forms and to support its progressive action to its current presentation.

Yet when proof of the Bible has connections confirmed, in front of your face, it is denied.

Arent these connections similar. Yet at least with the Bible evidence is tangable and visible, and not just assumptive, as seen in the foundation of the biginning of life, the first life form that assembled itself to start with, then the balancing act needed to progress from the beginning.

Neither of these at the foundation are logical, no matter what biology connects similarities, and no matter what adaptations we see after the fact of a living thing at its completion.

There is only evidence of biological simillarites. Not sound science in the beginning of the first formed living thing. Nor in the balance required beyond that, with entropy working against it from the creation of the first cell, and naturally beyond that!

Creatures with eyes have eye genes. But its a big jump to then say life formed and stabilized out of nonliving matter.

Its a religion of idiots.

Its the greatest insult to the Creator. The actual creator.

Man being a god created himself out of a process from nothing.

Man breathed life into himself out of evolving from a combination of dead matter.

Not even another god, a nothing god ... the earth was void, unformed, darkness over the deep. Into nothing He brought forth life, into chaos He established the balance for life to continue.

And evolution is the god nothing. The self god, nature and man created self by selection of the best. The self made man, evolved from nothing.

.

Side: creationism
0 points

Intelligent design is the conclusion of deductive reasoning. No other conclusion can be validly deduced.

(The degree of faith that is required to embrace an unintelligent design greatly exceeds a rational faith)

Side: creationism
5 points

Faith is believeing in something without evidence. You're the only one using faith here buddy. Evolution has more evidence than I could possibly tell you. From the fossil record to plant homologies to speciation. We've even observed evolution in labs at this point.

Side: Evolution
n0thin65(48) Disputed
3 points

Evolution has actually never been observed. The aftermath of it has been observed. But there is no concrete evidence. Now mutations have been observed but mutation and evolution are two different things.

Side: creationism
lawnman(1106) Disputed
2 points

Your definition of faith is atheistic; it actually denotes the essence of the term foolish. Explain how any person can believe in something about nothing that doesn’t exist. People can only know or not know of that which exists.

If evolution is observable in the laboratory what is the name of the new species? Are you asserting that evolution is observable in controlled artificial laboratory experiments? Then, if you are, how is that evidence of evolution when it can only be evidence of artificial manipulation of a species? I thought evolution is a naturally occurring process, not a consequence of a controlled experiment in a lab.

Allow me an opportunity, here and now, to describe in part my approach in answering the question of intelligent cause.

The axiom of my argument: The laws of mathematics are the consequences of an intelligent eternal cause. No man or group of men can claim that he/they is/are the author of the laws of mathematics, for the laws existed before a man recognized them. We can however, fundamentally claim that man recognized by reason the known laws of mathematics, but never can it be claimed that man is the author of that which he has recognized by reason. The laws of mathematics existed before they were identified by man. They are eternally true. For example, 1+1+1+1+1100=1104 is true now, and is true thirty trillion centuries from now, and has always been true apart from time itself. This is an eternal truth for the equation is true apart from time itself. When there exists eternal truths that are only recognized by intelligence such as I describe there is an eternal cause of those consequences. And since mathematics is an exercise of knowledge and intelligence it is therefore the consequence of an intelligent cause.

If someone would like to contradict the conclusion of my argument I offer an invitation to do so. However, the difficulty in opposing this view is that the opposition must prove that there was a time when 1+1= not 2.

I have loosely laid out some of the evidence that supports the deductive conclusion that the whole of the creation is a consequence of intelligent design. And as necessary, I will add thereto so that my statements are understood in the manner I have intended.

Side: creationism
DJSNuva1(78) Disputed
1 point

It's called the THEORY of evolution for a reason. Do you know why? Because it's not the LAW of evolution because it has no proof!

Even IF evolution was truth(which it isn't) it doesn't proove against intelligent design. Intelligent design constitutes that something created the universe; Aithiesm constitutes that NOTHING created the universe.

Personally, I believe that the earth and universe was created in six literal days, and evolution has no more proof than creationism IMHO

Side: creationism
bookends12(5) Disputed
1 point

Evolution has the same faith and has no,no,no proof at all!!!!!!!!!!

Side: creationism