Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 447,080 views
Danoff
Premium
- 34,044
- Mile High City
Two points:
1) Once again we go back to claiming that God cannot be disproven - and this is supposed to be a victory of religion somehow? Duke has already pointed out that it is not possible to disprove something... and so the burden of proof is on the assertion (prove to us that there IS a God). But allow me to provide another flying spaghetti example.
There is a green and pink poka-dotted chair in your room. You can't see it because it's invisible. It has no mass and you can't feel it. You can't taste it or hear it or smell it. It's in your room but you have no way of measuring or perceiving it.
Now prove to me tha the chair doesn't exist. You can't. I can come up with a million things you can't prove don't exist, especially if I give those things unlimited power.
Allow me to restate what Duke said You cannot disprove something .
2) I get very tired of intelligent design proponents/creationists claiming that life is too complex to be an accident (or the universe being too complex to be an accident). Nobody thinks it was an accident. Many of us see it as a logical consequence of our reality. In my mind evolution is the logical consequence of reproduction due to the fact that genetics are shared between parents - which is the logical consequence of life at all, which is a logical consequence of the chemical composition of the Earth which is a consequence of the way our solar system formed which is a consquence of the origins of our universe which may be a consequence of logic itself.... but I digress.
If life exists, there is an advantage to having two parents rather than budding - so organisms that share genetic information will outpopulate those that do not. If organisms share genetic information evolution MUST occur. There is no other possible outcome... it is simply inconceivable for evolution not to occur if genetic information is shared between parents. If evolution occurs organisms will necessarily become more adept and handling their environment - the logical conclusion of which is human beings.
So allow me to resummarize. Human beings are not an accident , we are the logical outcome pair bonding. It makes perfect sense that we exist.
1) Once again we go back to claiming that God cannot be disproven - and this is supposed to be a victory of religion somehow? Duke has already pointed out that it is not possible to disprove something... and so the burden of proof is on the assertion (prove to us that there IS a God). But allow me to provide another flying spaghetti example.
There is a green and pink poka-dotted chair in your room. You can't see it because it's invisible. It has no mass and you can't feel it. You can't taste it or hear it or smell it. It's in your room but you have no way of measuring or perceiving it.
Now prove to me tha the chair doesn't exist. You can't. I can come up with a million things you can't prove don't exist, especially if I give those things unlimited power.
Allow me to restate what Duke said You cannot disprove something .
2) I get very tired of intelligent design proponents/creationists claiming that life is too complex to be an accident (or the universe being too complex to be an accident). Nobody thinks it was an accident. Many of us see it as a logical consequence of our reality. In my mind evolution is the logical consequence of reproduction due to the fact that genetics are shared between parents - which is the logical consequence of life at all, which is a logical consequence of the chemical composition of the Earth which is a consequence of the way our solar system formed which is a consquence of the origins of our universe which may be a consequence of logic itself.... but I digress.
If life exists, there is an advantage to having two parents rather than budding - so organisms that share genetic information will outpopulate those that do not. If organisms share genetic information evolution MUST occur. There is no other possible outcome... it is simply inconceivable for evolution not to occur if genetic information is shared between parents. If evolution occurs organisms will necessarily become more adept and handling their environment - the logical conclusion of which is human beings.
So allow me to resummarize. Human beings are not an accident , we are the logical outcome pair bonding. It makes perfect sense that we exist.
PS
(Banned)
- 2,883
a6m5I belive in religion(Christianity) and intelligent design. Are there scientific proofs supporting them? not really. Does that mean they are wrong? who knows?. If you look at it from strictly scientific standpoint, God(s), Creationism, I.D. are all fiction. As some notable members have said in this thread, (at least)God and I.D. can not be proven or disproven.
This is a great thread. Very educational and I've learned so much from everybody(especially from the you know who). However, there's one problem I see. From the "Evolution" camp, if it can't be proven by some sort of test, it is not true. From the "Creation/Intelligent Design" camp, I think it's more like "signs" than proofs? There are "signs" that shows us that there is a power at work, and the universe and everything in it were created(& designed) for a reason(s).
Personally, I question both possibilities constantly and I am not just saying that. I've loved science since I was very young, but unfortunately, I wasn't smart enough to be a very good student of it(I might be a bit jealous of Famine). However our science is a process, studies and does not provide all the answers. All we can do is to continue on learning.
Look on the bright side, we'll all know the answer for sure, when the time comes!
Yah, but what if that "time" (endtime, perhaps?) doesn't come? Then all the fundies will be saying "Oh it'll be here in another thousand years!" until our species just dies off, at which point they'll be like "Oh, crap, this must be it...uh...repent! Repent and you will be saved!", or by then, religion might be abandoned, so I have no idea.
But basically what I was saying was, what if there is no endtimes, we still won't be able to see, either of us (atheists:religious followers) will always be waiting for so long that we'll nearly be extinct, at which point the ones believing in intelligent design and all that will pounce on the situation and say "told you so! We were right! Naa na na naa naa!" and will probably reject the idea of us over populating and over eating and over polluting and assume it was God's will.
I'll probably have to clear that up again...for some reason I'm having trouble explaining my thoughts right now.
- 26,628
- OREGON
- a6m5zero
danoff: I don't know if I'm the one who offended you or what, but I'm going to reply anyway. Comparing religion and the "green and pink poka-dotted chair" is a waste of time. This is why I said this:danoff
a6m5
I'm not a hardcore supporter of anything, so I don't see this as a "victory" for anything. In comparing evolution/creation, evolution theory clearly has the upper hand. I do belive in intelligent design. I think it's very likely, and you don't. Is this going to change anything? Not for me.
danoff
What you are saying make perfect sense, and that is why the evolution theory is accepted by everyone, except for few. However, when those people say "by accident", I don't know about them, but at least for me, I think that accident is more along the lines of "Big Bang" theory. I'm far more interested in finding that out than the creation/evolution that happened much later.
PS
I'm just as big of a skeptic on that subject as you, PS. I'm sorry about this, because I didn't make it clear. I'm talking about when the time comes as in when you die!
I was just playin' 
- 548
- J_enko
Duke
yes i know.Yes
- 26,628
- OREGON
- a6m5zero
That is a very interesting question. My idea of the "creator" is not necessarily God(s) though. That is what I hope for, and is guessing. At this point in our science, I think the scientific theories concerning our universe is a bit of "leaps of faith" as well.Famine
- 87,578
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Theory must be tested, published, re-tested, reviewed and re-tested to even be treated as theory. While sometimes they might, to the layman, seem like philosophical grasps, if something is treated as theory then there's a lot of evidence and testing already behind it, which it has survived.
- 8,017
- GTP_Royalton
http://computer.tatung.com.tw/pc/MotherBoard/T2280S.jpg
Explain to me how all the parts here can first make themselves, then find eachother, then connect to eachother, then turn on by themselves.
Do so and I believe in life arising on its own
Explain to me how all the parts here can first make themselves, then find eachother, then connect to eachother, then turn on by themselves.
Do so and I believe in life arising on its own
PS
(Banned)
- 2,883
Lets take this is an objective view on both sides; bare with me for a moment here:
Some woman has a child. She is unprepared for it and leaves the child on a doorstep. It's about 2 weeks old. Those people are just as unprepared as she is, and leave the baby near a homeless man, putting the burden on him to do whatever the right thing may be.
Now, the child has no education and he's no longer a child, either, at 20 years old. He decides he wants to do something in life. Soooo...he goes back to school.
It's a Continuing Ed course and things are very strait-to-the-point, leaving out creationism, the big bang, and evolution.
If this man were to sit in on this debate, who do you think he would believe?
Some woman has a child. She is unprepared for it and leaves the child on a doorstep. It's about 2 weeks old. Those people are just as unprepared as she is, and leave the baby near a homeless man, putting the burden on him to do whatever the right thing may be.
Now, the child has no education and he's no longer a child, either, at 20 years old. He decides he wants to do something in life. Soooo...he goes back to school.
It's a Continuing Ed course and things are very strait-to-the-point, leaving out creationism, the big bang, and evolution.
If this man were to sit in on this debate, who do you think he would believe?
- 4,494
- Vancouver, BC
He would probably believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster because he is hungry.
PS
(Banned)
- 2,883
Earth
What if you actually just witnessed life arising on its own? Oh wait, you can't. It started out with microscopic single-celled organisms formed over millions of years of acids and proteins combining to form sustainable life. Which then mutated into something bigger, or failed to divide...being a mutant in and of itself. Dude, all it takes one little DNA screw up, one little gene to go awry, one little chromosome, that's all it takes. And with millions of those little cells, it's innevitable.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
PS
That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. First, that is not evolutionary theory. As explained by famine about 50 pages ago. Evolutionary theory deals with how life matured and changed, not how it began.
But I want you to think really hard. You actually accept/believe that when these protiens are just sitting there, sooner or later they become a cell that's alive? I know you think creationist are crazy because we believe in adam and eve and the garden of eden and Noah's ark and all. But to have life just appear because of math? Now that's a pretty serious stretch if you ask me. Even before I was a christian I never believed that.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,044
- Mile High City
Earth
Show me someone being formed by God out of dirt or a rib or something... hell I'd even take a talking burning bush telling me how to harvest my crops... show me that and I'll believe in creation.
Not that your example is parallel. You fundamentally misunderstand the theory of evolution. Complex life forms did not form from the parts finding each other and working together - they formed from simpler life forms.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,044
- Mile High City
I don't believe it 100%. I dismiss the God of the bible because it is wrong on so many counts.
You do misunderstand that the origins of life are not complex organisms parallel to your motherboard.
- You still haven't shown me the burning bush.
Ok, the Earth goes around the sun because of math. Birds fly and currents flow because of math. Seriously was that necessary?
