Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[joecoolfrog]

OK here's another thing I think should be said.

Evolution may not be the answer to where we are today. but creationisn is DEFINITELY not.

And you know this how?

Almost certainly is more correct than definitely and that is because there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that it is possible, but there is of course a miniscule chance of it being so. There is also exactly the same miniscule chance that the earth was conjured up by super inteligent Aliens,a giant space rabbit or any other supernatural force one cares to imagine.

[DangerBoy]

OK here's another thing I think should be said.

Evolution may not be the answer to where we are today. but creationisn is DEFINITELY not.

And you know this how?

Because it makes ABSOLUTELY no sense. And I mean ABSOLUTELY none. "God" did not make a man out of his rib bone, that's impossible. How do you believe that??!! I'd like to hear how that's possible.

btw this is my 1000th post (:

Yet other atheists here say there are no such things as absolutes. You argue your point from a position of absolute impossibility. They have also said it's impossible to prove that 1 + 1 = 2.

[sheepofdumb]

OK here's another thing I think should be said.

Evolution may not be the answer to where we are today. but creationisn is DEFINITELY not.

And you know this how?

Because it makes ABSOLUTELY no sense. And I mean ABSOLUTELY none. "God" did not make a man out of his rib bone, that's impossible. How do you believe that??!! I'd like to hear how that's possible.

btw this is my 1000th post (:

God made man (Adam) from the dust of the Earth and He made woman (Eve) from Adam's rib. For God nothing is impossible!

Please do your homework Paradice.

Unfortunately evolution is taught as fact even though it is not yet proven. I would gladly accept it if there was a way to reproduce it. One of the main reasons I am still a creationist is because of my faith. Science can't back it up and that's OK with me. It doesn't have to. Evolution depends on science to work. Without being able to prove it using the scientific method it doesn't seem possible to me. So do I need faith to believe in evolution? It seems that way.

[ParadiceCity9]

OK here's another thing I think should be said.

Evolution may not be the answer to where we are today. but creationisn is DEFINITELY not.

And you know this how?

Because it makes ABSOLUTELY no sense. And I mean ABSOLUTELY none. "God" did not make a man out of his rib bone, that's impossible. How do you believe that??!! I'd like to hear how that's possible.

btw this is my 1000th post (:

God made man (Adam) from the dust of the Earth and He made woman (Eve) from Adam's rib. For God nothing is impossible!

I love how you repeated what I said. Now try answering the question.

[ParadiceCity9]

OK here's another thing I think should be said.

Evolution may not be the answer to where we are today. but creationisn is DEFINITELY not.

And you know this how?

Because it makes ABSOLUTELY no sense. And I mean ABSOLUTELY none. "God" did not make a man out of his rib bone, that's impossible. How do you believe that??!! I'd like to hear how that's possible.

btw this is my 1000th post (:

God made man (Adam) from the dust of the Earth and He made woman (Eve) from Adam's rib. For God nothing is impossible!

Please do your homework Paradice.

Unfortunately evolution is taught as fact even though it is not yet proven. I would gladly accept it if there was a way to reproduce it. One of the main reasons I am still a creationist is because of my faith. Science can't back it up and that's OK with me. It doesn't have to. Evolution depends on science to work. Without being able to prove it using the scientific method it doesn't seem possible to me. So do I need faith to believe in evolution? It seems that way.

I never said in any post you quoted that evolution was the answer. I said "Evolution may not be the answer". Notice the quotes.

[heavycola]

Unfortunately evolution is taught as fact even though it is not yet proven. I would gladly accept it if there was a way to reproduce it. One of the main reasons I am still a creationist is because of my faith.

The ONLY reason you are a 'creationist' is because of your faith. Please don't bring scientific concepts anywhere near your beliefs. They have nothing to do with each other.

Your belief in 'creationism' has nothing to do with science's inability to prove evolution. It has everything to do with the fact that your preacher tells you that the bible is 100% true.

This thread is really pissing me off. There is no debate. The hebrew creation story has no more to do with science than the australian aboriginal creation story. Absolutely none.

[Stopper]

OK here's another thing I think should be said.

Evolution may not be the answer to where we are today. but creationisn is DEFINITELY not.

And you know this how?

Because it makes ABSOLUTELY no sense. And I mean ABSOLUTELY none. "God" did not make a man out of his rib bone, that's impossible. How do you believe that??!! I'd like to hear how that's possible.

btw this is my 1000th post (:

Yet other atheists here say there are no such things as absolutes. You argue your point from a position of absolute impossibility. They have also said it's impossible to prove that 1 + 1 = 2.

But ParadiceCity does not speak for other atheists - there is no "atheist" agenda, ideology or philosophy.

So, you cannot just use other atheists' arguments against him simply because he is one, however much you may mischaracterise said arguments.

[ParadiceCity9]

OK here's another thing I think should be said.

Evolution may not be the answer to where we are today. but creationisn is DEFINITELY not.

And you know this how?

Because it makes ABSOLUTELY no sense. And I mean ABSOLUTELY none. "God" did not make a man out of his rib bone, that's impossible. How do you believe that??!! I'd like to hear how that's possible.

btw this is my 1000th post (:

Yet other atheists here say there are no such things as absolutes. You argue your point from a position of absolute impossibility. They have also said it's impossible to prove that 1 + 1 = 2.

But ParadiceCity does not speak for other atheists - there is no "atheist" agenda, ideology or philosophy. So, you cannot just use other atheists' arguments against him simply because he is one, however much you may mischaracterise said arguments.

thank you

[sheepofdumb]

Unfortunately evolution is taught as fact even though it is not yet proven. I would gladly accept it if there was a way to reproduce it. One of the main reasons I am still a creationist is because of my faith.

The ONLY reason you are a 'creationist' is because of your faith. Please don't bring scientific concepts anywhere near your beliefs. They have nothing to do with each other.

Your belief in 'creationism' has nothing to do with science's inability to prove evolution. It has everything to do with the fact that your preacher tells you that the bible is 100% true.

This thread is really pissing me off. There is no debate. The hebrew creation story has no more to do with science than the australian aboriginal creation story. Absolutely none.

No, my faith has everything to do with how I interpret science and don't you EVER TELL ME OR ANYONE ELSE THAT THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER! Not only are you are sadly mistaken if you really think that science and the bible are two totally different realms but by pushing it away you are pushing the spotlight away from the creationists. I will not let you do that. If they were two separate realms then there would be no argument. If they aren't related then how can there even be an argument. Also, allow me to tighten up my beliefs a little more. I believe in creationism not only because I believe the Bible is 100% true from my own logic (no one else had their hand hand feeding me this unlike children raised on evolution) but also because evolutionary evidence is non-existent and impossible based on the very rules of science that evolution is forced to abide by but bends anyways to make their theory true. Your vague use of words would never fly when put against the scientific method. If it doesn't pass the method then is it really science? Or is it a theory? Remember back in the 1600's when the reformation just started? Let's look at the reformation and scientific discovery's before and after. Before alchemy was a "science" while it does have something to do with science (the mixing of chemicals and whatnot) but it was not true science. Now look at after the reformation. Scientists were making discoveries left and right. What's more is that they were praising God while they did it! Anyone who says otherwise must either by hiding from the truth because they cannot bear it or stupid. Remember, these were the same men who founded science. You go against them and you go against your own beliefs.

Edit: tightened up some statements, I ask that any criticism be adjusted to these changes.

[joecoolfrog]

Unfortunately evolution is taught as fact even though it is not yet proven. I would gladly accept it if there was a way to reproduce it. One of the main reasons I am still a creationist is because of my faith.

The ONLY reason you are a 'creationist' is because of your faith. Please don't bring scientific concepts anywhere near your beliefs. They have nothing to do with each other.

Your belief in 'creationism' has nothing to do with science's inability to prove evolution. It has everything to do with the fact that your preacher tells you that the bible is 100% true.

This thread is really pissing me off. There is no debate. The hebrew creation story has no more to do with science than the australian aboriginal creation story. Absolutely none.

No, my faith has everything to do with this debate and don't you EVER TELL ME OR ANYONE ELSE OTHERWISE! Not only are you are sadly mistaken if you really think that science and the bible are two totally different realms but by pushing it away you are pushing the spotlight away from the creationists. I will not let you do that. Remember back in the 1600's when the reformation just started? Let's look at the reformation and scientific discovery's before and after. Before alchemy was a "science" while it does have something to do with science (the mixing of chemicals and whatnot) but it was not true science. Now look at after the reformation. Scientists were making discoveries left and right. What's more is that they were praising God while they did it! Anyone who says otherwise must either by hiding from the truth because they cannot bear it or stupid. Remember, these were the same men who founded science. You go against them and you go against your own beliefs.

You have seriously got hold of the wrong end of the stick,we all recognise that any defence of creationism is totaly dependent on faith because there is no other conceivable reason to push a proposition that has no supporting scientific foundation. Science and many of the biblical stories are simply not compatible,the first relies on natural law the second on belief in the supernatural. Nobody founded Science but I have no doubt that those who first strove to learn its mysteries had a belief in God, hardly surprising given that the church was the sole provider of education at the time. However as knowledge expanded there was a sharp realisation that many scientific discoveries could not be reconciled with the teachings of the church,hence the reason that the majority of scientists today are not of a religious bent.

[heavycola]

Unfortunately evolution is taught as fact even though it is not yet proven. I would gladly accept it if there was a way to reproduce it. One of the main reasons I am still a creationist is because of my faith.

The ONLY reason you are a 'creationist' is because of your faith. Please don't bring scientific concepts anywhere near your beliefs. They have nothing to do with each other.

Your belief in 'creationism' has nothing to do with science's inability to prove evolution. It has everything to do with the fact that your preacher tells you that the bible is 100% true.

This thread is really pissing me off. There is no debate. The hebrew creation story has no more to do with science than the australian aboriginal creation story. Absolutely none.

No, my faith has everything to do with how I interpret science

That's exactly what I said.

Not only are you are sadly mistaken if you really think that science and the bible are two totally different realms but by pushing it away you are pushing the spotlight away from the creationists. I will not let you do that. If they were two separate realms then there would be no argument.

That's right, there is no argument.
Deuteronomy 13:7 - 'from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth;'
Job 38:13 'that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it'
Do these passages shape your scientific opinion that the earth is flat?

I believe the Bible is 100% true from my own logic

...apparently the answer is yes.


look, my point is that these are not competing 'theories'. 'Creationism' is a belief in the hebrew creation story. it is founded on the belief that the bible is 100% true. That is its foundation. No bible, no fundamentalist xianity, no 'creationism'. Yes?
Evolution is a scientific theory, like gravity or electromagnetism, that best fits observations made about the natural world.
There IS NO ARGUMENT. Pitch your creation story against the Mohawk or the Muslim version. But don't pretend it has anything to do with science. After all, science is only man-made.

[sheepofdumb]

Unfortunately evolution is taught as fact even though it is not yet proven. I would gladly accept it if there was a way to reproduce it. One of the main reasons I am still a creationist is because of my faith.

The ONLY reason you are a 'creationist' is because of your faith. Please don't bring scientific concepts anywhere near your beliefs. They have nothing to do with each other.

Your belief in 'creationism' has nothing to do with science's inability to prove evolution. It has everything to do with the fact that your preacher tells you that the bible is 100% true.

This thread is really pissing me off. There is no debate. The hebrew creation story has no more to do with science than the australian aboriginal creation story. Absolutely none.

No, my faith has everything to do with this debate and don't you EVER TELL ME OR ANYONE ELSE OTHERWISE! Not only are you are sadly mistaken if you really think that science and the bible are two totally different realms but by pushing it away you are pushing the spotlight away from the creationists. I will not let you do that. Remember back in the 1600's when the reformation just started? Let's look at the reformation and scientific discovery's before and after. Before alchemy was a "science" while it does have something to do with science (the mixing of chemicals and whatnot) but it was not true science. Now look at after the reformation. Scientists were making discoveries left and right. What's more is that they were praising God while they did it! Anyone who says otherwise must either by hiding from the truth because they cannot bear it or stupid. Remember, these were the same men who founded science. You go against them and you go against your own beliefs.

You have seriously got hold of the wrong end of the stick,we all recognise that any defence of creationism is totaly dependent on faith because there is no other conceivable reason to push a proposition that has no supporting scientific foundation. Science and many of the biblical stories are simply not compatible,the first relies on natural law the second on belief in the supernatural. Nobody founded Science but I have no doubt that those who first strove to learn its mysteries had a belief in God, hardly surprising given that the church was the sole provider of education at the time. However as knowledge expanded there was a sharp realisation that many scientific discoveries could not be reconciled with the teachings of the church,hence the reason that the majority of scientists today are not of a religious bent.

On the same token evolution and science don't match up. Otherwise there would be proof. If I must define the word science then I will. Modern science. Before evolutionists got their hands on it and mucked up up so badly that hypothesizes are taught as fact.

The supernatural set up the natural so wouldn't it make sense that it can bend it? I know it's hard to think when "religion" is ridiculed and "logic" is hand fed to you on a politically correct golden spoon. The Catholic church who saved education from disappearing was dumb enough to grab anything without putting thought into it. Once the reformation came about God was there but not censored from public view. This freedom allowed scientists to discover things that the Bible had stated hundreds of years before.

Might I ask what proven without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt discoveries don't match up with the Bible? I was not aware of any. My public school text book must be hiding everything from me.

[joecoolfrog]

Well what can I say....Utterly bizarre

[sheepofdumb]

Unfortunately evolution is taught as fact even though it is not yet proven. I would gladly accept it if there was a way to reproduce it. One of the main reasons I am still a creationist is because of my faith.

The ONLY reason you are a 'creationist' is because of your faith. Please don't bring scientific concepts anywhere near your beliefs. They have nothing to do with each other.

Your belief in 'creationism' has nothing to do with science's inability to prove evolution. It has everything to do with the fact that your preacher tells you that the bible is 100% true.

This thread is really pissing me off. There is no debate. The hebrew creation story has no more to do with science than the australian aboriginal creation story. Absolutely none.

No, my faith has everything to do with how I interpret science

That's exactly what I said.

Not only are you are sadly mistaken if you really think that science and the bible are two totally different realms but by pushing it away you are pushing the spotlight away from the creationists. I will not let you do that. If they were two separate realms then there would be no argument.

That's right, there is no argument.
Deuteronomy 13:7 - 'from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth;'
Job 38:13 'that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it'
Do these passages shape your scientific opinion that the earth is flat?

I believe the Bible is 100% true from my own logic

...apparently the answer is yes.


look, my point is that these are not competing 'theories'. 'Creationism' is a belief in the hebrew creation story. it is founded on the belief that the bible is 100% true. That is its foundation. No bible, no fundamentalist xianity, no 'creationism'. Yes?
Evolution is a scientific theory, like gravity or electromagnetism, that best fits observations made about the natural world.
There IS NO ARGUMENT. Pitch your creation story against the Mohawk or the Muslim version. But don't pretend it has anything to do with science. After all, science is only man-made.

So you are saying the Evolution is a theory because of observations made... so does that mean that people have witnessed the process of evolution like they have gravity or electromagnetism? No they have not. They have taken the end product and made a theory around that. That is risky. You can easily get the wrong idea from that process. That is why we have the scientific method. If we didn't go back and not only observe the process but experiment with it we would be so far back in science.

[moo_lol]

Evolution in bacteria has been observed and reproduced.

[The Weird One]

yes. . .that makes it a FACT and a TRUTH

[sheepofdumb]

Evolution in bacteria has been observed and reproduced.

But in the end... are they still bacteria or not? Using that logic every mutation in a cell qualifies it as a new species.

[The Weird One]

but it is still EVOLVED from a previous form, is it not

[moo_lol]

Evolution in bacteria has been observed and reproduced.

But in the end... are they still bacteria or not? Using that logic every mutation in a cell qualifies it as a new species.

"Bacteria" is not a species, it's one of the six domains (like plants, animals, and fungus). There are millions of species of bacteria.

[unriggable]

Evolution in bacteria has been observed and reproduced.

But in the end... are they still bacteria or not? Using that logic every mutation in a cell qualifies it as a new species.

That's the thing. Creationists keep expanding the definition of species. First it was all species every one of the dog species was created. Then it became just the dog was created and later diversified. Then they expanded the argument to include wolves...

----

It's just meaningless, everything you say. Faith is bullshit. If you hear something enough times you believe it, and Church happens every Sunday so that's plenty of opportunities to get brainwashed. Faith is just something that helps you in a hopeless argument you are convinced is true. It's what kept the majority of the catholics and christians from accepting the idea that the sun is the center of the world, not the earth; what keeps some christians from believing the fact that the world is not 6,000 years old; and now it's keeping you from connecting these dots: if humanity is a single species, why do we all look different? Why was I born without an appendix, and most of us were? Why am I 6'3" even though my dad is 6'2"? Why are our toes smaller and our brains bigger and our bodies taller than our ancestors?

[joecoolfrog]

Recipe for Confusion;

Take one Fairy story
Coat it in a liberal amount of gibberish
mix well
Then attempt to rip up any better recipes

[Frigidus]

Deuteronomy 13:7 - 'from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth;'
Job 38:13 'that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it'
Do these passages shape your scientific opinion that the earth is flat?

Looks pretty flat to me.

Creationism: 1
Evolutionism: Eternal damnation

You evolutionists disgust me. You all such have blind faith in your fandangled science. None of you seem to recognize that you only believe it's true because your parents told you it was true before you were old enough to make your own decisions.

I think that might be a bit too harsh...well, whatever. How many of these threads have been made at this point anyways?

[got tonkaed]

Deuteronomy 13:7 - 'from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth;'
Job 38:13 'that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it'
Do these passages shape your scientific opinion that the earth is flat?

Looks pretty flat to me.

Creationism: 1
Evolutionism: Eternal damnation

You evolutionists disgust me. You all such have blind faith in your fandangled science. None of you seem to recognize that you only believe it's true because your parents told you it was true before you were old enough to make your own decisions.

I think that might be a bit too harsh...well, whatever. How many of these threads have been made at this point anyways?

i believe this is my favorite 7th post of all time.

[Tyr]

Evolution in bacteria has been observed and reproduced.

But in the end... are they still bacteria or not? Using that logic every mutation in a cell qualifies it as a new species.

That's the thing. Creationists keep expanding the definition of species. First it was all species every one of the dog species was created. Then it became just the dog was created and later diversified. Then they expanded the argument to include wolves...

----

It's just meaningless, everything you say. Faith is bullshit. If you hear something enough times you believe it, and Church happens every Sunday so that's plenty of opportunities to get brainwashed. Faith is just something that helps you in a hopeless argument you are convinced is true. It's what kept the majority of the catholics and christians from accepting the idea that the sun is the center of the world, not the earth; what keeps some christians from believing the fact that the world is not 6,000 years old; and now it's keeping you from connecting these dots: if humanity is a single species, why do we all look different? Why was I born without an appendix, and most of us were? Why am I 6'3" even though my dad is 6'2"? Why are our toes smaller and our brains bigger and our bodies taller than our ancestors?

well techinically a spcies is any group of beings that are similar enough to produce a fertile child. and the genes that make us humans are different from the genes that make us taller then our parents. and being born with out an appendix is evolution at work. we dont need an appendix any more so gradually people born with the gene dont die so they reproduce and pass it on. earlier in our history a lack of appendix would have killed you so the gene hasnt been passed on until we could survive to pass it on. i think your post was sarcastic but if it wasnt heres your answer

[Frigidus]

i believe this is my favorite 7th post of all time.

Man, that's a huge compliment...unfortunately it's all downhill from here. Thanks anyways.