218 replies to this topic

[Arturo]

The problems is that Cretionism is no scientific hypothesis. Has no proofs. Evolutionism has proofs and is an *almost* perfect theory, while Creationism is nothing on scientific terms.

On religious terms, on the other hand, I am Creationist. But Creationism can never be disguised in a scientific way, because it's incompatible with Science. You can't just say on Biology that God created men and that's it, because there's no evidence. And we have plenty of evidence of evolution. There are some obscure things, though, but they can and will be resolved.

[Korhend]

I believe in evolution to, but I'm afraid this isn't correct. A hypothesis and a theory are, at the core, similar. Both are unproven. Theory's just a level up from hypothosis, at best. That's why you say 'this is theoretical' if you're unsure about something. If it's proven, it would be called a law. A law is the final, proven form.

Ah but its very critical of what it has to do to get up from a hypothesis to theory. That is its demonstratable. Even supposing evolution did not exist in the past, we know it exists in the present because we can demonstrate it. Things that are "proven" are only done in the hardests of sciences, mainly physics. There are no laws of Biology.

[Reflectionist]

1. Mein Kampf states Hitler is Not Christian.

2. Just because something is not explainable in Scientific terms does not make it false. If that were true, then maybe the British won the Revolutionary War, and not the Colonists. We don't know, Science can't explain it.

3. Science is NOT at odds with Religion. The Bible says "God Created the heavens and the earth." There's a beginning, and an end. The MEANS of creation is not mentioned in the Bible. Maybe, just maybe, God made two atoms collide, causing a nuclear reaction that spawned everything you know of today. So even if we evolved from apes, we are still created by God. The apes were created by God, weren't they?

4. A theory is a theory is a theory. You can't say that the Big Bang THEORY is more plausible than the Creationist THEORY because, well, that's just redundant.

I'm sure there's more I wanted to say, but I can't remember it right now.

[Korhend]

4. A theory is a theory is a theory. You can't say that the Big Bang THEORY is more plausible than the Creationist THEORY because, well, that's just redundant.

Thats because neither are theories. See above post.

[TheAvengerLever]

But the fact that we evolved from Apes would prove Genesis wrong. Unless God is an ape, because it says we were made in his image.

[Fyxe]

2. Just because something is not explainable in Scientific terms does not make it false. If that were true, then maybe the British won the Revolutionary War, and not the Colonists. We don't know, Science can't explain it.

...What the spud? I mean, honestly, is that, um... An argument? o.o

[31-Year-Old-From-Georgia]

Wait, when you get down to it, isn't it incorrect to call the idea creationism a theory? A theory is well-tested and/or has some kind of evidence behind it. Since we have no proof God exist, we can't really say there's evidence for it.

Yay childlike innocence and inquiries!

Edit: Darnit, you people post too fast.

Still waiting for an answer, Button.

Edited by 14-Year-Old, 23 September 2006 - 06:51 PM.

[Reflectionist]

...What the spud? I mean, honestly, is that, um... An argument? o.o

Yes, because God is not explainable in Scientific Terms. If He was, He would have been.


And 14, since it's obvious that button isn't going to answer your post....

I'm going to have to say something on this page http://designedunive..._evolution.html

Oh, wait, I can't post a webpage. It's obviously biased and corrupt. :-P

Just read it and see what it says, I haven't bothered to read it. I'm sure that it's got SOMETHING relevant on there.

Edited by Reflectionist, 23 September 2006 - 06:56 PM.

[Korhend]

But the fact that we evolved from Apes would prove Genesis wrong. Unless God is an ape, because it says we were made in his image.

Then we can obviously infer that Genesis is Wrong.

[Reflectionist]

Then we can obviously infer that Genesis is Wrong.

Yes it would. But, oh wait... Nobody really knows what God looks like. Maybe God does look like an ape. Maybe God can change his appearance at will.

Really, how many people have seen God and lived to tell about it?

[Korhend]

Yes it would. But, oh wait... Nobody really knows what God looks like. Maybe God does look like an ape. Maybe God can change his appearance at will.

Really, how many people have seen God and lived to tell about it?

But then we can infer that a different passage of Genesis was wrong, the one where it says god created us in his image.

[Reflectionist]

Something must've been allegorical, then. Genesis is not a science text book. The Bible is not a Science Textbook.

[TheAvengerLever]

When God is concerned, Science can go out the window.

[Reflectionist]

When God is concerned, Science can go out the window.

Hey, you just quoted Benny Hinn, one of the most hypocritical Televangelists on the face of the planet.

So...

BE HEALED!!!!

[Korhend]

Something must've been allegorical, then. Genesis is not a science text book. The Bible is not a Science Textbook.

That generally would be the stance of Christians who believe in evolution believe.

When God is concerned, Science can go out the window.

Truth is one.

[TheAvengerLever]

Hey, you just quoted Benny Hinn, one of the most hypocritical Televangelists on the face of the planet.

So...

BE HEALED!!!!

Never heard of Benny Hinn...hmmm

[Selena]

When God is concerned, Science can go out the window.

Why do the two have to be enemies, exactly?

[Reflectionist]

Why do the two have to be enemies, exactly?

That's what I've been trying to say.

I'm sure it has to do with pride. On both sides. Some people that get into science get into it to disprove Christianity.

[Alakhriveion]

Yes, because God is not explainable in Scientific Terms. If He was, He would have been.

Weak Reason, man! Weak!
And 14, since it's obvious that button isn't going to answer your post....

I'm going to have to say something on this page http://designedunive..._evolution.html

Oh, wait, I can't post a webpage. It's obviously biased and corrupt. :-P

Just read it and see what it says, I haven't bothered to read it. I'm sure that it's got SOMETHING relevant on there.

Not valid! Same reason as above! Creation requires a Creator only if you assume creation.

I'm sure it has to do with pride. On both sides. Some people that get into science get into it to disprove Christianity.

TINC!

[TheAvengerLever]

Did 14 ask something? O.O *looks back through the topic*

Concerning the disproving of Evolution, the one thing I remember the man saying is that scientists observing a certain type of frog and noted how they thought that it was evolving, but he showed us pictures of the frog that the scientists have drawn and then he compared it with some more pictures of it supposedly evolving when in reality it was actually losing information.

Edited by TheAvengerButton, 24 September 2006 - 12:12 AM.

[Ransom]

The problems is that Cretionism is no scientific hypothesis. Has no proofs. Evolutionism has proofs and is an *almost* perfect theory, while Creationism is nothing on scientific terms.

What the hell? The evolution theory has more holes than Swiss cheese.

If a bunch of cookies told me they had free will and did not want to be eaten, I wouldn't eat them.

That was a horrible analogy, Ransom. Sorry.

yes maybe the cookies wasnt the best analogy... but going back to the creation thing.
The difference between someone making kids and God making us is that he gave us our free will.
when we have children we havent created their free will, our design ultimately goes back to God.

Why i dont believe in evolution:
Evolution is a theory that ultimately states that organisms can create information out of nothing. That is clearly not evident in any organisms today, and barely any fossils have been found (as far as i know) of animals in mid-evolution. Why is this? because they're never was any mid-evolution.
It's not adapting either.
If a mouse wanted to grow wings, its not gonna go grow wings if it jumps off a cliff right? its going to die.
What if that mouse's son jumped off the cliff? any closer to growing wings? no.
and his son? ooo were getting wingier and wingier...
it makes no sense.
Even if it is just another theory (and/or hypothesis) it makes much more sense to me than evolution ever will.
for example the big bang:
Why i dont believe the big bang:
The big bang theory is someone stating that Intense organisation and order can be made out of chaos.
what happens when the atom bomb fell on nagasaki and hiroshima? were whole new cities and worlds created? no. Destruction, everywhere.
Try putting 64 black and white squares inside a balloon. now blow it up and pop it.
did it make a chessboard?
now look at the universe. All these planets revolving around their gravities perfectly, the earths perfect distance from the sun to keep it from burning up or freezing, the intense complexity of the human body, which is made up of millions of similary complex cells.
i dont think if i made a bomb in my backyard it would make a human.
anyway thats why.

end of ramble.

Edited by Ransom, 24 September 2006 - 01:58 AM.

[Hero of Legend]

According to Christianity, we all belong to God.

I'm pretty sure some of you make a fuzz about selling your soul to Satan and whatnot. How can you do that if God owns you?

It's not groundreaking, it's just the fact that science doesn't disprove the Bible at all.

Yes, it does. Unless you take the bible metaphorically, which kinda ruins the point of believing in it.

In fact, a speaker came to my school the other day and disproved the theory of evolution using science itself.

That's funny, because you can't prove something doesn't exist and/or happens. If it was, God wouldn't be around today.

Yes, because God is not explainable in Scientific Terms. If He was, He would have been.

Energy.

Aside, maybe the reason the existence of God hasn't been proved is the fact that he doesn't exist?

Concerning the disproving of Evolution, the one thing I remember the man saying is that scientists observing a certain type of frog and noted how they thought that it was evolving, but he showed us pictures of the frog that the scientists have drawn and then he compared it with some more pictures of it supposedly evolving when in reality it was actually losing information.

That... Doesn't make any sense! Comparing pictures tells us nothing about any potential mutations of the creatures' DNA, which IS evolution. And "losing information"? That's evolution, too.

What the hell? The evolution theory has more holes than Swiss cheese.

And God doesn't exist.

Evolution is a theory that ultimately states that organisms can create information out of nothing.

Wrong. Evolution relies on the assumption that information in the form of amino acids formed DNA by themselves. Similar occurrences have been observed in laboratories.

That is clearly not evident in any organisms today, and barely any fossils have been found (as far as i know) of animals in mid-evolution. Why is this? because they're never was any mid-evolution.

There are plenty of fossils between two stages in a creature’s evolution. Hell, WE are one of those stages. You just don't except them for what they are and, falsely, call them separate species.

It's not adapting either.
If a mouse wanted to grow wings, its not gonna go grow wings if it jumps off a cliff right? its going to die.
What if that mouse's son jumped off the cliff? any closer to growing wings? no.
and his son? ooo were getting wingier and wingier...
it makes no sense.

That’s because you are wrong. Evolution works on the principle of small, individual, random changes during the course of millions of years. The evolution of wings has nothing to do with jumping of a cliff. Rather, it is (hypothetically) the result of a creature’s attempt at surviving by jumping around the treetops. This makes it lighter and more mobile. Eventually it might evolve some kind of “gliding” mechanism, similar to the flying squirrel. From there the step to an airborne life is not long at all.

The big bang theory is someone stating that Intense organisation and order can be made out of chaos.

Which happens every day in basic chemistry/physics.

now look at the universe. All these planets revolving around their gravities perfectly, the earths perfect distance from the sun to keep it from burning up or freezing, the intense complexity of the human body, which is made up of millions of similary complex cells.

And? All of these things are driven by the laws of physics. For instance, humans and all living things are a result of natures strive towards increasing entropy. These thing things are not random, nor are they perfect. They are a result of the laws of thermodynamics.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 24 September 2006 - 04:41 AM.

[Arturo]

Why i dont believe in evolution:
Evolution is a theory that ultimately states that organisms can create information out of nothing. That is clearly not evident in any organisms today, and barely any fossils have been found (as far as i know) of animals in mid-evolution. Why is this? because they're never was any mid-evolution.
It's not adapting either.
If a mouse wanted to grow wings, its not gonna go grow wings if it jumps off a cliff right? its going to die.
What if that mouse's son jumped off the cliff? any closer to growing wings? no.
and his son? ooo were getting wingier and wingier...
it makes no sense.
Even if it is just another theory (and/or hypothesis) it makes much more sense to me than evolution ever will.

You don't understand neither (Neo-)Darwinism, nor Endosimbiosis.
Information is not created from nowhere, it just comes from mutations and/or simbiosis. And it's evident that animals in "mid-evolution" haven't been found because ALL ANYMALS (except humans in developed coutries) ARE EVOLVING. You can only understand Lamarckism (what you have explained is a clear example of it) and Lamarckism is wrong.

Rats don't grow wings, because it seems a little to extreme for me and also EVOLUTION IS SLOW! Rats would grow wings if a winged rat was more adapted to an ecosystem thatn a non-winged one. Since evolution is just the product of millions of experiments most of which don't work (we see it in humans, there are mutations that provoke things that make that person worse adapted to the enviroment i.e. Daltonism, Short-sightedness, Albinism since we humans have broken the chains of evolution those persons survive and have children) and some of them do. I can give you plenty of proofs for evolution, but I will just give you one now. Natural-grown species are smaller than their domestic versions. Why? Because we, humans have selected those that were bigger between the natural-grown ones and with a not so long time, they have become what we see now. And all without ever using genetical alteration, but just selections. For example natural maize is more similar to wheat in appearance than to "normal" one, and original tomatoes are as big as grapes. But we have influenced in evolution to create the ones you eat at home.

There are plenty more proofs, but I am not going to get in detail now.

[Hero of Legend]

ALL ANYMALS (except humans in developed coutries) ARE EVOLVING.

Prove it. Just because we have reached the point where non-beneficial mutations can be passed on (and that's still evolution if it becomes the norm, mind you), that doesn't mean beneficial mutations can't spread throughout the population.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 24 September 2006 - 04:27 AM.

[Arturo]

Prove it. Just because we have reached the point where non-beneficial mutations can be passed on (and that's still evolution if it becomes the norm, mind you), that doesn't mean beneficial mutations can't spread throughout the population.

It's not that we don't evolve, but since Natural Selection doesn't affect us thanks to the improvements on medicines, it's really difficult for a beneficial mutation to spread.

[Nevermind]

Except that if you believe in Jesus, all your sins will be forgiven. If not, you go to hell. That's why nice believers like Hitler enjoy eternal paradise while I, no matter how goody-goody I am, will burn in hell for eternity.

Ah, I can just feel the love of God.
Sorta like one of the worst dictators imaginable. You can go and spit him in the face, that's your choice, but don't expect to live and see tomorrow.

Yes, choice.

Makes me wonder why Americans like democracy so much anyway... Their god sure ain’t democratic.

Wow. You just read nothing of my actual post, but busted out with a fully sic comeback.

BE GOOD. GIVE A DAMN. DON'T BE A DICK. Was what I said. Hitler was none of those.

Also, if you diss me, I think you're a dick, so if I was God, and you dissed me, again, I'd think you were a dick. God weighs the heart, but I doubt He's gonna give special treatment to someone who pays Him out.

[Hero of Legend]

Wow. You just read nothing of my actual post, but busted out with a fully sic comeback.

Actually, I did. You said being "good" is a choice everyone has and that you will be rewarded for it. However, that's not what a Christian says. According to them, if you believe in Jesus, it doesn't matter what kind of dick you are because God forgives you. But if you don't believe in Jesus you will go to hell because it’s impossible to be "good" and not sin.

BE GOOD. GIVE A DAMN. DON'T BE A DICK. Was what I said. Hitler was none of those.

But he believed in Jesus.

Also, if you diss me, I think you're a dick, so if I was God, and you dissed me, again, I'd think you were a dick. God weighs the heart, but I doubt He's gonna give special treatment to someone who pays Him out.

I would diss you a lot less if you proved your existence and your supposed "love" for mankind instead of threatening over half the world’s population with eternal suffering.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 24 September 2006 - 06:05 AM.

[Nevermind]

Actually, I did. You said being "good" is a choice everyone has and that you will be rewarded for it. However, that's not what a Christian says. According to them, if you believe in Jesus, it doesn't matter what kind of dick you are because God forgives you. But if you don't believe in Jesus you will go to hell because it’s impossible to be "good" and not sin.

Wow, what kind of people do you hang around...
Genuine Christians actually DO try their best to be nice people. To everyone. Even the ones who pay them out simply because they are labeled with *whispers* the C word. The rest are just self-righteous pricks and have about as much of a chance of getting the end of days bonus as you do.

But he believed in Jesus.

So what? He was an asshole. He did everything Jesus would not. If Santa Claus was real, Hitler would get a big sack of coal under his Tannenbaum whether he believed in him or not.

I would diss you a lot less if you proved your existence and your supposed "love" for mankind instead of threatening over half the world’s population with eternal suffering.

Like I said earlier, it's not so much "eternal suffering" as it is "lack of eternal life". I don't ever recall actually seeing a suggestion of burning forever and ever. So to me the message is "Join me and live forever.....or not. Whatever."

So if you're gonna listen to those self-righteous people that tell you that you are going to burn in hell because you don't believe, try your best not to make a complete generalisation about all of Christianity. From what I've seen, the non-believers can be just as much of a c......prick as said self-righteous people.

[Steel Samurai]

4 facts which mean that evolution can never be proved according to the scientific method.

Fact #1: Modern Genetic theory says that when a being passes on its traits to it's offspring, the amount of genetic information passed down must either stay the same, or decrease in complexity.

Fact #2: Darwin's theory of Evolution requires that genetic information increased, one species gradually changing from one form to another over eons of time.

Fact #3: In order to account for the disparity between the two, Evolutionists hypothesized that the changes between one "primitive" species and another "advanced" species were caused by small mutations which occured over eons of time. However, in order for this to be true, there should have been millions of transitory creatures which spanned the bridge between species, for example, a primitive lizard and a dinosaur. To account for this, evolutionists came up with the thory of Punctuated Equilibrium (which is, as far as i know, current evolutionary theory) which says that the mutations happened in short bursts over a very short period of time (I haven't yet heard a biological reason for this) which explains the lack of fossils.

Fact 4#: Punctuated equilibrium or even a beneficial mutation has never been observed. Therefore, Punctuated equilibrium (and, therefore, evolution) can not be proved. Until it is observed, it can remain no more than a theory.

[Arturo]

Actually, I did. You said being "good" is a choice everyone has and that you will be rewarded for it. However, that's not what a Christian says. According to them, if you believe in Jesus, it doesn't matter what kind of dick you are because God forgives you. But if you don't believe in Jesus you will go to hell because it’s impossible to be "good" and not sin.
But he believed in Jesus.
I would diss you a lot less if you proved your existence and your supposed "love" for mankind instead of threatening over half the world’s population with eternal suffering.

That's the Protestant teaching. But the Catholic Church says that there are two ways of salvation, works and faith. A non baptised person can go to heaven and a christian can go to hell, because as St. James Epistle 2:14 says:

What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him?

And about evolution we have to remember that the fossil register is incomplete. And we cannot strictly speak of intermediate species, because they don't exist, because all species are "intermediate". We know of things that are half dinosaur half bird (Archaeopteryx) or half mammal (Cignonatus or something similar) we know of species that are like biped monkeys (Australopithecus) etc.