Poll: Evolution vs Creationism NO FLAMEWARS PLEASE

[Knight Templar]

Both, Evolotion is proven, it's a fact, but who says god didn't create evolotion or some thing?

Then you belive in Evolotion, just that God made it so. Its still Evolotion.

 

[lenin_117]

I Europe, noone belives in creationism.
You Americans are gullible ^^ Trying to pass off religion as science

Just go away. You are both very very wrong (trying to tell me that religion does not exist in Europe!) you are also trolling. So bugger off.

/facepalm
I said creationism, not religion. We have religion.

I am not trolling (whatever that means). Gullible is a compliment. Like cute.

Won't call gullible a compliment really. But he's right, it's nonsense we in Europe don't have creationists. Early this year, creationists in Holland started a small offensive, publishing flyers filled with scientific bullshit and spreading them all over the country. If I recall correctly, the UK and Ireland also have their fair share of 'creo-tards' as they're sometimes lovingly named.

So it would then be wrong to say that "I Europe, noone belives in creationism." by which I assume he means in Europe there are no people who believe that god created the world. I can count practically all my family in that bracket to begin with.

 

[Cowabungaa]

But we can see where those came from. Once we needed to move our ears, now we don't. Whales may have needed legs at some point (but I question the idea that they have shrunke hind legs). The difference is you were suggesting useless body parts just developing over time then fitting together to do something.

An example of an anscestor of the whale, the Dorudon:

Pretty pathetic huh. You can also find them in some snake species.

But anyway, your last sentence pretty much contradicts itself: useless organs that form to do something. If they do something usefull, they're not vestigial. Vestigial organs are degenerated organs, organs that lost their function. Useless organs don't really develop over time, useless organs degenerate over time.

So it would then be wrong to say that "I Europe, noone belives in creationism." by which I assume he means in Europe there are no people who believe that god created the world. I can count practically all my family in that bracket to begin with.

That would indeed be very much wrong. We have an evangelical tv network, a while ago I saw an interview show with the boss and a prominent anchorman of that network. The anchorman denounced creationism in some document, and the boss pretty much freaked out about it, calling it a shame and how he was betraying the network and it's beleives blah blah blah. My grandma also falls in that catagory, tried to reason with her once...when I was 10.

 

[Xrysthos]

Evolutionism.

My reasoning is that I prefer cold, hard facts to the hope/belief that something out there might be in control of everything. If you take a creationist approach to science, say fossils, for example, and say God placed them in the Earth to test our faith, your argument defies the basic principles on which science is built, and as a scientist I cannot approve of this as it would nullify all my beliefs and ruin reality as I see it.

My reasoning for that a God cannot exist is based on the same set of principles, and until science itself proves said principles wrong I will continue to apply them to the world, and thus perceive it in a way that makes sense to me. I believe that God cannot exist because nothing can be created from nothing, hence a god would have to be created by a more powerful god, leading us to an inevitable paradox containing an infinite number of gods. The same reasoning can naturally also be applied to say the Big Bang theory (note: the scientific term "theory" is used in the way a layman would use the term "law of nature", not as a layman would use the term "theory"), where a singularity underwent sudden expansion and thus created the universe as we know it, also creating a paradox, but I have faith that science will be able to resolve the latter.

I am not trying to flame people with theist beliefs, I am simply stating my own opinions and explaining why I believe in them.

 

[Knight Templar]

Here's the thing. I believe that evolution created people and the like, but what created the event that created the chunk of rock that eventually became Earth. The universe is expanding, but into WHAT? The fact is that the proof of the creationists in the flaws and unexplained occurences in evolutionism. It is much easier to accept the idea that an all-powerful supernatural divine being is looking out for us that to accept the fact that there are probably many things that we are not capable of understanding and many things that we will never know and many people cannot accept the fact that they will not know everything and that we as a race are incapable of exploring or understanding certain concepts. Evolutionism is sound until you go before the earth, and many people would rather take the answer that there is a god who greated everything, as opposed the "we will never ever know." Not knowing something makes people feel inferior and unsafe. There is no evidence for Creationism, there are just the flaws of evolutionism that it proposes to fix.

"God did it" is not a "fix" for anything within science.

 

[macapus]

Easy, the theory of evolution doesn't explain the ORIGIN of life, just the DIVERSITY. This thread is asking if you believe in creation, or diversity, and doesn't make any sense in the least.

Never saw it that way

 

[Mr. Socky]

Posts like this always quickly turn into arguments. Both sides troll, and no one actually presents any useful evidence. Both sides rant, and just say that the other side is wrong. I'd actually like to see somebody post some evidence for either side (real stuff, based on real facts). Now, I'm going to list what I believe, and I'M PUTTING THIS HERE FOR DISCUSSION, NOT FOR AN ARGUMENT. If anybody disagrees/has counter evidence, please post it.

I believe in Creationism for several reasons, but my primary source of evidence is that we all had to come from somewhere. The Big Bang could not have just "happened". If there was nothing, how could something have happened randomly? There was no random chance for it to happen.
The common counter to that, is that then, how could an Intelligent Designer exist to make everything from nothing? Well, if a god exists, then it would exist outside of our understanding. The only way we could understand it at all would be if said designer told us about him\her\it. How could such a ridiculously complicated universe happen by chance? How could it happen at all?

 

[Captain Blackout]

Lenin, I applaud the boldness of this thread. I also think you smoked you breakfast and mine as well. BTW, I was gonna smoke that myself.

Biblical creationism works for me as follows:
1st two "days" are cosmic events; separation of energy and matter, creation of light, space, universe and planetary bodies.
3rd "day" is the creation of life.
4th "day" is the creation of our solar system. Note that this means life didn't have it's first start here and that the seeds of life here may have had an extraterrestrial source.
5th and 6th "days" is the filling of our planet with various creatures. Almost all of evolution is the study of the processes that occurred over multiple millennium (roughly a little less than 4 billion years) that the last two "days" summarizes.

So I guess I'm clearly in the "both" camp as I believe in science and strongly in some form of evolution, yet I also believe in a higher power that had a hand in everything.

Biblical literalism on the other hand is a load of crap. Origen, one of the early fathers of the Christian church, put it well when he basically said that to take the bible literally is to consider God a liar in deed.

Here's a question Lenin: What precisely do you mean by creationism? The seven days of the Bible are meant as a poetic tool and a foundation for the organizing of weekly life for the early Jews. It's presumptive to assume that's what you mean though. Did you have a particular religion in mind, or just that creationism means God did it somehow?

Finally, the flamewar is coming. You opened a gate into hell with this thread, there is no stopping the horde on it's way out unless the mods lock this thread before the horde gets here. Nice try though.

 

[lenin_117]

But we can see where those came from. Once we needed to move our ears, now we don't. Whales may have needed legs at some point (but I question the idea that they have shrunke hind legs). The difference is you were suggesting useless body parts just developing over time then fitting together to do something.

An example of an anscestor of the whale, the Dorudon:

Pretty pathetic huh. You can also find them in some snake species.

But anyway, your last sentence pretty much contradicts itself: useless organs that form to do something. If they do something usefull, they're not vestigial. Vestigial organs are degenerated organs, organs that lost their function. Useless organs don't really develop over time, useless organs degenerate over time.

That was my point. The sentence began with "you were suggesting that"

P.S. W00T! Arguably 14 creationists! At least four though!

 

[lenin_117]

Yes. Yes you do have to go on a rant. Don't be lazy. If you want to say something without backing it up that's fine. In the sandpit. But here you have to explain yourself and not leave it to others to prove you right.

Ok, I don't believe a big magical bearded man created Adam(man) from dust and Eve(woman) from one of Adam's ribs.

One side has hardcore facts and proof and the other has the fairy tale I just told you.

Well it's a start.

 

[Hookman]

Evolutionist
Evolution is proven and there is no evidence that says any higher power created the world or the human race.

 

[Cowabungaa]

That was my point. The sentence began with "you were suggesting that"

Aha, well little miscommunication then ;-)

I stand corrected. Have not reached Norway yet. I think :/

I hope for you it stays that way then. But one thing is true: we don't have it (nearly) as bad as the Americans. They have folks like "Dr Dino" *shudders* he's both hilarious and horrible. Hilarious because of the sheer amount of bullshit he spews. I mean seriously, some of his stuff...I mean come on, it's like he didn't even try. But he's horrible because there are people who actually beleive the bullshit he spews.

 

[lenin_117]

Here's a question Lenin: What precisely do you mean by creationism? The seven days of the Bible are meant as a poetic tool and a foundation for the organizing of weekly life for the early Jews. It's presumptive to assume that's what you mean though. Did you have a particular religion in mind, or just that creationism means God did it somehow?

What other type of creationism is there? (Other then the God one?) Anyway, I was referring to the beliefs of those that call themselves creationists.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Heres a bit of a thought provoker for evolutionists like me.

Through gene mapping it has been proven that all humans alive today had a single common female ancestor. The team who discovered this have nicknamed her Eve.

Science possibly proving creationism right?

I named my right testicle 'God', thus proving that God exists?


Naming something after a character in the Bible =/= that character existing. Especially when scientists know that someone gave birth to Eve.

I wasnt saying that them naming her eve was proof of anything. just pointing out the bible says we have a common female ancestor and science (currently) agrees. THAT was the interesting thing, the reference to eve is no doubt some scientists attempt at humour, i left it in for the same reason

No, The Bible states that Eve was the first female. Not a 'common female ancestor', there is a big difference.

 

[I_LIKE_CAKE]

I believe in evolution, but I voted for "both", because as someone who has read deeply on many fields of science, the sheer complexity of the universe we live in boggles the mind, and I find it comforting to think that maybe there is a reason beyond just random chance. Now I am probably the least religious person you can find, but I have never bought into the common wisdom that science is incompatible with belief in a higher power.

 

[lenin_117]

Evolutionist
Evolution is proven and there is no evidence that says any higher power created the world or the human race.

It's proven is it? We should just close this thread right now because this conversation is moot. Tell me how it is proven?

 

[Randomologist]

I have a book on my shelf, which clearly dictates that a young boy should have been killed when he was a baby, but he somehow survived. As a young man, he learnt how to make things happen by simply shouting and waving about a wooden stick. He learnt all this from a wise old man. He defeated the person who tried to kill him as a child, and in the process he saved countless lives. This was all in a book, so we should worship this young man, for he is clearly all-powerful.

People read the Bible and believe in Jesus and God etc. Do people read Harry Potter, and worship Harry and Dumbledore?

Religious folk note that belief doesn't have anything to do with facts, and that you can have a belief despite evidence to the contrary. Fine, that's your prerogative.
But does that make your beliefs correct? If I believe in a three-legged hippo named Bob who lives under my bed, am I necessarily right?

"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" -Stephen F Roberts.

 

[lenin_117]

Heres a bit of a thought provoker for evolutionists like me.

Through gene mapping it has been proven that all humans alive today had a single common female ancestor. The team who discovered this have nicknamed her Eve.

Science possibly proving creationism right?

I named my right testicle 'God', thus proving that God exists?


Naming something after a character in the Bible =/= that character existing. Especially when scientists know that someone gave birth to Eve.

I wasnt saying that them naming her eve was proof of anything. just pointing out the bible says we have a common female ancestor and science (currently) agrees. THAT was the interesting thing, the reference to eve is no doubt some scientists attempt at humour, i left it in for the same reason

No, The Bible states that Eve was the first female. Not a 'common female ancestor', there is a big difference.

I can't spot it. If Eve was the first female, and a second was not created during her lifetime then wouldn't she be a common female ancestor? Anyway, I'm off to bed, I hope some creationists get here soon or this will just become an evolutionists baseless claims statement arena. Could somebody take over? Evolutionists , please consider fighting for the other side for now to get a better understanding (I'm an evolutionist BTW). I can't wait to check this thread out in the morning. I bet it will be locked.

 

[Yankmy Armoff]

Heres a bit of a thought provoker for evolutionists like me.

Through gene mapping it has been proven that all humans alive today had a single common female ancestor. The team who discovered this have nicknamed her Eve.

Science possibly proving creationism right?

I named my right testicle 'God', thus proving that God exists?


Naming something after a character in the Bible =/= that character existing. Especially when scientists know that someone gave birth to Eve.

I wasnt saying that them naming her eve was proof of anything. just pointing out the bible says we have a common female ancestor and science (currently) agrees. THAT was the interesting thing, the reference to eve is no doubt some scientists attempt at humour, i left it in for the same reason

No, The Bible states that Eve was the first female. Not a 'common female ancestor', there is a big difference.

True but is it not possible that this 'common female ancestor' is remembered through oral accounts (no writing back then) that over time became sacred to the people telling them. The tale of the Mother Of Our Tribe (Eve) becomes the first chapter of humanities sacred history AKA Religion (admittedly christian religion but no one seems to be taking to any of the other religions in this thread)

 

[macapus]

Why does everyone who supports evolutionism say that there is this "cold hard proof?" There is no proof except for fossils, which telll us that yes, species can change over time, but what created the first living organism. What created the event that created earth. What is the universe expanding into. Why can't do certain parts of our solar system act irregularily. Why can't we just accept the fact that evolutionism explains why we have ears and creationism explains why we are alive. As for believing one and believing another, BOTH HAVE LARGE GAPING HOLES IN THEIR THERIES. BOTH do not have good supporting evidence. I am so sick of the little dumbass kids who go FOSSILS EXIST SO GOD CAN'T! Evolutionism is not fully proven, just more proven than creationism. Creationism is flawed but it answers all the people's questions, abeit in an odd way. Evolutionism is sound on the theory of earth based evolution, but anything else and it fails miserably for the same reason that creationism falters NO EVIDENCE. Both can be blindly supported. I honestly believe evolutionism until I wonder how all of this came to be. They are not to different mindsets. You can be creationists and evolutionist. Or agnostic. It's like asking "Democrat or Muslim, which one is better?

Agnosticism- The belief that the existence of a god can be neither proven or disproven.