|
Post by misaki on Aug 7, 2008 8:12:18 GMT -5
So, I'm pretty sure this is a topic we all have an opinion on. Do you believe in the Big Bang? Evolution without it or with it? Creation? but most importantly, what are your reasons? Okay, I side with the Evo's. Why? Well, because first of all, there is proof of evolution. There is no visible proof of Creation as far as I know. And no, I don't think agreeing with the Bible's message is a reason, or 'because this (insert bible text) said so!' is a reason. In my view, Creation is what people want to believe, want to see, and the differences between the research methods of creationist scientists and evolutionist scientists only convince me of that; whereas the evolutionists are just randomly digging in history and trying to form an idea of what happened based on objective observing, the creationists are always searching for proof of an idea they already have, and hopelessly trying to prove it, even if the material points in a definite other direction. What bothers me the most are the Young-Earth Creationists; the ones who insist the earth was created between 6000 and 10 000 years ago. Sorry, anyone who believes this, but open up your eyes! Seriously just wikipedia 5th millennium BC, and you'll find, [size=1c. 4570–4250 BC — Merimde culture on the Nile. ]5000 BC–4500 BC — Għar Dalam phase of Neolithic farmers on Malta, possibly immigrant farmers from the Agrigento region of Sicily. c. 4500 BC — the ending of Neolithic IA (the Aceramic) in Cyprus c. 4500 BC — Settlement of Chirokitia begins to date from this period. c. 4400–4000 BC — Badari culture on the Nile. [/size] That's right. There were complete cultures about 7000 years ago. And these aren't exactly the earliest cultures. And that's just an example. Even human civilization goes back much further than that, not to speak of the layers of snow on Antartica, those count back much further than 10 000 years. A layer for a year, pretty much a simple and very reliable indicator, don't you think? Then how can anyone say the earth is somewhere in between 6000 - 10 000 years old? I know they say faith is a good thing, but that, is just blinding faith in my opinion. Okay, then onto Old Earth Creationism. Where's the proof? Yes, I've read many articles and sites defending it, but I checked their resources, and many of them were, least to say, shady. Also, they seem to be very keen to scare the readers away from really researching, for example this quote from The Jehovah's Witness (who are old earth creationists) 'How did life get here? By evolution or creation?' book. ( my mum is a JW, which is why I read this. Although their teachings, are of course, VERY different from other Christians, their creationism is exactly the same, and their book uses the same kind of arguments as the sites. ) We need to face the fact that the theory of evolution serves the purposes of Satan. He wants people to imitate his course, and that of Adam and Eve, in rebelling against God. [...] Thus, believing in evolution would mean promoting his interests and blinding oneself to the wonderful purposes of the Creator. That is just plainly scaring people away from taking evolution too seriously. That isn't exactly comparable to the objective research methods of evolutionists. They don't have a reason to want evolution to be true; it doesn't really bring any bonuses. Whereas creation definitely does; everyone likes the idea of being created with a certain purpose or goal, random mutating bacteria are less flattering, least to say. Okay, so I'll post the creation/evolution articles I've found in the resources directory soon, everyone can read those for him/herself and make up your mind, or probably, you already made up your mind, but can try to understand what I mean. And then there's another thing; I don't think evolution necessarily means life has no point, that we're just some mutated bacteria and nothing more. That's a personal thing, science hasn't proven whether there's a point to life, or it's like Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy; so long and thanks for all the fish. You die, the end. It annoys me to no end that science and philosophy seem to be mixed so happily by Creationists in general. But that's just my personal opinion. So yes, I do believe in Evolution, and I simply don't have a clue about the Big Bang or that kind of thing, simply because the Big Bang doesn't have as much proof as the Evolution, it's all a bit more vague. Aside from the fossils, Micro evolution has been proven and repeated in labs, which forces creationists to accept at least that concept now. Macroevolution is proven by the fossils; you can literary follow the traces and see the way humans became what they are now, throughout time. You won't find a modern Homo Sapiens in the Jurassic period (144 million years ago), but plenty of ancestors of our species. The argument of 'such complicated life forms could not spring up by chance' is not very realistic; first of all, it's not about chance but natural selection, second, while evolution does partly depend on chance, that really doesn't prove anything; everyone knows the famous monkeys ( given enough time ) could reproduce the works of Shakespeare my randomly slamming the keyboard long enough. Well, I won't spend my time on retyping what other said before; www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist < An article that tackles most Creationis arguments against evolution very clearly. So, tell me your thoughts!
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Aug 7, 2008 22:27:29 GMT -5
I also believe in Evolution, but I'm not sure about the Big Bang... What annoys me most though is when people are ignorant about the subject. Some people, when they hear the word evolution, automatically think humans = monkeys. Evolution is the gradual change of species, not monkeys giving birth to human babies. I mean, if you actually understand what it is, all it is is pure logic. Ex: There's a population of zebras somewhere. The tall zebras can reach higher places, thus being able to eat more food. Therefore, short zebras are less likely to survive long enough to reproduce. Therefore, the population of zebras gradually becomes taller. Like I said, pure logic.
I also hear "I didn't come from a dang monkey!" a lot... I think it's just the imagery that freaks people out. Just because your species may have evolved from apes doesn't mean you are an ape or came from an ape.
|
|
|
Post by bdole on Aug 7, 2008 22:40:16 GMT -5
i agree that evolution is currently the only theory that makes sense. if you want to come up with proof that dispels evolution, find a fossilized bunny from the Devonian era. that would pretty much screw over evolution. but until such proof is found there is nothing that can be used against evolution which is worth paying attention to. as to the meaning of life thing, i am an atheist and believe that there is NO god at all, no creator. meaning and purpose are mental constructs, and therefore they only exist if you create them. so if you don't think your life has meaning, it probably doesn't. but if you think it does, it does. if you want a purpose in life go out and find one! but returning back to the original subject, evolution is the most awe inspiring idea science has put forth to date. just think about it, i mean really think about it. your furthest ancestor is probably a thin film of scum on a rock about 3 billion years ago. and here you are. that is F*cking insane. if thats not amazing i dont know what is.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Aug 13, 2008 6:59:05 GMT -5
Sorry I haven't had a chance to chime in here before. I actually believe in both. It wouldn't make much sense that there is no Evolution. I don't even really take issue with the idea of the Big Bang. Simple truth is, I believe God created the earth. The creationism taught in Genesis does not negate the idea that when God created the heavens and the earth he made a really big light show to do it. Same goes for evolution. There is nothing in the Bible that said he made everything, and nothing in the environment surrounding it would cause changes. We already see that in human beings. The appendix being one really good example of that. Do I think we started as monkeys? Not particularly. Do I think we started out as we are today? Not even close.
As to the timeline issue you have with the story of Creation in the Bible, here's the thing. None of us were there at the time. There are any number of explanations for discrepancies. Who's to say time in the Bible, especially in the Creation story was measured the same way we measure it now? How long is a day to God? Could it be that the first day actually last thousands or even millions of years? Don't like that idea? How about this, if God had the ability to create the universe and everything in it, and assuming he has a sense of humor, which there is ample evidence of (duck billed platypus, need I say more) would it not be in the realm of possibility for him to have created this world with a history much longer that its actual existence, possibly for the sole purpose of giving his children reason to doubt, thus eventually bringing them closer to him in faith?
I can't presume to know what was in the mind of God, or how the story may have changed in translation from him to the first humans, and then on through the millennia. I can however look at the world around me, the complexity involved in each and every living thing from the microscopic to the huge. I can look at the ecosystem of the big blue ball we float on, and how it changes and compensates. I can look at the dance of the stars in the sky. I can look at all of that, which by all rights should be pure chaos, and yet, its not. There is order, there is design, and the chances of that being nothing more that pure coincidence are astronomical.
So, in short, the answer to your question is both. One does not preclude the other.
|
|
|
Post by corgilove on Sept 7, 2008 21:08:29 GMT -5
I think the problem with Christians trying to prove things is that isn't what Christianity is about. The Bible doesn't tell us if we search we will find proof that other theories are wrong. Christianity and the belief of Creation is based on belief and faith alone. My own opinion is that while I do believe God created all, I think it could be possible that Evolution also took place. While I don't think whether it is true or not will matter in the end- I believe it's entirely possible. How do we know that 7 days was 7 days? In fact, some of the bible was written in such a way to be taken literally. So I think it's perfectly possible that in fact, the planet WASN'T created in 7 days. While I do think God created man, I do think that certain animals could have evolved into others over time. To add to this, Bible itself talks about Dinosaurs more than once! So anyway, I believe in both- I think
|
|
|
Post by Renegade on Sept 25, 2008 16:49:05 GMT -5
I haven't a whole lot of time, but I thought I'd post here anyway.
When one stumbles upon a watch laying in the sand, do they assume that it occurred because of an explosion of sand and salt water? No, they assume that it has a watchmaker. They know that it is designed.The intricate and complicated way it works proves that much.
Earth is very organized. It appears designed. I do not believe that Christians' only back up is the Bible as far as Creationism is concerned.
Explosions cause disorder, not order. And also, with Evolution, you're faced with the question of what exactly exploded. Was there something? How did it get there? Etc, etc... Evolutions can't complete their own theory. Not only that, but they have to deny their own science to come up with their theory.
If there was a small speck in which is compacted all the matter of the universe, and then one afternoon at 9:57...BOOM it exploded; what happened to the law of inertia? Anything at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by an outside force... you have to abandon science to come up with this theory which, basically, was thought up just to avoid another (Creationism.)
[/rambling and unorganized.] I'll probably post a more proper defense sometime...but that is my general thought.
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Sept 25, 2008 22:23:12 GMT -5
If you want to use the watchmaker analogy, consider this. Where did the designer come from? Was there another deity who designed him and if so, where is he? Secondly, can a watch reproduce itself? If I leave my watch with another one, will I expect a third one to come out? Thirdly, in our world we notice conflicting purposes in designs: pathogenic bacteria with adaptations against our immune system, gazelles with running speed to outrun cheetahs against cheetahs with running speed to catch gazelles.
For me, I think evolution best explains how the human race came about and how life first came about. It does not explain what created the Earth, the other planets, or the Sun. There are many theories but none verified as of now. That's the beauty of science. We are constantly finding new things as we progress. Some of the answers to the questions we have may take years for us to find out. But we will find them.
|
|
|
Post by misaki on Sept 26, 2008 1:53:47 GMT -5
Renegade, I don't want to sound rude, but am probably going to anyway. Don't take it personally, please xD That's nonsense and it only proves you know little to nothing about physics, biology and some other things. Seriously. This reminds me of my old JW aunt, who tried to convert a scientist by 'explaining' that, if you see dog poop on the street, you know a dog has just come along and done his thing. So if you see a planet, you have to realise God has just come along and well, not pooped a planet, lol, but you get the point. ;D These kind of 'explanations' are so silly because they compare two completely different things. Ever read some on the Quantum theory and quantum mechanics? The world simply isn't as simple and logical as fundamentalist Creationists would like to believe. ( not directing this at any Christians who do believe in Creation, but in a less ..uhm..unscientific way. That's a matter of faith and your own interpretation. This is a matter of lack of common sense. ) You're not sure what exactly exploded? Well, that's another theory you know, that's the Big Bang theory. The evolution isn't necessarily about the origins of the universe; it's about the origins of life on earth. Please try attacking one theory at once. 'Earth is very organized. It appears designed.' You really are digging up an old argument here. Well: From the scientific American article I posted in the first post. Maybe you should try reading it? So, that was my two cents. Please don't take this personally, but I can hardly debate when I'm playing the fluffy bunny ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ammy Fae on Sept 26, 2008 8:06:17 GMT -5
If you want to use the watchmaker analogy, consider this. Where did the designer come from? Was there another deity who designed him and if so, where is he? Secondly, can a watch reproduce itself? If I leave my watch with another one, will I expect a third one to come out? Thirdly, in our world we notice conflicting purposes in designs: pathogenic bacteria with adaptations against our immune system, gazelles with running speed to outrun cheetahs against cheetahs with running speed to catch gazelles. The human brain runs on electricity, impulses shot from one part to another based on memory, experience, our senses. We can only conceive what we know and we can only imagine what's related to what we already know. You asked some of the biggie questions of the Universe, and I assure you that if our brains could come up with a logical explanation for them we would have by now. As it is, we're only human. Our world is meant to thrive, that's simple enough to see no matter where you go. Even bacteria play a very, very important part in the life cycle of severl larger organisms and I guarantee you'd be sick in the hospital every day of your life if you had never been exposed to some. Our bodies adapt as much as anything else in the world, as you expose it to things that may or may not hurt it. Now, not everyone's the same in that regard. But isn't that even more proof that we were all created individually, not out of some evolutionist's mold? For me, I think evolution best explains how the human race came about and how life first came about. It does not explain what created the Earth, the other planets, or the Sun. There are many theories but none verified as of now. That's the beauty of science. We are constantly finding new things as we progress. Some of the answers to the questions we have may take years for us to find out. But we will find them. Science is terrific because it explains the nature of things. It explains the what, how, when and where, but with one exception - it can't, and never will, explain the 'why'. Evolution is a theory because it can't be verified, we have absolutely no way of knowing what happened billions of years ago, save for some fossils stuck in the ground and inadequate knowledge of evolution. My point is that science can't exclude creationism because, even taking the Christian God out of the picture, it can't tell us why we're here. That's nonsense and it only proves you know little to nothing about physics, biology and some other things. Seriously. This reminds me of my old JW aunt, who tried to convert a scientist by 'explaining' that, if you see dog poop on the street, you know a dog has just come along and done his thing. So if you see a planet, you have to realise God has just come along and well, not pooped a planet, lol, but you get the point. He was using an analogy of something complex to explain that it must have taken some sort of order to make, which is completely logical. You can't make something incredible with an explosion except maybe debris that lays in a cool pattern, that's physics. The word unpredictability comes to mind there. Going back to what I said to Riq about the human brain, if we see dog droppings on the ground, of course we're going to think a dog was just there because we make assumptions based on what we know to be true. Just like if you see a watch on the ground, you're not going to assume it was dropped by aliens or the result of an unexplained cataclysmic explosion, if you question its origins you're going to assume it was made by a watchmaker. Now, does that apply to planets? Not necessarily, but that's just the analogy he used. These kind of 'explanations' are so silly because they compare two completely different things. Ever read some on the Quantum theory and quantum mechanics? The world simply isn't as simple and logical as fundamentalist Creationists would like to believe. ( not directing this at any Christians who do believe in Creation, but in a less ..uhm..unscientific way. That's a matter of faith and your own interpretation. This is a matter of lack of common sense. ) Who's to say that faith and science are exclusive to each other? People who have faith recognize that they can't fathom something, not because it's "simple" but because it's complicated. You're contradicting yourself by saying that the world isn't logical. Of course it's not, but scientists seem to believe there's a logical explanation for it. You're not sure what exactly exploded? Well, that's another theory you know, that's the Big Bang theory. The evolution isn't necessarily about the origins of the universe; it's about the origins of life on earth. Please try attacking one theory at once. The title of the thread is "Evolution/Creation". Please try attacking one comparison at a time, because according to you they're completely different. So, that was my two cents. Please don't take this personally, but I can hardly debate when I'm playing the fluffy bunny Fluffy bunnies are terrible debaters anyways, stop apologizing. =P
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Sept 26, 2008 15:34:29 GMT -5
We are all human, yes. But it does not mean we have to turn to the supernatural for answers to the questions that we can not solve.
If you grasp the concept of evolution, you will realise there is no "evolutionist's mold". Instead it's different changes in our genetic code that alter the organism's nature. One individual might be killed by a disease while another one is spared due to a change in its genetic code. And that individual is allowed to spread its genes to the next generation. That's one part of the theory of evolution.
That is true. But our theory of evolution is as strong as the germ theory of disease or the theory of gravitational force. As for the "why" question, you are right in saying that science does not explain the why. The why is something that we must think of for ourselves. The reason why science can exclude creationism is because there is absolutely no proof that a deity could create the entire world. Creationism has been disproved time again and again.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Sept 26, 2008 17:07:05 GMT -5
If you look throughout our history, the unexplained has always been explained by the supernatural, until it has been explained, whether it is the mythology of gods, the idea of the Big Bang (not a particularly scholarly thing even if it is scientific), aliens, karma or what have you. People, as a race are always in search of answers, and until their understanding of the cause and effect behind a phenomena, they will assign it an explanation that fits with their world view, their experiences, and their limited understanding of the world. Some great science has come out of that particular tendency on humanities part. The theory of germs, and gravity that you talk about are good examples. The idea that illnesses were caused by some great, mysterious unseen force caused people to look for that unseen force, evaluate its particular effects on people, and eventually realize that the symptoms of illness were indeed caused by something they could not see. So they developed a method for looking for the agent involved, and low and behold, the microscope was born and improved to a point where they could see the unseen, and learn how to combat it. Gravity came because someone noticed that things tended to fall down when not held up, and figured some unseen force must cause this. They investigated what that force might be, and low and behold, we understand the idea that what goes up must come down, that large bodies draw smaller bodies too them, and the study of gravity and physics was born. But initially those, and most other scientific research, was assigned to the supernatural. I actually do, quite grasp the theory of evolution. At its most basic, it states that only the fittest will survive from one generation to the next, which will eventually weed out imperfections within a species, and mutate the species as a whole into something better. It has holes in it though. First, Ammy was correct in stating that if this theory was in fact correct, and the world has in fact been around for billions of years, the individuals within the species of humanity would indeed be much more likely to be more alike than they are. Instead, you have a variety of individual traits, individual weaknesses, and individual strengths. Does that rule out evolution? Not in the least. Ammy also said that it is very clear that humans, just as all other life on the planet, evolve to one degree or another, from generation to generation. What she said was that the fact that there is evolution does not exclude the theory that there is a Creator. I'll give you another analogy. In science fiction, there are a lot of books about the idea of artificial intelligence. There is also a lot of research in that field in the real world. The purpose behind that research is to create an intelligent, evolving thing. If that research ever breaks through into reality, and does what it is intended to do, from one generation to the next, it will improve, getting rid of imperfections, growing toward the next level. While the debate rages on whether that will in turn make its creators obsolete, its existence as an evolving creation would not mean that it had no creator to start with. Creationism, or Intelligent Design has actually never been disproved, which is why it is a question that continues to plague pure Evolutionists to this very day. No one, anywhere has ever disproved the existence of a creator, and the science we have, while it may strongly indicate a pattern of evolution in humans, as well as other forms of life, still does not explain all the discrepancies and questions about how we came to have something to evolve from. For evolution to exist at all, there must first have been a living organism. So, how exactly, does evolution explain the existence of that first living organism? Now, I will concede the point that Creationism also doesn't explain the existence of the Creator, but Creationism also doesn't claim to provide all the answers, or exclude the idea that science is valid. And just a point of illogic in your argument. If evolution is solidly the explanation for all life here on earth and provides all the answers to the questions about it, then by definition, it would have to tell us why we are here, not leave it up to us to determine that ourselves. How scientific is that approach, that each of us in our own minds should determine why we're here, but should blindly adhere to the idea that the rest of the answers provided are the correct ones? Aerlinn, point of protocol on your post to the new gentleman in this discussion. Your original post specifically referenced both the theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory, as being complimentary theories "Do you believe in the Big Bang? Evolution without it or with it?..." He was responding to the original question, and did not differentiate the two theories, as you asked about them in conjunction. And Ammy's right, fluffy bunnies suck as debaters, so , don't worry about hurting someones feelings, we'll promise to forgive you, or tell you when you're being too grumpy.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Sept 26, 2008 18:40:46 GMT -5
Actually... Evolution, from what I've studied in a high school biology class (really building myself up here), isn't that simple.
-Different species can converge into one species. -The same species can diverge into different species. -Mutations can occur. -Survival of the fittest can indicate the humans would have less weaknesses than they are now, if humans were the only living things on this planet. Survival of the fittest is true for viruses as well.
From what I've listed up there, I think it's pretty likely that evolution for a specific species can go in all kinds of different directions. You can't predict much using "survival of the fittest". It's relative to the development of other species, changes in the enviornment, etc.
|
|
Larael
Student
"Does the Walker choose the Path, or does the Path choose the Walker?"
Posts: 24
|
Post by Larael on Sept 26, 2008 20:16:32 GMT -5
I definitely agree with ladytera on this one. I am a Christian, but I believe in both Creationism and Evolution. The Bible is essentially a book of written records, historical accounts, and stories. There are, in fact, two versions of the creation story in Genesis and both have differences and similarities to one another. I don't think it's far-fetched to believe that God did create the world/universe/etc. using the Big Bang or Evolution. There's scientific evidence that suggests those things did happen, and I don't see why they can't go hand-in-hand with God. No one was around when the universe was created, and so Genesis obviously isn't the truth down to the minute detail. It's a story made to explain how God did things. God did it, but we don't know how, and that's the explanation someone from hundreds of years ago came up with.
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Sept 26, 2008 22:29:31 GMT -5
This argument I have to give to you. Bravo.
But we're not killing each other just because we're weak, now are we? If that was the case, I would have been long dead. Humans are somewhat the exception to the harsh tests of evolution. Because we feel emotion and are conscious, we allow the weaker members of our society to survive. Generally speaking, at least. We have enough resources that we are able to share them with the weakest members of our society and we don't have to fight for them.
Right with that reasoning, we can't disprove the existence of the celestial teapot, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Like I said, these discrepancies are not solved or explained due to our limitations as humans. But they will be solved, eventually. As for the "why" question, there is no reason at all given by evolution. It just happened by blind chance. An accumulation of random chances.
And no one blindly adhere to the theory of evolution or at least should. They are welcome to check the facts, re-check them. But hardly ever now because it's a rather sound theory.
|
|
sakaido
Journeyman
Ryuichi+Coffee=Best icon ever.
Posts: 111
|
Post by sakaido on Sept 29, 2008 17:51:47 GMT -5
I could write a long thing about it. But for me it's really this simple.
Evolution: there's proof. Dinosaurs? Genetic PROOF that we've evolved as people.
I also don't like to think we're all one big incest family spawned of Adam and Eve.
That's it. I like to keep this one simple.
|
|
Gil
Apprentice
teh spazzy queen
Posts: 54
|
Post by Gil on Sept 29, 2008 18:19:00 GMT -5
I have lots to say on this subject and about 4 minutes until I have to leave, so I'll be back But for now, I just wanted to respond to this: Science cannot disprove anything. It can only prove things. I've learned this in every science class I've ever taken. So please don't be saying that Creationism has been "disproved" I'll be back!
|
|
Larael
Student
"Does the Walker choose the Path, or does the Path choose the Walker?"
Posts: 24
|
Post by Larael on Sept 30, 2008 22:22:06 GMT -5
Indeed. Whose to say God didn't create the universe? We weren't there were we? Just because scientists can prove Evolution doesn't necessarily disprove Creationism.
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Oct 1, 2008 5:32:03 GMT -5
That's all good and well, but you must consider that in this world, there are absolutes in science. Either the sun revolves around the earth, or the earth revolves around the sun. Either diseases are caused by an imbalance in the four humours or diseases are caused by microscopic organisms. Either this design for an airplane will fly or it won't. Here, either we were created by a intelligent designer whoever you want to call it or we evolved from a primitive ancestor of primates. I will agree with you that evolution does not decide whether or not there is a god. It simply states how the species are here on this earth, right now.
However the reason why evolution is and should be taught in schools and not creationism is because evolution is essentially a theory of science backed with years of evidence, proof, and research. Creationism has none of that and in addition, raises more questions than it solves. One argument that I notice that creationists are loath to explain is by their logic that something as complex as the human body must have a designer that is equally o even more complex to the designed, then whoever designed the designer must be even more complex than the designer (Try saying that when you're drunk). In addition, evolution is a natural explanation, while creationism invoke the supernatural.
I wish I had more time to explain myself but as it is, I need to go to school.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 28, 2008 22:00:37 GMT -5
For those of you interested in this debate, I strongly recommend that you go rent "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed". It is a really interesting documentary on the entire debate.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Oct 28, 2008 22:38:11 GMT -5
I'd be interested in seeing that, actually.
I also really want to see Religulous... But that's probably not relevant to this debate. ;D
|
|