Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

[Baby-]

it is a research project we had to come up with 5 genres to base our project on and one i picked was to get a live" debate to see what people really think on the matter
not just scientists or christians"( and others)
believe me if i needed info or actual help" in terms of u doing it for me i wouldnt let that happen i would feel guilty

[theinsomniacnimrod]

I'm an atheist... so evolution ftw.

I'm one of those people that believes everything can be explained by math, physics, or science in general.

[devonin]

Well, you've got this 6+ page debate to use, and if you aren't necessarily restricted to just human evolution topics, several other multiple-page threads on various subjects to choose from.

Despite the fact that sometimes a convergence of posters makes a few dozen posts spring up in a couple minutes, the nature of forums means that we can't really just provide a debate on demand, unfortunately.

[jugglinguy]

Originally Posted by theinsomniacnimrod

I'm one of those people that believes everything can be explained by math, physics, or science in general.

how can evolution be explained by any of those. Sure you can say this happened which caused that which caused that, but how did the first thing come about? Did it just magically pop, how could that be explained by math, physics, or science. Also darwin said on his deathbed that he realized that his theory isn't true.

[Baby-]

ok i am restricted on human evo. ill debate later my view

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by jugglinguy

Did it just magically pop, how could that be explained by math, physics, or science. Also darwin said on his deathbed that he realized that his theory isn't true.

Hey, how about you read some of my posts in these threads. I've mentioned several times that the concept of abiogenesis is not all that unlikely. In short: complex, nonliving autocatalytic processes merged, fed off of each other, manufactured proteins, evolved by assimilating other cycles, and eventually became self-replicating.

Regarding your Darwin comment, I am wont to believe that you took it extremely out of context. Assuming its truth, though, that still doesn't change anything. Darwin didn't have access to the wealth of evidence that we do, now. You'll forgive me for not taking the word of someone who died in the nineteenth century over the vast majority of modern scientific minds.

If Copernicus said "the sun's the center of the solar system" and then followed it with "jk jus' playin'", it wouldn't be any less true.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Baby-]

Originally Posted by Baby-

ok i am restricted on human evo. ill debate later my view

i hav scratched the surface of human evolution by the means it proves more of a darwins point then of a Gods view
if god created humans ( and creatures) you would see a gap* between apes and humans ancestors' bones but there isnt a gap to distinguish which are deff. human and which are apes.
Evolution says" that human and apes had a common ancestor at one point ;which may be true in the sense there are skulls to help support the thought
in the bible it says that man will be the ruler* of the earth of all the living creatures
in my mind we arent tho we developed tools to help better ourselves if we relied on pure talent we would never be the top species

if god created man why do men and chimpanzes share about 98% dna in a sense
how do u think bunches of tiny cells came to be complex species that exist live breath eat and yet give us the power to think

[Baby-]

" Although evolutionists state that life results from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world."
From a research I was doing, I found this quote as one of a creationist's evidence for disproving evolution.

This is one line i do agree with, in the case something really can not come from nothing!

[jewpinthethird]

Originally Posted by Baby-

" Although evolutionists state that life results from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world."
From a research I was doing, I found this quote as one of a creationist's evidence for disproving evolution.

This is one line i do agree with, in the case something really can not come from nothing!

It doesn't disprove anything. The theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have at the moment, but no one ever said it was perfect. The theory of Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life....it's only concern is that species can change over time.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by jewpinthethird

It doesn't disprove anything. The theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have at the moment, but no one ever said it was perfect. The theory of Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life....it's only concern is that species can change over time.

It is in unfortunate side effect of the fact that creationism tries to explain absolutely everything about everything by resorting to vairous versions of "God did it" that when evolution is held up as "An alternate theory" many people assume that it tries to say just as many things about the universe.

As a work, the bible is incredibly overarching in the kinds of things it tries to talk about. From the creation of the universe, the process by which all life and non-life came to be, the complete history of the passage of time in the world, all the way down to ethics, morality, laws, politics and gender issues.

You'd need to present a whole laundry list of scientific and philosophical theories, many of which would overlap in some places, simply to address the same number of points the bible claims to deal with in just a few hundred pages.

The Bible covers : ---------------------------------------------
Evolution covers :    -

It is a silly mistake to think that the two are somehow equal in terms of scope.

[Reach]

Also darwin said on his deathbed that he realized that his theory isn't true.

Not true. That's one of those really popular false rumors like the Einstein believed in God one.

Anyway, I think one of the inherent problems with this debate, and why it probably shouldn't be debated until this is fixed, is that the opposition (creationists) really havn't defined their argument. It's much easier to argue against something that has been clearly defined, for example, the God from the bible and strictly that alone. But I notice a lot of people fall back on this mysterious word 'God' without really defining what it is. It ends up turning into something like what devonian posted, where it encompasses everything unknown, and thus it's not really a debate at all.

It's incredibly easy to say 'Oh well, we don't know SOMETHING about what happened, and thus I'm going to call this SOMETHING God'. It's quite convenient to do this, but also very misleading and unfair in a debate situation. When you start referring to any bloody thing that might have been involved with the origin of the universe you're taking in one hell of a lot of things with that statement, so of course you can't argue against it. But the moment you go ahead and define your God argument it really loses steam, where just taking stabs in the dark isn't going to hold ground.

Evolution is a very specific theory aimed directly at the evolution of life on earth once it was here. Darwin believed wholeheartedly in his theory and supported it with a lot of evidence.

When people ask me if I believe in God, I've really been replying to that with 'Define God'. A lot of people I've been talking to, that claim to be religious, after a nice little talk arn't very religious at all. They believe in God, but in this 'convenient God' I was talking about before where they substitute the word God for the unknown with regards to the origin of life, with little or no specifics as to what this God might be since they don't really believe the bible word for word (as they shouldn't).

[ballaw hare]

Originally Posted by jugglinguy

how can evolution be explained by any of those. Sure you can say this happened which caused that which caused that, but how did the first thing come about? Did it just magically pop, how could that be explained by math, physics, or science. Also darwin said on his deathbed that he realized that his theory isn't true.

Do you have any evidence that Darwin said that? Also, math/science CAN explain everything, it has so far. Science doesn't need a god, but god seem's to need science.

[devonin]

Science doesn't need a god

Then I'm curious what your prime mover is.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by ballaw hare

Also, math/science CAN explain everything, it has so far.

Now THAT'S just ignorant. You really think that we know absolutely everything there is to know? If that were true, we wouldn't have scientists.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[jewpinthethird]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Now THAT'S just ignorant. You really think that we know absolutely everything there is to know? If that were true, we wouldn't have scientists.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Rather, there is the potential to one day know all the mysterious of the world through the use of math, and science.

Of course, I won't rule out the idea that there probably exist plenty of things in our Universe...and outside of our Universe that our brains won't be able to comprehend, such is the case when dealing with infinite distances/quantities/etc. seeing as our minds are only able to deal with the finite. However, scientists and mathematicians have been using super computers to aid their calculations for years now, which, in the future, may hold the key to solving the more abstract mathematic equations which humans find taxing.

[CMAxX400]

I'm not afraid to deny that I'm a Christian and I am leaning so far in the direction of Creationism that I'm going to fall over. lol. But, srsly. Evolutionism is not for me.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by CMAxX400

I'm not afraid to deny that I'm a Christian and I am leaning so far in the direction of Creationism that I'm going to fall over. lol. But, srsly. Evolutionism is not for me.

Why though? It's all well and good in most fora to just state your opinion, but in CT, you need to explain it, back it up, and otherwise demonstrate -why- you have the opinion you have.

[Myst1278]

Originally Posted by RPGFREAK

*Off Topic*
I can imagine a sci-fi based on this.
The one who we refer to as God would be a programmer making a mini-universe for a project. The seventh day would've been for debugging purposes. Eventually, the program would go running w/o any known intervention. All those unexplained constants in physics and chemistry were there for the purposes of keeping the program too random. It'd be pretty interesting in my opinion.

This is almost a little creepy. I actually started writing a story based of this. About how the Master Program (God) was attempting to assimilate humans into a single, simple, worship-based mindset, sort of like the Borg. Satan got angry, left the system, and started to revert people back to thier natural, human state. Too bad I lost that story. Maybe I'll try to rewrite it.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

Then I'm curious what your prime mover is.

Science doesn't need a prime mover.

[devonin]

Science doesn't need a prime mover.

Sure it does. If effects have causes, you recur back to infinity. If you claim that the big bang had no cause, then the big bang is your prime mover.