Creation vs Evolution

I voted evolution because I hold it to be more plausible then creationism- but I should add that a vote for evolution is not a vote against a creator.

Legio: The way I always understood it (barely I should add) is that there wasn't a "before Big Bang". We know that singularities bend time/space, inside singularities they don't exist, that a black hole is literally a hole. So in the singularity that the Big Bang came from, there simply was no "before".

Gahism...

Evolution has too many questions not answered, and apparently nobody likes Creationism anymore...

But if you had a "universal time" that the time of individual universes could be plotted against there can be such a thing. The time within the universe can be warped, but "univeral time" can not be.

If this philisophical construct is used there could be a place where the universe we are in was sitting on a "shelf" and was then started by something. Our perception of time then commenced.

~:smoking:

You seem to be arguing from the premise that there must be something outside the universe, something that contains it.

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

First, I voted evolution. However, I do not see a problem with evolution being within the plan of a supremebeing.

---

Me neither really, I was talking about why god would have created a 'finished' world the way it is. Why are some planets older than others ? Why are some stars older than others ? What's the point of a shift in speices (evolution within a species) if God made them exactly like they were for a reason to begin with, did he change his mind ? Were did fossils come from ? Why did the dinosaurs go extinct if they did exist ?

That's the problems I have with 'Creation' as viewed by creationists. There could well be a creator, there might be point to an evolving universe, but that's a whole different story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Myself, I can not comprehend the thought of thunder being a meteorological phenomenon. There must be a higher force at work. Besides, nobody has ever managed to make a thunder in a laboratory, thus proving that Thor exists.

I shall now write to my local school board, insisting they teach Germanic Gods as an alternative to unproven meteorolo

---

I fully support this movement.

I don't think that there must be something outside the universe, merely that we have no way of knowing. I find it easiest to unpeg "time" from the universe if it is placed outside it - even though the outside may only be a philisophical construct.

IMO the topic is as relevant as "Red: what does it smell like?"

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

Theoretically there can exist a 'first mover' as Aristotle descripes him, without running into the problem of regression ad infinitum. He could always have been there (hence not coming from nothing because he is there and have always been there) that means he isnt coming from nothing, because he have existed at all times and will continue to exist.

---

I agree with Aristotles. Its scientific fact that evolution is the way how nature develops species. But i believe in higher power that put everything in motion at the beginning,who has always been and always will be. Who is everything and we are all part of this entity.Thats my personal belief.:bow:

I voted evolution.

What I'd like to know though is, assuming a god created the universe, what does he get out of it? Why go to all the effort (although for an omnipotent being, I suppose it's no effort at all) of creating everything? Who's he trying to impress? What utility does he get from something so piffling compared to him?

I suppose there are worshippers, but why does an all-powerful being need puny little mortals to worship and justify him? Is he really that insecure? Surely if he wants worshippers, giving us free will was a bad idea....

Also, being omnipotent, he's done a pretty shoddy job. One would think he could have made something a bit more impressive, infinitely more in fact.

...this god character doesn't sound nearly as fantastic as he's made out to be...

Evelotion is demostratable through selective breeding and apparent throughout the world. I'm not budging on this one.

That doesn't mean of course that God didn't flick the "on" switch.

He is a jealous God and you will worhsip no one but He.

He sounds a bit insecure to me. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrashaholic

I voted evolution.

What I'd like to know though is, assuming a god created the universe, what does he get out of it? Why go to all the effort (although for an omnipotent being, I suppose it's no effort at all) of creating everything? Who's he trying to impress? What utility does he get from so piffling compared to him?

I suppose there are worshippers, but why does an all-powerful being need puny little mortals to worship and justify him? Is he really that insecure? Surely if he wants worshippers, giving us free will was a bad idea....

Also, being omnipotent, he's done a pretty shoddy job. One would think he could have made something a bit more impressive, infinitely more in fact.

...this god character doesn't sound nearly as fantastic as he's made out to be...

---

These are ofcourse personal beliefs,so there are no right or wrong answers just opinions.But in my wiew its impossible to try to understand what an omnipotent force thinks and what can motivate it.Also i cant think that this kind of force would be inside the limitations of Good and Evil.Maybe he didnt have anything to do and created the universe so he would have something to observe.Or maybe he just dreamed of this universe and by accident it became reality.~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

IMO the topic is as relevant as "Red: what does it smell like?"

---

Well if I can figure out what white smells like, I could answer you with a good degree of accuracy. As white and red according to some makes an anchovy like smell. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

Evolution.

Take a look at the common flu and its need of a new vaccine every year.

Being an atheist doesn't hurt either I suppose...

---

The flu is still the flu. It was the flu when it was discovered, it has been the flu for years, and I guess it will continue to be the flu for a long time to come. Unless it has some how "evolved" into some sort of cancer or something of the sort. Do you think that is where aids came from? :laugh4: Seriously, just because it is adapting does not mean it is evolving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crossroad

Seriously, just because it is adapting does not mean it is evolving.

---

Seriously, just because it is falling does not mean it is under the influence of gravity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crossroad

I've seen hints of this debate throughout the Forums and thought it would be interesting to see your posts. Personally I'm a Creationist. The idea of something coming from nothing only works in my mind when you ad a Creator to the question of origin.

This is probably a vain request (because some of you like to copy whole chapters in text books and paste them in your posts) but try to keep it short and sweet.

My Apologies if this has been done before.

---

Aside from what's already been said:

- supposed, infinite string of 'creators'.
- pointlessly random and inefficient universe.

There's something more:

- Human understanding is always based on Human knowledge.

What you don't know, you don't understand. My best analogy is a completely blind guy understanding 'color' (on his own without any other aid) using his other normal senses. A blind guy would never even posit on any 'color': red, orange, yellow, violet, indigo, blue etc.

Instead, as egotistic creatures, we create an anthropomorphic 'God' based on our limited knowledge and understanding.

Then we give this 'God' anthropomorphic traits: Seeing, hearing, anger, jealousy, insecurity, kindness etc.

Do plants 'see', get 'angry', get 'covetous'? Which God is based on a plant? No, God is based on humans. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Seriously, just because it is falling does not mean it is under the influence of gravity.

---

What about, Falling in love. Falling asleep. Fall (the season). Are these under the influence of gravity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crossroad

The flu is still the flu. It was the flu when it was discovered, it has been the flu for years, and I guess it will continue to be the flu for a long time to come. Unless it has some how "evolved" into some sort of cancer or something of the sort. Do you think that is where aids came from? :laugh4: Seriously, just because it is adapting does not mean it is evolving.

---

This shows your understanding of "the flu" to be truly lacking. Indeed, to rely on a single phrase as some sort of serious understanding is most false.

We call it "the flu," but while we fail to distinguish between the evolving viruses that caused the disease(s), they are different. They have "evolved."

Second, cancer is not of the same caliber as "the flu," it is a "malfunctioning," a change, in the workings of cells, either from simple aging or from toxins, or from many other factors, or all combined. "The flu," on the other hand, are diseases caused directly by the interference of the viruses.

And there are of course diseases caused by bacteria, which also are fundamentally different.

And you are aware that aids is caused by viruses, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crossroad

What about, Falling in love. Falling asleep. Fall (the season). Are these under the influence of gravity?

---

Oh dear.

You are aware these are languages right? How about metaphors, as in figures of speech?

Something like: God is grave; He falls into a pandemonium of rage, a fire of anger, which is expressed in cheesy metaphors?

Do you actually fall down the ground from actually falling in love?

No wait, don't answer that.

Wow! I have never seen a creationist who was a literalist before...:help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiki biology

A biological adaptation is an anatomical structure, physiological process or behavioral trait of an organism that has evolved over a period of time by the process of natural selection such that it increases the expected long-term reproductive success of the organism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiki classical physics

Falling is descent under gravity. All objects have mass and in the presence of sufficiently massive objects such as planets or moons they experience a strong attraction due to gravity. This is known as weight. If the force of gravity is not equalized by an opposite force directed away from the planet, the object will start to fall towards the center of mass of the system--in effect, towards the center of the planet. The acceleration of gravity is directly proportional to the mass of the planet. The planet will also fall towards the center of the system but, if the object is much less massive than the planet, this motion is imperceptible.

---

I know what the flu is. You guys are missing my point. It is a viruses job to disrupt us biologically, but they will always be viruses. Yes, they will get better at their job, adapt, evolve if you want to use that word, but that does not mean viruses will evolve into something different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crossroad

I know what the flu is. You guys are missing my point. It is a viruses job to disrupt us biologically, but they will always be viruses. Yes, they will get better at their job, adapt, evolve if you want to use that word, but that does not mean viruses will evolve into something different.

---

Erm, virus has no "job." It's entire existence is justified by itself. Call that a circular logic, but that's how nature is. Survival is the end, surviving is the means. And by surviving viruses multiply and evolve, changing and keeping ahead. If it happens that viruses use parasitic means to survive, then, well? We aren't that different.

And viruses aren't even considered a living organism.

How about bacterias, which are the first living things, or at least the first as is discovered to date, as fossils confirm? How about the growth of bacteria into increasingly larger and more complex organisms, as we see working? How about the various homo-species? How about the link between birds and fish have been found? How about all the evidence involved?

Jeez. I really hate it when one side puts "the blame" on the other side without even providing their own evidence, and then say "your wrong im right" just like that. I don't know why I'm returning because debating with Creationists and Holocaust-deniers are two most annoying debates one could ever get into.

Let's just say you have not provided any evidence to support your thesis whereas we do, and au revoir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Jeez. I really hate it when one side puts "the blame" on the other side without even providing their own evidence, and then say "your wrong im right" just like that.

---

All I said was, viruses will always be viruses. You shouldn't take this thread so hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

How about bacterias, which are the first living things, or at least the first as is discovered to date, as fossils confirm? How about the growth of bacteria into increasingly larger and more complex organisms, as we see working? How about the various homo-species? How about the link between birds and fish have been found? How about all the evidence involved?

---

Ahh, transitional fossils. Out of the billions, yes billions, of fossils discovered around the world, how many are transitional? 80%? 50%? 10%? 1%? Try a hand full! Sorry, I don't know the exact number, but the fact that its not somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 to 90% really bothers me. Darwin was convinced that evolution would be proven in the fossile record, and was devistated when he found that it was not. Not even 1%? Out of billions!!!

Then, where did these so called transitional fossils come from? When I was in school, we learned about Lucy - The famous missing link that swept the science world by storm. American anthropologist Donald Johanson became famous, an over night success, but failed to mention that Lucy was a fake. http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...12/i3/lucy.asp

I suppose that some of you will want to post "examples" of "great discoveries", but unless you can post a million of them (which, by the way, would be less than one tenth of one percent of the billions discovered) it wont be very convincing.

Learn more about transitional fossils:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i4/fossils.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...1/chapter3.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i4/fossils.asp

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Now then , how many creationist topics have we had here recently , and how many times have they posted links to that bollox of a site :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i4/fossils.asp

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Now then , how many creationist topics have we had here recently , and how many times have they posted links to that bollox of a site :dizzy2:

---

Don't like that one? How about these: :idea2:

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/
http://www.drdino.com/
http://www.creationism.org/
http://www.creationscience.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html
http://www.nwcreation.net/
http://www.creationevidence.org/
http://www.answersincreation.org/
http://www.creationministries.org/
http://www.creationdigest.com/
http://www.creationfaq.net/

If you would like more, just let me know. :2thumbsup:

wow isn't it amazing how much rubbish you can find on the internet .

creation vs evolution
religeous theories vs science theories
what a pile of tripe
whatever next , house vs tree , submarine vs colour ?

Firstly, the amount of fossiles in general is annoyingly few. Finding a very good line of fossiles is almost impossible.

Secondly, there's proof that micro-evolution can occur quite rapidly and that a lot of physical traits can change within a few generations (often occuring when a rapid change of the environment occurs). An extension of that would mean that many of those transitional fossiles would be extremely few, as most fossiles is from stable species that did exist for a long time.

Third, define transitional. Is the archea Ignicoccus a transitional specie between a procaryote cell and a eucaryote cell?
picture of Ignicoccus

So why did God kill of the dinosaurs ?

Why are Creationists always so insecure, why can't there be a God and evolution ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Third, define transitional. Is the archea Ignicoccus a transitional specie between a procaryote cell and a eucaryote cell?
picture of Ignicoccus

---

Nah, ignorianticcus is the transitional species between a procaryote and eucaryote cell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crossroad

I suppose that some of you will want to post "examples" of "great discoveries", but unless you can post a million of them (which, by the way, would be less than one tenth of one percent of the billions discovered) it wont be very convincing.

---

You won't find this convincing, but there's not a shortage of transaitional fossils at all. In fact, every fossil points in that direction. Because one thing that creationist fail to understand, is that all creatures are transitional in evolutionary thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

You won't find this convincing, but there's not a shortage of transaitional fossils at all. In fact, every fossil points in that direction. Because one thing that creationist fail to understand, is that all creatures are transitional in evolutionary thinking.

---

Damn, I was coming to that ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

You seem to be arguing from the premise that there must be something outside the universe, something that contains it.

Why?

---

I'm not saying there was something before, but I'm saying that we shouldn't say there wasn't something before without proof. As it looks to me, it seems more plausible that there was something before. But that doesn't mean there was necessarily something before. Sometimes "I don't know about that part" is the correct answer in a theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I voted evolution because I hold it to be more plausible then creationism- but I should add that a vote for evolution is not a vote against a creator.

Legio: The way I always understood it (barely I should add) is that there wasn't a "before Big Bang". We know that singularities bend time/space, inside singularities they don't exist, that a black hole is literally a hole. So in the singularity that the Big Bang came from, there simply was no "before".

---

To say there wasn't anything before the big bang is a form of circular proof. It's very similar to methods used by church fanatics to silence all other opinions or theories in historical times. The theory of the big bang first tries to explain observations made, but doesn't apply Occam's razor and therefore also adds uneeded claims not used in my own simplified theory, for example the claim that time-space or energy-matter didn't exist before the big bang. That theory is not founded in observations but in the lack of usage of Occam's razor when trying to explain the observations - have you or anyone else found an argument based on an observation that would counter-prove the simplified theory I proposed but would support the other big bang theory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Firstly, the amount of fossiles in general is annoyingly few. Finding a very good line of fossiles is almost impossible.

---

Nah, do a search in yahoo or google. Use "billions of fossils".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Secondly, there's proof that micro-evolution can occur quite rapidly and that a lot of physical traits can change within a few generations (often occuring when a rapid change of the environment occurs). An extension of that would mean that many of those transitional fossiles would be extremely few, as most fossiles is from stable species that did exist for a long time.

---

I don't mind using the word micro-evolution. Its macro-evolution that is a fallacy. Like I said before about the flu (viruses) a virus will always be a virus, a dog is a dog and always will be, a human is a human...etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Third, define transitional. Is the archea Ignicoccus a transitional specie between a procaryote cell and a eucaryote cell?
picture of Ignicoccus

---

Ahh, prokaryote to eukaryote. Another example of evolutionist trying to cram something into an evolution box that does not belong. The following a quick reads if you would like to know why.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...dosymbiont.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/eukaryote.asp