Creation or Evolution?

[tehsnipah]

I'll keep this short...

Evolution.

If you disagree then you're wrong, uneducated, ignorant and I recommend since you have the internet at your disposal that you use it properly and actually educate yourself by researching about evolution instead of listening to mentally ill religious leaders who promote biased, unrealistic and downright fallacious interpretations of it in some attempt to discredit it in the eyes of anybody thick-skulled enough to give them the time of day.

Also: There's no evolution in scripture regardless of how much conjecture you feel like generating on your hair-brained interpretation of it. Creation and evolution do not go together unless you're desperate.

So would mine be evolution or creation?

[Mangled*]

I'll keep this short...

Evolution.

If you disagree then you're wrong, uneducated, ignorant and I recommend since you have the internet at your disposal that you use it properly and actually educate yourself by researching about evolution instead of listening to mentally ill religious leaders who promote biased, unrealistic and downright fallacious interpretations of it in some attempt to discredit it in the eyes of anybody thick-skulled enough to give them the time of day.

Also: There's no evolution in scripture regardless of how much conjecture you feel like generating on your hair-brained interpretation of it. Creation and evolution do not go together unless you're desperate.

So would mine be evolution or creation?

I imagine creation, you seem like the type.

[PANZERCATWAGON]

I'll keep this short...

Evolution.

If you disagree then you're wrong, uneducated, ignorant

irony

mangled. the theory of evolution is by no means perfect. the more immediate parts of the theory such as birds having different shaped beaks on different islands and such have heaps of evidence and consist of extremely logical and measurable ideas, therefore it isnt silly to have faith in that part

in amoungst what the general public group as 'evolution', there are also the more extreme ideas. such as how life formed out of prehistoric gloop. the theory of evolution may be one of the most scientifically sound thoeries we have about how life formed to date, but that does not mean it isnt full of assumptions

the closer you get to the ideas about how life formed, the more sketchy the theory becomes. there are gaps in the logic about the amino acid theory, and even though it seems plausible, that should not make it an almighty truth

two things have already been said i think you should be take note of:

vitchi has said that a lot of modern science relies on the theories of evolution. this is correct, and i assure you that the reliance is almost always on the later stages of the theory which, in general, scientists tend to agree on

demonic also makes a good point

Evolution does not necessarily exclude creation - well, it depends on what you mean by the former. Contemporary creationists drop into two holes: first of all they draw an image of evolution for themselfes and just erase it or strike out saying it's wrong, or try to fill out the holes with God. Neither is very good practice: the former needs no explanation, because it's just due to lack of knowledge or poor understanding, while the latter one is just in-the-box thinking.

you have identified that evolution is a good theory, which is great. what you have then done is turned evolution into a state of mind. you think of evolution as the answer, rather than the theory. sure preaching creationists may be annoying, but that doesnt mean you should start doing exactly what they are doing - acting as though a possibility is a truth

that is not good science. to be a good scientist, and also a logical person, you must question everything and accept nothing as truth. you can assume that some things will probably happen the same if you repeat an action, but never should you assume that, without fault, it always will

something for you to think about: imagine that the theories of evolution and the big bang are true; but a god started the big bang

try to think a little more before you start accusing people of being uneducated

[Mangled*]

something for you to think about: imagine that the theories of evolution and the big bang are true; but a god started the big bang

You see what the problem is there don't you? Which is why I said exactly what I said.

You're taking proven theories like Evolution and The Big Bang which have copious amounts of evidence and decades of research to back them up solidly and then you're trying to piece them together with what is as much as a theory as it is a myth.

Religion claims to hold all the answers. Science tries to seek all the answers. They are two opposites that cannot be combined to yield any kind of result other than "lets try to make our religion more convincing".

Like I've said before. There are two types of religious people, there are fundamentalists and there are hypocrites.

Fundamentalists believe solidly in everything that their faith teaches, they are the truest to their belief.

Hypocrites label themselves as being part of a faith but then pick and choose which parts seem feasible or not. They try to conject and adapt their 'beliefs' in any way possible so that they are not disprovable, so that I suppose they can atleast fool themselves that what they believe is correct. They have neither faith nor belief, they have fear.

[Rai-Dei]

All science is theory bro.

[PANZERCATWAGON]

something for you to think about: imagine that the theories of evolution and the big bang are true; but a god started the big bang

You see what the problem is there don't you? Which is why I said exactly what I said.

You're taking proven theories like Evolution and The Big Bang which have copious amounts of evidence and decades of research to back them up solidly and then you're trying to piece them together with what is as much as a theory as it is a myth.

what you are doing, mangled, is assuming a myth is wrong when in fact it is very possible

[Mangled*]

Give me an example of how creation is possible. Give me even a slither of difinitive evidence. Are you going to make a point and then not back it up?

[PANZERCATWAGON]

Give me an example of how creation is possible. Give me even a slither of difinitive evidence. Are you going to make a point and then not back it up?

creation is possible because we exist, by definition, mangled.

[Rai-Dei]

Mangled, you pussyfoot around the blatant obvious. I'm sure if you were to actually look at "Give me an example of why creationism is right" you would realize how naive that sounds.

Think of the way a little kid thinks (Its how I prep to reply to you), they will follow their beliefs to the BITTER end. Hell man, take a leap off that high horse and learn to debate with people without INSTANTLY assuming they are wrong. Maybe you would learn something, but in your case. Probably not.

[The Geologist]

You're taking proven theories like Evolution and The Big Bang which have copious amounts of evidence and decades of research to back them up solidly and then you're trying to piece them together with what is as much as a theory as it is a myth.

Rai beat me to it, but this sentence is now fixed. 

[LtKillroy]

And I say its impossible that creation and evolution don't go hand in hand. Why? Because even the Big Bang doesn't solve the simple problem of when did all of everything start and if it didn't, how is it infinite. Therefore something had to have started it.

^The above is devil's advocate but you get the point. There's probably some improvable theory out there, but there is no possible way you will ever know for sure.

For some reason arguing about this makes you all happy, so I will let you do that after this. I still don't think it matters, however. Mostly because when it comes down to it its unprovable and I'm perfectly happy with not knowing. Call me ignorant, but I guess its bliss. You will never know for sure though.

[n00bface]

Every day Mangled manages to drive me further and further towards religious fundamentalism.

[iDante]

Every day Mangled manages to drive me further and further towards religious fundamentalism.

Was just thinking the same.

I have a lot of religious friends that are good debaters, I'll see if I can't get one of them into this thread.

[N. Escalona]

Hi Joe.

I'll see if I can contribute to this. I'm a very religious person, but that doesn't mean I automatically exclude evolution from consideration. My beliefs concern that God created the World, not how.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It supposes that genetic mutation and natural selection caused and cause less-adapted organisms to give rise to more-adapted organisms on a very long time scale.
Sometimes it's extended to a scientific hypothesis: The first organism was nothing more than a product of its physical environment.
Sometimes also extended to an unscientific philosophy: God doesn't exist, because Occam's razor, etc.

I think the theory of evolution is probably right. I'm not convinced, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was right. It's also in my opinion theologically awesome. I think it exceedingly unlikely, on the other hand, that life "just happened." The complexity seems too much to overcome. But this is all about biology.

God existing and God creating the universe and Earth is not biology. It's not scientific. It's entirely different, which is why I shake my head when inflammatory evolutionists try to argue against creation in a scientific context, or Christian fundamentalists try to argue against evolution in a theological context.

As far as I believe, science can never contradict theology. If a scientist tries to contradict theology, then the scientist has not applied science correctly. At the same time, science can't produce all the answers.

IN CONCLUSION TO A DISORGANIZED POST: The world would be a better place if creation and evolution weren't found in the same sentence.

[VijchtiDoodah]

Sometimes [evolution is] extended to an unscientific philosophy: God doesn't exist, because Occam's razor, etc.

I'm staying out of the main part of this argument, but I take slight issue with this sentence. It's technically true since many scientists might use the principle of Ockham's Razor to argue that without sufficient evidence to believe in God, it's best to assume he doesn't exist and therefore had no hand in creation; however, the argument from Ockham's Razor that you're more likely to see on the issue of evolution (and science in general, rather than the personal views of individual scientists) is that since supernatural explanations such as the intervention of a divine being don't help us understand or model the universe, they are useless and should be avoided.

It's a small nitpick in the context of this discussion, but an important distinction nonetheless.

[N. Escalona]

...since supernatural explanations such as the intervention of a divine being don't help us understand or model the universe, they are useless and should be avoided.

I'm not attributing it to you, but I think this is a very arrogant interpretation of Occam's razor. Science is not the only method of gaining knowledge.

Although, I'm not sure I entirely understand the difference between the two interpretations you suggested.

[Demonic]

He's saying that scientific approach disregards the divine, because it's nothing you can count on or count with - see 'a wizard did it' in explaining plot holes for a story. Doesn't work out very well.

And 'science is not the only method of gaining knowledge'. That sounds so rad and deep, yet it seems to me like pop-philosophy at best. However, off-topic, 'innit?

[N. Escalona]

He's saying that scientific approach disregards the divine, because it's nothing you can count on or count with - see 'a wizard did it' in explaining plot holes for a story. Doesn't work out very well.

And 'science is not the only method of gaining knowledge'. That sounds so rad and deep, yet it seems to me like pop-philosophy at best. However, off-topic, 'innit?

I see what he was saying now. I take issue with your analogy, but that's offtopic.

Interesting you bring up philosophy, because that's one of the other methods of gaining knowledge. Pop-philosophy, on the other hand, is not. But you're right, this is also offtopic.

[a fool]

I know species can evolve depending on their environment and long time scales.. I just doubt we come from monkeys. But more likely a similar species that managed to evolve continuously. Because monkeys wouldn't exist as they are now if that would be the case...

[N. Escalona]

I know species can evolve depending on their environment and long time scales..

First of all, be careful. You don't know species can evolve with any certainty. It's a belief, based on logic and the available evidence. You might be right, but still can't be certain.

I just doubt we come from monkeys. But more likely a similar species that managed to evolve continuously. Because monkeys wouldn't exist as they are now if that would be the case...

This is a common misconception. No one I know actually asserts that the human species developed from a monkey species. The usual claim is that one or several progenitor ape species gave rise to both modern humans and modern monkeys. Your objection to the claim you brought up is valid.