Creation vs. Evolution page 2

763 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Arbitor165:
Originally posted by Codered999:

I enjoy hearing and reading arguments about this topic. Many people make concise and well thought arguments. I personally believe in creation, not because it has be proven, or seems ‘logical’, but because science has been unable to disprove creation. I would invite anybody to reply to this, challenging my argument, as long as it has a solid scientific structure and and is not just a negative comment.

By this logic, you should also believe in unicorns, the tooth fairy, and any other concept that science hasn’t yet completely disproved.

But the “tooth fairy” or unicorns, we know that those are not real. We know we will never find any real evidence that they are so until we do they are not real.

 
Flag Post

But the “tooth fairy” or unicorns, we know that those are not real. We know we will never find any real evidence that they are so until we do they are not real.

That doesn’t work. According to this over 19,000 new species were discovered in 2009 alone. Just because we hadn’t found them in 2008 doesn’t mean they weren’t real.

While you could prove that unicorns exist – by producing one -, you can’t prove that they don’t. You can only surmise that they probably don’t. If they choose to remain invisible, as God supposedly does, it wouldn’t be surprising if we hadn’t noticed one yet.

 
Flag Post

neauval
Have you ever SPOKEN to a unicorn/fairy?
You see, the difference is, you’re confusing “dis/trusting testimony” with “dis/proving fantasy”.
Unicorns are of the latter, while religion is of the former.
Well, sometimes they seem to overlap, but this only if you don’t do a deeper overview of the actual claims.
a. A testimony of meeting the subject in question is much stronger than the theoretization of a space spaghetti monster that no one even claims to have seen.
b. If only one or few people claim to have personally met that subject, the claim gets weaker.
c. If any number of people are claiming to be given some lasting personal outcome of that encounter that actually practically affects their lives, the claim gets stronger.

Now, regarding G-d:
a. At least the Jewish tradition (but not exclusively) claims that there was an actual encounter with G-d, not just “there is one somewhere in space”.
b. The number of religious people who believe in G-d (the same Biblical G-d, regardless of how you name the religion) and claim to “have seen Him in their life” is immense.
c. All those “G-d mockeries” like the above space monster, aren’t claimed to actually affect anyone’s life – and neither do fairies or unicorns, or at the least not on a national scale.

All the above isn’t full “proof”, but it explains why it is honestly stupid to compare the claim about G-d to the claim about either unicorns or space monsters.

 
Flag Post

Have you ever SPOKEN to a unicorn/fairy?

There are people who claim to have, yes. What are you going to say? That they’re ridiculous? The irony is overwhelming.

If only one or few people claim to have personally met that subject, the claim gets weaker.

By a small margin, but that more has to do with the fact that more people saying something doesn’t really make it that much more true.

If any number of people are claiming to be given some lasting personal outcome of that encounter that actually practically affects their lives, the claim gets stronger.

Ah, see, here we come into a nice field. Actual effects on real life. What do you claim that happened in your life that God did, and not other circumstances?

 
Flag Post

DR
Like, I’m living by the Jewish rules for many years – SURE, NO EFFECT.
(Have I told you that you think like a Christian? Even that IS an influence, but mine is immensely bigger.)

 
Flag Post

Like, I’m living by the Jewish rules for many years – SURE, NO EFFECT.

No, that’s due to the concept of God, not by God’s wish himself (at least not on a scientific level, but again, we can religiously claim anything under a random method, so let’s not delve into that further).

 
Flag Post

Huh?
What were you even asking then?
Unless you ignore my clear statement that NOW we CAN’T “see SCIENTIFIC evidence for G-d”.
But we CAN see PERSONAL evidence, on a huge scale.
Also, my point was “G-d vs fairies”, not “G-d vs science” – two different explanation paths.
Again and again – WHATEVER

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

JBG
Well, we actually DON’T have the proof that the Sun wasn’t put there a second ago and/or that the rays are even connected to its existence.

We do have massive amounts of proof. For example our memory. This proof does not given 100% certainty(but only if the definition of proof your using does not use the standard axioms of Epistemology concerning knowledge and reality, if you use the axioms its as good as 100% certain). Even though like DR has been trying to educate, having proof but not having 100% certainty is not equal to having no proof(which is the case for your alternate fantasy) and almost but not quite 0% possibility.

You can call it whatever you want, but speaking honestly (not arrogantly “scientifically”) – WE DON’T KNOW NOTHING.

Already been there and done that. I already pointed/prophesied you would reach solipsism soon. Your above statement is naturally untrue. A variant of we know that we don´t know. While for you the sentence is a pinnacle in your phase of education and enlightenment. To others its yesterdays news. Already debunked over hundreds of years ago, but then your not so much a fan of real history and the only sources you seem to read are Jewish theologists(though i would wonder if there are not some good Jewish philosophers/theologists out there who have already written works that debunk your knew found “knowledge”).
DR already pointed out that with the natural conclusion of the above sentence you can either accept reality(almost 100% certain) or refute it entirely(almost 0% certain). Cherry picking (taking some of the almost 100% and some of the almost 0%) the parts of reality that you like and accepting them with no consistent logic except liking behind the cherry picking is intellectually dishonest and a waste of time for a serious discussion. You can use at your personal Method if you so like.

FREE choice implies the possibility of a WRONG choice – and, for example, I’d like to see YOU breaking into a car/house/bank IN FRONT of a POLICEMAN.
Would you?

You did not get the part of only fallowing moral codes/gods when i respect and/or agree to them enough. If for example i was 100% certain my girlfriend was in the car/house/bank being tortured and beaten to death. Then if i had no better option available to prevent the continued torture and beating i would break in policeman or not and i would even use force if necessary to get the policeman out of the way.

The presence of any “police” immediately makes your chances to do crimes near-zero.

No they don´t. There are lots of crimes you can do in front of police and get away with.

And if you knew that this policeman is a perfect watcher, who can’t be bribed no distracted – you’d NEVER commit a crime in front of him.

Wrong. See above and a policeman who just watches does not really stop many crimes, even if he can guarantee punishment 50-60 years later. There are enough people ruining their lives now the way they are living even if they know that they will guaranteed feel worse of later. Example most Fat people who don´t want to be Fat. Even though they know that eating above whats good for them is bad, they can´t stop that easily. And unlike your imaginary Tyrant, the human body does not wait till your dead to punish eating to much.

Well, this is EXACTLY why CAN’T see G-d.
We would be UNABLE and ASHAMED to do ANY SIN.

No. Many people me included would be ASHEMED OF GOD and not ourselfs. We would still find many of the so called SINS childish and idiotic and not see god as somthing to worship but to pity(because of its stupidity), despise(because of its tyrannical and cruel behavior) and rebel against.

Cue child education – a perfect example of what G-d wants from us and how He does it.

Hope you never have children or that you live in a modern country where people who neglect taking care for their children, get the children taken away to protect them.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Evolution happened.

PROOF: dogs and horses.

Dogs and horses are selectively bred based on their preferable traits.

This is a form of man-controlled evolution.

Therefor, evolution exists and it has happened to all animals, including humans

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NeCROWmancer:

Evolution happened.

PROOF: dogs and horses.

Dogs and horses are selectively bred based on their preferable traits.

This is a form of man-controlled evolution.

Therefor, evolution exists and it has happened to all animals, including humans

Yes, I agree but what I don’t understand is how we somehow evolved from monkeys or apes over a period of millions of years. No other species has evolved by that much. So were we just lucky?

 
Flag Post

I think that, a few months back, vikiTae contributed something along the lines of creationism implying evolution due to it behaving in a non-invasive way; the prominently distinct ones being: a.) “instantaneous”-evolution as idiographic differentiation where the individuals themselves are changed by genetic combination and b.) long-term evolution where a large group (i.e. an animal species or family) is consistently affected in biological modifications. IN that case, the diversity of particular characteristics is enough to justify evolution as being experimentally accurate and therefore conventional wisdom concerning the intricate irreconcilability between religious creationism and evolution to be malpractice driven by ignorance of the real deal as being invalid to the accentuation of negligence. Even if God created the world, all its inhabitants and the likes, evolution is still applicable; no- the better term to use is absolutely warranted. No matter what, if there is creationism, there is evolution and vice versa could also be the case, but it isn’t completely necessary for there could be no God at all, but still evolution nonetheless. Thus concludes my polemic.

So, you see that traditional creationism and evolution are actually mutually compatible and even inclusive to that extent, although not one and the same since they are not mutually interchangeable both in theorizing and in utilization.

Therefore, this entire thread is derived from an invalid propositions.
Therefore, all this quarrelsome debate is idiotically founded.
Therefore, like civil intellectuals, we should discontinue this discussion immediately with the confidence of permanence.
Therefore, everything that comes next as to the original inquiry with full awareness of this point is moot.

 
Flag Post

The Theory of Evolution is reliably validated each and every day in a variety of fields from medicine to computer programming applications. We have witnessed, affirmed, and strengthened our understanding of evolution in ways that we didn’t even foresee. We are deep into a quest of discovery with evolutionary theory, and our ability to get this far is a testament to the acuteness of our models. To imply the falseness of this well established theory is absurd and can only be patently made from ignorance.

Theists should hit the abiogenesis field harder, since that’s got far fewer legs to stand on than something like the very genetic understandings gleaned from evolutionary studies that likely enabled their safe life.

 
Flag Post

But Christians however do not believe that the man evolved from the monkey…

You are right in not believing we evolved from the monkeys, because we AND him evolved from a common ancestor that was also a primate.
Fossil records from both humans and apes reveal that we HAVE a common ancestor, that is a FACT (which means we evolved from them). Also the fact that our genomes are 95%+ equal (reaching up to 99% in some cases).

or that the Earth was somehow created by atomic explosions in space.

It wasn’t an explosion in the common sense of the word. Just an expansion that people call explosion.


But the “tooth fairy” or unicorns, we know that those are not real. We know we will never find any real evidence that they are so until we do they are not real.

What about God?
This logic is flawed – the fact that we didn’t find any evidence means we don’t know whether it exists or not, not that it doesn’t exist. The same works for God, which is why every smart person is an Agnostic Atheist.

Have you ever SPOKEN to a unicorn/fairy?
You see, the difference is, you’re confusing “dis/trusting testimony” with “dis/proving fantasy”.
Unicorns are of the latter, while religion is of the former.

Many people have claimed to have spoken to unicorns, fairies, magical beings, GOD, they claim to have been abducted by ETs, to have seen their ships, etc. etc.

No other species has evolved by that much.

A LOT of species have evolved an incredible amount. Primates were always the smartest ones, and a part of it was able to understand how to use tools, and then language, and everything came like a breeze after it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

I see you believe in ponies. :DDD

… What?

 
Flag Post

Evolution isn’t a scale. Every single creature on the earth at this very second has evolved the exact same “amount.”

 
Flag Post

Then how come no other species has evolved to be as intelligent as we are? Are we just the lucky ones then?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Chris2fly:
Originally posted by NeCROWmancer:

Evolution happened.

PROOF: dogs and horses.

Dogs and horses are selectively bred based on their preferable traits.

This is a form of man-controlled evolution.

Therefor, evolution exists and it has happened to all animals, including humans

Yes, I agree but what I don’t understand is how we somehow evolved from monkeys or apes over a period of millions of years. No other species has evolved by that much. So were we just lucky?

You mean evolved to have the same Intelligence as us this. Not that much else to set us apart from monkeys and Apes otherwise and its not like we can claim that higher intelligence is as such a higher state of evolution.

High(er) Intelligence is relatively rare because it always comes at a cost.
1. Directly it needs more resources(food) to gain and maintain. Even when not used.
2. Its rather limited in use, depending on the body form and living environment of the recipient. For example a Fish or Dog can only make a rather limited use of better intelligence(compared to what they have now). They lack bodies that can efficiently make use of tools they might come across.
3. Intelligence really messes with other hardwired biochemical behaviors that are good for survival, especially once it reaches the level where the recipient can perceive the world around it and itself to such a degree that, the basic hardwiring can´t follow in complexity anymore. But even when it can follow it again comes more costly in terms of resources needed.

So to develop higher Intelligence it needs the right body from and right environmental conditions that favor Intelligence. From what we have recently uncovered about the environment we most likely developed are intelligence in, this would be a strongly noncyclic changing environment in which intelligence provides enough resources to pay for itself.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Chris2fly:

Then how come no other species has evolved to be as intelligent as we are?

In what way?

Are we just the lucky ones then?

That’s… Not how it works.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by Chris2fly:

Then how come no other species has evolved to be as intelligent as we are?

In what way?

Are we just the lucky ones then?

That’s… Not how it works.

How does it work then?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Chris2fly:

How does it work then?

It’s not that easy to explain, (hence why there are people who question it) but one of the more simple (albeit kinda crappy) explanations is that evolution doesn’t follow a set path and there is no “luck” involved, as evolution finds the best current path.

And as I implied earlier this isn’t something that can be taught in an afternoon, so it will require heavy amounts of in-depth, study from accredited sources in order to really learn about it.

 
Flag Post

It’s just basic natural selection. For example (I’m making this example up here), a group of fishes live in an area where the ground has a nutritious kind of moss and doesn’t have much food otherwise. Those who can eat in the most efficient way (or find food at all – thus not starving) will live longer and produce a larger offspring than those who can’t – thus the entire population (of that group) has evolved into a kind of fish that is able to move faster, has a digestive system that digests moss the best, has small limbs/fins that make moving on the ground easier, etc. etc.
We can observe that everywhere in nature, a clear example is that the population of elephants in Africa is starting to have a higher percentage of tusk-less elephants. This is due to humans killing off elephants with tusks to get&sell them, so tusk-less elephants never die this way and thus have a higher chance of leaving their offspring carrying the tusk-less gene. Perhaps in a few decades every African elephant will be tusk-less. Of course, this process happened much faster than usual because humans actively and unexpectedly started doing it, however it is a great example.

 
Flag Post

BB
Explain charity and pensions in the view of the “survival of the fittest”, would you?
The very idea is opposite to what is constantly said about evolution and to what we can even see in animals – they do sometimes help the weaker (like, dolphins), which is totally anti-useful in the sense of getting more food and space per unit.
And this isn’t the case of some hive mind, where dying by stinging an enemy makes the whole hive easier to survive – in this case no one is benefiting from the survival of another dolphin apart from that very dolphin.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

BB
Explain charity and pensions in the view of the “survival of the fittest”, would you?

… What?

The very idea is opposite to what is constantly said about evolution and to what we can even see in animals – they do sometimes help the weaker (like, dolphins), which is totally anti-useful in the sense of getting more food and space per unit.

… Again, what?

And this isn’t the case of some hive mind, where dying by stinging an enemy makes the whole hive easier to survive – in this case no one is benefiting from the survival of another dolphin apart from that very dolphin.

… Okay, I think I’m starting to get what you’re saying. (though it still reeks of idiot.)

First off, humanity has “evolved” (well more accurately “adapted”) past the point where there needs to be “survival of the fittest,” as in, we’ve developed environments where you can be (very) physically un-fit, because we’ve gotten to the point where most of where we live is safe from the dangers that we would’ve had to face in the wild, thus allowing the “bad” genes to be passed on and survive.