The Real Evolution Vs Creationism Debate

[Im an Atheist]

O.K, i'm tired of little mini debates where people try and pick at the smallest of errors.

So here it is!

Every view welcome, what do you believe in, and why?

Are there any flaws in yours or the opposing story?

Happy Debating Folks

IAA... :angel2:

 

[LuisDantas]

It 's not really a matter of belief anymore. Hasn't been for about a century, perhaps more. I'm a bit puzzled by the popularity of this non-controversy in this day of age, really.

After all, biological evolution is so well established, tested and even incorporated into our technology (for a few decades at least) that, quite frankly, denying it is at this point a direct consequence of lack of information or misunderstanding of available scientific knowledge.

Nor does it necessarily deny the existence of a divine will sparking life itself. Between that and the obvious lack of true religious significance of the subject, I am dismayed to see so much energy spent on that.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

O.K, i'm tired of little mini debates where people try and pick at the smallest of errors.

So here it is!

Every view welcome, what do you believe in, and why?

Are there any flaws in yours or the opposing story?

Happy Debating Folks

IAA... :angel2:

I believe both sides.

 

[Storm]

O.K, i'm tired of little mini debates where people try and pick at the smallest of errors.

So here it is!

Every view welcome, what do you believe in, and why?

I believe that evolution, balanced by entropy, is the engine that drives the evolution of God. I believe this because of the combinations of the observations of science and a personal revelation of God.

Are there any flaws in yours or the opposing story?

I'm not sure what "the opposing story" would be, honestly. If there are any flaws in mine, I can't see them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Every view welcome, what do you believe in, and why?

I prefer Pete's to Starbucks but think the latter is a more sustainable business.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oh, sorry. This is the Real Evolution debate, as opposed to all of those other debates.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

O.K, i'm tired of little mini debates where people try and pick at the smallest of errors.

So here it is!

Every view welcome, what do you believe in, and why?

Are there any flaws in yours or the opposing story?

Happy Debating Folks

IAA... :angel2:

I believe that Lord Mechanitron commissioned the construction of the Earth and the populating of it with biological lifeforms to, ultimately, use this population as slaves in the tritium mines of Sol Draconis IV.

On the other hand, some believe that the Cosmic Spider spun the universe and the dew drops that formed on it became man. Honestly, I can't find any specific flaws in this story - and both stories seem equally plausible to me. However, I choose the Lord Mechanitron story of creation due to aesthetic reasons.

 

[darkmage121]

Creationism vs. Evolution

I Wicca we merge both theories together. We believe godhead(prime mover) created the universe with a massive "big bang" type explosion. All matter and energy exploded out of a single point and the universe was born. From there, all life evolved into what it is today.

 

[Im an Atheist]

Creationism vs. Evolution

I Wicca we merge both theories together. We believe godhead(prime mover) created the universe with a massive "big bang" type explosion. All matter and energy exploded out of a single point and the universe was born. From there, all life evolved into what it is today.

Why is this? It seems that just because the theory of evolution is getting stronger, the creationists ETC will jump on the band wagon to stop creationism fading out...

I mean, creationists depised the concept of evolution until they decided to create a theory that God started it.

IAA

 

[rockondon]

I have noticed that creationists have been moving the goalposts over the last handful of years.

First, evolution absolutely does NOT happen.
Second, okay it happens a bit. But only microevolution. Macroevolution doesn't happen - there's no new species being created.
Third, okay fine, new species are being created. Noah only put "kinds" on his boat and hypermacroevolution occurred creating the countless species we see today. ...but we're still staying macroevolution doesn't occur. (speciation IS macroevolution btw)
Today it seems creationists agree with pretty near all aspects of evolution, they just refuse to call it evolution. They fall back on safer terms like "adaptation" and "microevolution."

It seems strange that they allow themselves to believe that mutations happen, speciation happens, natural selection happens, but they don't believe in evolution. That's like me believing that God created every species as they are now...then saying that I don't believe in creationism.
Evidently creationists believe that a person can clap their hands once, but its impossible to clap them a hundred times. How is it that a little speciation can happen, but a lot can't?

 

[LittleNipper]

O.K, i'm tired of little mini debates where people try and pick at the smallest of errors.

So here it is!

Every view welcome, what do you believe in, and why?

Are there any flaws in yours or the opposing story?

Happy Debating Folks

IAA... :angel2:

I believe that everything is unique. There is a wide range that can exist within each and every species (both animal & plant) ----- some species more so than others.

What that means is that no species ever had nor has the capacity of slowly development into another species. It may look different over time, but each species have developed interdependent upon other species which have always existed since GOD's Creation.

An example would be the rose. Now the roses of today have been bred by man to be selectively colorful, fragrant, longer lasting blooms, etc.; however, all of those traits were available to man; who simply refined the rose to meet his expectations.

 

[Thief]

Thief here.
I have a line of thought that allows both ends to meet in the middle.
The same line allows questions like
'who was Cain's wife?'
"who was Cain afraid of?'
'Does Eve have a navel?'
Etc.....

 

[Autodidact]

I believe that everything is unique. There is a wide range that can exist within each and every species (both animal & plant) ----- some species more so than others.

What that means is that no species ever had nor has the capacity of slowly development into another species. It may look different over time, but each species have developed interdependent upon other species which have always existed since GOD's Creation.

An example would be the rose. Now the roses of today have been bred by man to be selectively colorful, fragrant, longer lasting blooms, etc.; however, all of those traits were available to man; who simply refined the rose to meet his expectations.

And yet scientists have observed exactly that happening, in real time. How do you explain that?

O.K., so your position is that new species never emerge, right? Every species present on earth now has always existed in its present form? No new species have ever come into existence? Is that your position?

 

[genypher]

I'm for the theory evolution. I don't think it is without flaw, or perhaps better put, I don't think we have all the pieces to the puzzle just yet, but I think we're getting there.

My problems with the intelligent design argument:

1. The numbers. Things like the "Tornado in a Junkyard" statement and the insane, never once clarified, all too specific probability of life as we know it "popping out of no where." Think about it. If you were in a desert, and you reached down and picked up a grain of sand, what kind of odds were aganst you picking up that specific grain? 1/who even knows how many. Such mathematical odds are defied every day.
2. The idea that science thinks "life popped into existence out of no where." This just goes to show how little they know about that which they are arguing.
3. That any creation needs a creator. Does a wildflower need a gardener?
4. "I didn't come from no monkey!!!" *bangs head repeatedly with blunt object*
5. The idea that somehow evolution is a description of how the universe was formed, instead of a description of how life on Earth adapts and changes and forms the variety we see all around us. Again, simply proves the creationist's ignorance regarding the subject of evolution.

 

[Storm]

2 The idea that science thinks "life popped into existence out of no where." This just goes to show how little they know about that which they are arguing.

I think this is an over-simplification of arguments against abiogenesis, correct me if I'm wrong.

I used to have my doubts about abiogenesis, myself. It fits my theology beautifully, but the science didn't make sense. Then it was, after much flaming on another board, explained to me that there is no theory of abiogenesis, but several competing hypotheses. So, now I have less of an issue with it.

 

[genypher]

I think this is an over-simplification of arguments against abiogenesis, correct me if I'm wrong.

I used to have my doubts about abiogenesis, myself. It fits my theology beautifully, but the science didn't make sense. Then it was, after much flaming on another board, explained to me that there is no theory of abiogenesis, but several competing hypotheses. So, now I have less of an issue with it.

In some cases, yes it is an over-simplification. In other cases, I have seen that exact statement used as a rebuttal against evolutionary theory (though, admittedly not on this forum). It depends on the person arguing.

I am at least a little familiar with the formation of nucleotides from methane, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, etc. Not so familiar with any other hypotheses. I have no issue with the idea of abiogenesis, but that is not the same as accusing proponents of evolution of believing "life popped into existence from nothing."

 

[themadhair]

Semi-hijacking the thread:

how do your scientist use theories of darwin?

Farming, pesticides, containing diseases such as the swine flu, bioinformatics, the production of specialised bacteria producing useful enzymes, the idea of natural selection has been used in computer science in genetic algorithms, tacking pathogens evolutionary history in order to develop vaccines, etc.

 

[Autodidact]

Hello, Nipper? Is that what you're saying? Have I misunderstood you?

 

[Bedlam]

Evolution is one of the primary mechanisms of the universe, just like the laws of thermodynamics. Most people that oppose it simply haven't been educated on the subject, or they judge it as wrong before anyone can properly explain it.

Evolution isn't isolated to the selection of species. The same effect can be observed in economic models of businesses and the thought patterns of human culture (that seemingly vague thing some of us refer to called Memetics).

The mistake people make is thinking that evolution is somehow an answer to where the Earth came from or how the universe began. Yes, we can pose some theories from what evolution tells us, but it's impossible to gain a real understanding of what exactly happened 13,500,000,000 years ago. Personally I'm comfortable knowing that the tools I'm helping to understand (such as the force of evolution) are going to some day let our descendants discover the answer to those big questions.

 

[themadhair]

Evolution is one of the primary mechanisms of the universe, just like the laws of thermodynamics. Most people that oppose it simply haven't been educated on the subject, or they judge it as wrong before anyone can properly explain it.

Hypocrisy????

Yes, we can pose some theories from what evolution tells us, but it's impossible to gain a real understanding of what exactly happened 13,500,000,000 years ago.

Just to check here – you do know that evolution most commonly refers to the biology theory regarding varying allele frequencies that lead to the diversification of life on earth?
When you use evolution in relation to the universe you are using the word in its colloquial non-scientific use. An example of this usage would be the phrase chemical evolution which is simply chemistry/nuclear physics, which is not in any way related to the passing on of heritable traits that underline its scientific usage.