Evolution vs Creationism?

[The Hammer]

Why the hell is it even a debate/discussion*?

Isn't the simplest explanation and solution to this debate (for those of Creation slant) be that God or Gods created the universe AND evolution?

Nothing had to be created "as is", that's a ridiculous notion, considering none of us are the same person, we were yesterday. Everything and everyone is constantly changing.

Edited*

 

[Heyo]

Why the hell is it even a debate?

Isn't the simplest explanation and solution to this debate (for those of Creation slant) be that God or Gods created the universe AND evolution?

Nothing had to be created "as is", that's a ridiculous notion, considering none of us are the same person, we were yesterday. Everything and everyone is constantly changing.

"But it says so in the book." - Ken Ham, paraphrased

 

[Viker]

"But it says so in the book." - Ken Ham, paraphrased

Ham can't even get his own book straight.

 

[Viker]

Honestly, I don't see the big debate points in contention being made as relevant anymore. Why can't there be a scientific causal agent? A creator/designer that has used a rational and logical means to set in motion everything? In other words, a *god or gods that have used a scientific methodology. I don't necessarily believe it so. But in a related debate it would make a stronger case than the Bible told me so.

*Amend: they don't have to be considered god or gods, either.

 

[Windwalker]

Why the hell is it even a debate?

Because people are hung up on how they've always imagined it from early childhood on in the stories they were told, written to humans living in a prescientific world? It's difficult for people to reimagine the story in technical terms? The simplified version is more accessible?

Isn't the simplest explanation and solution to this debate (for those of Creation slant) be that God or Gods created the universe AND evolution?

Yes, that is a lot easier. I go further and say that evolution is God creating, in the present continuous tense. It's quite a miraculous thing, when you think about it, isn't it?

Nothing had to be created "as is", that's a ridiculous notion, considering none of us are the same person, we were yesterday.

That's just a simplified version for children to imagine God in magical terms and language. God creating humans from dust and spit to make clay figurines, and then breathing life into them in one afternoon, is a quick and easy image, as opposed to speaking about the processes of evolution and genetic adaptation and the like. Tell that to children as a bedtime story, and they'll soon all be asleep!

They're not interested in technical details. That's not the real point of the story. Genesis is the storyteller's version of the magic of evolution, could be one way to look at it.

Everything and everyone is constantly changing.

Yes, the Creation, is continuous. It didn't happen once and everything remains the same now. That's just a simplified storytelling version, not a scientific explanation of how things are actually created in nature.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It only exists because it says a literal reading of Genesis could not have happened.
But plenty of religious views have held all life is related, what we have is how Creation was made, and their is no reason for this controversy to exist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why the hell is it even a debate?

I don't know that I would call it a debate if it doesn't involve the scientific community. They aren't even listening. And not just to the creationists, either. They aren't listening to anybody, including the scientifically literate who happen to agree with them. Why would they?

It's only this second group that hear and answer the creationists, but I wouldn't call that much of a debate, either. The creationists aren't taken seriously. They are corrected. Their errors in science and reason are what are of interest to critical thinkers, not the case for creationism, which is nothing but incredulity and ignorantiam fallacies, essentially, "I don't see it, plus you can't disprove God," or objections such as you weren't there to see it and you can't repeat it, so you're just guessing.

Also, maybe you meant disagreement rather than debate. Debate requires rebuttal, which is the presentation of counterarguments which, if sound, demonstrate that the original argument wrong, something like falsification with contradictory evidence, but using words to falsify claims. When does that ever happen? Debate ends with the first plausible, unrebutted claim, which is usually the first response to the creationist's post. It's like ping-pong where every volley lasts exactly two shots: a serve, a return, then an irrelevant comment that doesn't address the rebuttal. I don't think I've seen a single exception to that, a single rebuttal from a creationist, just unsupported dissent.

 

[Kenny]

Why the hell is it even a debate?

Isn't the simplest explanation and solution to this debate (for those of Creation slant) be that God or Gods created the universe AND evolution?

Nothing had to be created "as is", that's a ridiculous notion, considering none of us are the same person, we were yesterday. Everything and everyone is constantly changing.

You are right... it could be that way as a Christian because scripture doesn't address how it happened although I would draw the line on today's humankind.

Question.

I could be wrong, but I believe the Natural Museum of Natural History London is one of the largest museums on the history of evolution. (80 million objects)

Is there one of the 80 million that we can say is a transitional species?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Why the hell is it even a debate?

I think:

• Many grow up being told week after week that there are proofs of scripture, proofs to believe in God, to believe in miracles, to believe in the afterlife. Also we are told that there is a malicious supernatural intelligence out there seeking to deceive us and to cause us not to believe in God, in miracles, in the afterlife and in being moral people.
• Existence itself makes no sense to a person, generally. The world is a wonderful and strange place, and it makes no sense for it to exist or us either. In fact, not much makes sense. Even with all we can learn about the natural processes of this world and even being able to measure and mathematically engineer, it still just doesn't make sense. Why is there anything? This is a question every mind asks and which the world never answers. It is usually answered through philosophical pondering or through analogy or guessing.
  
• Psychologically it feels good to be important. It is a little bit like being loved, and many of us don't feel loved enough. To feel important is a wonderful thing. This is why some people crudely suggest that religion is a crutch. It makes you feel important, sometimes. You are made for a purpose. You can talk to the creator of everything, make your complaints known and expect that your words have universal impact, and you might be basing this upon belief in proofs of scripture and of God.
• Theologians such as Ken Ham and CS Lewis are afraid to let people be without proofs and afraid for us to become too obsessed with tech. They attack technology, attack Science and associate it with Satan, a malicious roving intelligence desperate to ruin humanity and all good things. They write to silence questions, write against letting us decide things for ourselves. They do not trust the next generation to deal with the world's problems.
  
• Leftists constantly push for extreme social change and with a history of bloody revolutions and heads on spikes. Nothing ever seems good enough for them. They tend to support CS Lewis conclusions about Science and war technology and Satan etc. when they get involved with bloody revolutions and call religion the source of all evil. Think about what the Nazis did in the name of Science and against the fundamental principles of tolerance and peace, and they were thought to be Marxists and socialists and leftists. They claimed that euthanasia was scientific and the right thing, performing exactly the horrors that would assure that there was a malicious evil intelligence about. They started another world war. There were many bloody leftist attempts, and think about what the USSR did in the name of Science and how leftists proclaimed the end of religion and of God. What they did was repeated in other places: Cambodia, China. They made themselves the enemies of religions. Marxism was for quite a while closely associated with Evolution and other progressive ideas. They were considered part of the same shipment. All were bloodied together in the wars. This has everything to do with your question: "Why the hell is it even a debate?"
  
• Educational institutions have failed to teach students about how the world works. Many students spend 12 years to learn only how to read and write and add. They aren't required to master subjects but are mainly just required to spend years in school, and it shows. When they don't have an ability to tell fake from real it shows. So one of the answers to "Why the hell is it even a debate" is that its less of a debate than a shouting match based upon feelings than a real debate.
• The prevalence of Science Fiction has had a chilling effect. Its not always interesting and fun. Its not always about utopias. Its about a cold universe where the strongest survive, and this frightens people. They see the cold and the unfriendly in Sci Fi and associate it with what they see in the cities, that brisk and unfriendly street attitude. Then they contrast that with the love of Christ or the love of Krishna or the love of...etc.
  
• Before Christianity the world was worse. People are afraid that Evolution might undermine that.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Why the hell is it even a debate?

Isn't the simplest explanation and solution to this debate (for those of Creation slant) be that God or Gods created the universe AND evolution?

Nothing had to be created "as is", that's a ridiculous notion, considering none of us are the same person, we were yesterday. Everything and everyone is constantly changing.

The debate will be: which is God or who is God?

The second debate will be: If God designed/created the universe, life and species, or living organisms, did He use Evolution, for biology only, in this example, non-intelligently guided change of frequency alleles or not? If not, then, Evolution is wrong and the change that we see in biological world must be Biological Interrelation, BiTs, from the new Intelligent Design <id>.

But before we could conclude about intelligently guided or not intelligently guided change, we needed first to debate, the third debate, of what is intelligence? The new <id>, from me, I discovered the definition and explanation of intelligence, and solved it.

Thus, the debate is OVER. Evolution is wrong since intelligence was discovered. The fourth debate will be: can you accept that Evolution is wrong or you will rediscover the topic of intelligence (probably, intelligence = non-intelligence) and fight the new <id>. Then, do it and win against the new <id>.

 

[The Hammer]

Thus, the debate is OVER. Evolution is wrong since intelligence was discovered

Then I have no reason to to debate with you if that is how you feel.

I will not be answering your other questions, goodbye.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Then I have no reason to to debate with you if that is how you feel.

I will not be answering your other questions, goodbye.

I did not feel it. I discovered intelligence. I think you have an unbalanced emotion. Science is not based on feeling or emotion.

Either you will accept that Evolution is wrong or you will defend Evolution and rediscover intelligence or its variants.

Goodbye, if you cannot answer that. That shows that you are not doing and following real science.

 

[The Hammer]

Either you will accept that Evolution is wrong or you will defend Evolution and rediscover intelligence or its variants.

Or I'll ignore you for being overly pedantic. Have a good day.

Love you friend.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

The argument is not evolution vs creationism. Even Ken Ham believes that evolution has happened in a micro-scale. The argument is really old vs new Earth creationism. In old Earth creationism evolution just happened on a much wider scale, thus appearing to people as the evolution argument. At one point even evolution had to be created. Some people just believe it was billions of years ago and others believe it was thousands.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

The argument is not evolution vs creationism. Even Ken Ham believes that evolution has happened in a micro-scale. The argument is really old vs new Earth creationism. In old Earth creationism evolution just happened on a much wider scale, thus appearing to people as the evolution argument. At one point even evolution had to be created. Some people just believe it was billions of years ago and others believe it was thousands.

There is no Evolution, either in OEC or YEC if intelligence cannot support Evolution. Either the Evolutionists will bend logic and claim, intelligence = non-intelligence.

 

[Heyo]

Question.

I could be wrong, but I believe the Natural Museum of Natural History London is one of the largest museums on the history of evolution. (80 million objects)

Is there one of the 80 million that we can say is a transitional species?

There are 80 million.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Some things should just be left alone and starved to death.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is there one of the 80 million that we can say is a transitional species?

You and I are a transitional species between what was and what will be. Everything living thing is a transition from one thing to another.
It's not like lining up crayons into a rainbow order. It's more like a rainbow where there is no clear distinction when red becomes orange and so on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are right... it could be that way as a Christian because scripture doesn't address how it happened although I would draw the line on today's humankind.

Question.

I could be wrong, but I believe the Natural Museum of Natural History London is one of the largest museums on the history of evolution. (80 million objects)

Is there one of the 80 million that we can say is a transitional species?

Almost every one is a transitional species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no Evolution, either in OEC or YEC if intelligence cannot support Evolution. Either the Evolutionists will bend logic and claim, intelligence = non-intelligence.

When you learn logic then maybe you can make that claim.