Just for fun lets argue creation and evolution!

[gseeker]

Only this time I want evolution argued for by creationists and creation and young earth theory argued for by evolutionists. This is to give both groups a chance to not only see how good they are at debate but expose both strongly help beliefs to the opposite view point without malicious comments getting in the way. I'm more than willing to argue both sides and I hope others can take this seriously and do the same.

 

[secret2]

I admire your noble intention but don't see how anything useful would come out of it. I'll sit back watch

 

[mycorrhiza]

Okay, I'm on! The creationist version of me will be the one in colored text. I promise not to use the banana example

First of all, there is quite a controversy surrounding evolution in the scientific world. There are many scientists that don't believe in evolution. While there is a lot of evidence for microevolution, which I accept, there is absolutely no evidence for macroevolution or life coming from nothing. Evolutionists still want to hold on to these ideas, despite there being no evidence.

How would you evolutionists explain how everything could happen this exact way to make life so perfect? The odds are like a tornado sweeping in over a scrapyard and successfully assembling a Boeing 747.

If evolution is true, why doesn't new forms of single-cell organisms pop up everywhere? Evolution says life came from nothing, so shouldn't it happen more than once?

 

[gseeker]

Okay, I'm on! The creationist version of me will be the one in colored text. I promise not to use the banana example

First of all, there is quite a controversy surrounding evolution in the scientific world. There are many scientists that don't believe in evolution. While there is a lot of evidence for microevolution, which I accept, there is absolutely no evidence for macroevolution or life coming from nothing. Evolutionists still want to hold on to these ideas, despite there being no evidence.

How would you evolutionists explain how everything could happen this exact way to make life so perfect? The odds are like a tornado sweeping in over a scrapyard and successfully assembling a Boeing 747.

If evolution is true, why doesn't new forms of single-cell organisms pop up everywhere? Evolution says life came from nothing, so shouldn't it happen more than once?

There are a lot of creationist scientists but without a faith in God they would have no reason to look beyond evolution as an explanation of our existence. You also claim that there are a lot of creation scientists. But the fact is the percentage of creation scientists is tiny compared to those who believe in evolutionary theory.

You mention random chance but you mention one event over a very short time, evolution is multiple small changes over a period of 4.5 billion years. As for the development of single cell creatures from nothing that is abiogenesis not evolution.

Proof does exist of the creation of new creatures in modern times. For proof just look how a tiger and a lion can mate creating a new species out of two different species. The truth is self evident. You also have ring species which proves that as different creatures mate eventually the beganing genetic creature can no longer mate with the genetic creatures unilaterally removed because the genetic structure has been changed to a point that makes conception impossible.

 

[mycorrhiza]

There are a lot of creationist scientists but without a faith in God they would have no reason to look beyond evolution as an explanation of our existence. You also claim that there are a lot of creation scientists. But the fact is the percentage of creation scientists is tiny compared to those who believe in evolutionary theory.

The fact that there are at least some scientists that question evolution means that evolution is yet to be a scientific fact. Some scientists have looked at the evidence available and concluded that evolution is false and creation is true. The reason this isn't accepted in scientific journals is that the other scientists are trying to keep their atheistic agenda. I agree that there is no need to look beyond evolution if they don't believe in God, which is why they want evolution to be true. They don't want there to be a God.

You mention random chance but you mention one event over a very short time, evolution is multiple small changes over a period of 4.5 billion years. As for the development of single cell creatures from nothing that is abiogenesis not evolution.

Small changes, yes, but evolution would need big to work. You're talking about mutations, right? Well, nearly all mutations are detrimental to the survival of an invididual. For evolution to be true, there would have to be millions of good mutations happening in the exact correct order, and that just aint happening. Evolution doesn't work without abiogenesis, because it must have a beginning. Different subjects, but they're still highly related.

While I agree that there is enough time for evolution to happen, the laws of nature go against it.

Proof does exist of the creation of new creatures in modern times. For proof just look how a tiger and a lion can mate creating a new species out of two different species. The truth is self evident.

That is microevolution, which I am totally fine with since it's a scientific fact. Both tigers and lions belong to the "big cat" kind, one of the two different cat kinds (the other being "small cats" like housecats and wildcats).

You also have ring species which proves that as different creatures mate eventually the beganing genetic creature can no longer mate with the genetic creatures unilaterally removed because the genetic structure has been changed to a point that makes conception impossible.

Since no transitional forms have ever been observed, the ring species are simply different kinds that are superficially similar. They're often located far from eachother, which is further evidence that they are simply different kinds. The reason for the genetic and superficial similarities are probably due to them being designed by the same God.

 

[gseeker]

First many Christian scientists believe evolution is a valid theory, way more than believe in creation. That completely ruins your rhetoric that its a conspiracy by atheist to discredit the existence of God. You claim that nearly all mutations are detrimental to a species survival but in fact most mutations are neither detrimental or beneficial. What mutations are detrimental to a creature will kill that creature off and what mutations, such as a resistance to pesticides for insects, will increase their survivability. As time goes on those populations increase and those without the benefit of said genetic mutation will slowly die out, evolution in action.

Notice when you said kind in reference to cats, that could be considered a 'kind' but species no. Macro evolution starts at change from one species to another as we see in this instance.

Ring species have been observed in scientific studies under laboratory conditions and has been proven over and over again. As to your argument are you just saying that everything came into being between 6000 to 10000 years ago to defeat the concept of evolution or are you saying that evolution is claiming that God doesn't exist? You could always have the argument that abiogenesis did not happen but that God created basic life and that that life evolved in the system that God set up? Evolution by it self does not have to exclude God.

 

[idav]

Scientists don't even know everything about time and they pretend to know our history. They wouldn't know the difference between a thousand vs a million years!!

 

[Father Heathen]

God said it, I believe it, That settles it.

Am I doing it right?

 

[gseeker]

Scientists don't even know everything about time and they pretend to know our history. They wouldn't know the difference between a thousand vs a million years!!

Time? Interesting that you said that. People since ancient times have judged time based upon light waves both from the sun and the stars. Scientist can also judge the speed of light so they have a very good understanding of time. Time is space and they judge time by the speed of light through space. That provides evidence of an old earth that provides the time needed for evolution to reach the stage it is currently observed.

 

[freethinker44]

Just for fun lets argue creation and evolution!

Well that doesn't sound fun at all.

 

[gseeker]

Well that doesn't sound fun at all.

LOL it always fun to say something and go "snap!, in yo face!!!!"

 

[freethinker44]

LOL it always fun to say something and go "snap!, in yo face!!!!"

Yeah except that doesn't work on creationists. They have built everything they believe on ignoring evidence, it is almost impossible to get someone like that to recognize any points you make.

Typical creationist vs. evolution argument:

Evolutionist: (insert well researched, carefully crafted, nearly iron-clad argument here) (include multiple sources)

Creationist: (puts fingers in ears) "lalalalala, I can't here you, lalalalala... I win" (no sources)

 

[gseeker]

Some creationists do that but some can take your evidence and show why they have come to a different conclusion. That is the reason I started this thread. By arguing the opposite point that a person believe it proves that they can rationally research and consider their opponents point of view. Evolutionists will often throw out arguments just rehashing what they have always heard without thinking about it first. This is designed to get people away from unilateral thought.

 

[mycorrhiza]

First many Christian scientists believe evolution is a valid theory, way more than believe in creation. That completely ruins your rhetoric that its a conspiracy by atheist to discredit the existence of God.

They claim to be Christians, but they don't seem to believe in the Bible. Evolution is not in the Bible, it's an atheist invention.

You claim that nearly all mutations are detrimental to a species survival but in fact most mutations are neither detrimental or beneficial. What mutations are detrimental to a creature will kill that creature off and what mutations, such as a resistance to pesticides for insects, will increase their survivability. As time goes on those populations increase and those without the benefit of said genetic mutation will slowly die out, evolution in action.

Since there are so many, every population would die out because of all the detrimental mutations. There are no truly beneficial mutations, so evolution can't happen. The resistance to pesticides only works in a single environment, and it needs to work in all environment, otherwise it is not truly beneficial. There are many mutations that make animals unable to fully function, but there are no mutations that make animals better in all environments.

Notice when you said kind in reference to cats, that could be considered a 'kind' but species no. Macro evolution starts at change from one species to another as we see in this instance.

Macroevolution would have to be changes in kinds. What scientists call species is not species, they just changed the definition to fit evolution, because they knew that kinds didn't evolve into other kinds. When I see a hippopotamus turn into a cat, I will believe evolution.

Ring species have been observed in scientific studies under laboratory conditions and has been proven over and over again.

No it hasn't. They have only shown microevolution.

As to your argument are you just saying that everything came into being between 6000 to 10000 years ago to defeat the concept of evolution or are you saying that evolution is claiming that God doesn't exist?

No, I'm an old earth creationist (the days used in Genesis refer to long periods of time). Yes, if evolution is true, then the Bible is false and then what it says about God must also be false. The scientists don't want God to exist, because they want to be able to live immoral lives, so they spend all their time trying to disprove God.

You could always have the argument that abiogenesis did not happen but that God created basic life and that that life evolved in the system that God set up? Evolution by it self does not have to exclude God.

It excludes the Christian God since it's not in the Bible. Those who call themselves Christians and still believe in evolution are fooling themselves and pickin and choosing whatever they want from the Bible, and that's not how it should work.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Some creationists do that but some can take your evidence and show why they have come to a different conclusion.

Actually, I've yet to see any creationist provide actual evidence for creation or against evolution. The arguments used are all the same arguments that have been disproved countless of times. You very rarely see any actual original research from "creation scientists" either, and no peer-reviewed works published in actual scientific journals.

I have nothing against creationism, but people should recognize that it's not science, it's religion. Evolution is a scientific fact, but that doesn't mean that people have to believe in it anymore than they have to believe in gravity. After all, there are idealist monists and since they believe that the physical world is just an illusion, they don't need to accept any scientific theory whatsoever.

 

[rusra02]

Only this time I want evolution argued for by creationists and creation and young earth theory argued for by evolutionists. This is to give both groups a chance to not only see how good they are at debate but expose both strongly help beliefs to the opposite view point without malicious comments getting in the way. I'm more than willing to argue both sides and I hope others can take this seriously and do the same.

You equate YEC and belief in a Creator as if they go together. They do not. I believe in a Creator and do not believe in evolution. Neither do I believe in YEC theories.

 

[gseeker]

Folks I'm not going to be able to continue this thread for a little while, my mother just disowned me and I'm dealing with a little bit of pain right now so I might not be responding for a little while.

 

[Man of Faith]

I can't argue for evolution in the same way that I can't bow down to an idol.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Folks I'm not going to be able to continue this thread for a little while, my mother just disowned me and I'm dealing with a little bit of pain right now so I might not be responding for a little while.

That sucks I hope things get better soon! Good luck!

 

[mycorrhiza]

I can't argue for evolution in the same way that I can't bow down to an idol.

If I have interpreted Paul correctly, you can bow down to an idol as long as you know that the idol isn't real and you have the spirit of God in you. At least that's what he said about eating food offered to idols, which is permitted as long as it doesn't cause other people to get harmed physically or spiritually, and since everyone would know that it wasn't your own opinions, no harm is done.