NationStates Jolt Archive

(Okay, I just used that title to attract attention)

But anyone, I think evolution is false.

Feel free to agree/disagree/discuss/argue/whatever.

(Okay, I just used that title to attract attention)

But anyone, I think evolution is false.

Feel free to agree/disagree/discuss/argue/whatever.
Evolution Vs. Creationism, 3.0 it seems.

This has been discussed to death. Your side lost. Get over it.

It's simple

Evolution=Evidence
Creationism=No Evidence

It's simple

Evolution=Evidence
Creationism=No Evidence

No - Wait.... there is loads of evidence for Creationism... theres..... erm.... there's the.... um, what do you call it..... they...

this guy on the radio - he said....

erm...

okay, you win.

Evolution Vs. Creationism, 3.0 it seems.

This has been discussed to death. Your side lost. Get over it.

more than 100 years ago, i might add.

But anyone, I think evolution is false.

why?

why?

Er, first of all, I meant anyway, not anyone. Second, I didn't realize this thread has been milked to death. Let's let this thread die. Sorry, folks.

why?
NOOOO!!!!

Don't ask, you'll start this again, and its pointless.

No - Wait.... there is loads of evidence for Creationism... theres..... erm.... there's the.... um, what do you call it..... they...

this guy on the radio - he said....

erm...

okay, you win.
The Bible dummy. :D Thats all the proof you'll ever need. It's a collection of historical facts and events!!! :p

The Bible dummy. :D Thats all the proof you'll ever need. It's a collection of historical facts and events!!! :p

Yeah... that's it, the bibble.... I remember... there was this guy that was made out of clay, and this girl who got turned into salt.

And this thing about fires in bushes, and how gods' voice is thunder, and the magical healing powers of water...

erm...

a big boat?

Sure showed them pesky evolutionists...

Yeah... that's it, the bibble.... I remember... there was this guy that was made out of clay, and this girl who got turned into salt.

And this thing about fires in bushes, and how gods' voice is thunder, and the magical healing powers of water...

erm...

a big boat?

Sure showed them pesky evolutionists...
A big boat, with two of EVERY animal on it, even the ones which hadn't been discovered yet.

Not this crap again...

I suggest the next person who creates a thread like this post EVERY idea of both sides and only allow new ideas/evidence into the thread. That way, we will still get nowhere but at least we are covering new stuff.

Evolution Vs. Creationism, 3.0 it seems.

This has been discussed to death. Your side lost. Get over it.


Just because you say you won doesn't mean you did. Evolution is crap and can't be proven.

Let's let the thread die, huh? No offense, but as CSW and others have said, this topic has been milked to death.

I've been strongly considering a philosophical view called "subjective idealism", which holds that the world is actually perceptions and ideas in our minds and depends on our minds to exist. If this view is so, then evolution can't be true, though creationism in the Christian sense isn't, either. I argue that evolution is the result of a new mindset that evolved in the Enlightenment era, when reason was highly emphasized.

It's ironic, really. The theory of evolution is based on cold hard logic, and yet it basically posits that humans are animals driven not by reason, but by the same sorts of irrational forces governing other animals in the quest for survival.

It's ironic, really. The theory of evolution is based on cold hard logic, and yet it basically posits that humans are animals driven not by reason, but by the same sorts of irrational forces governing other animals in the quest for survival.
Evolutionists don't believe that. The development of the human species was caused by largely random forces but these random forces molded a species capable of reason.

Evolutionists don't believe that. The development of the human species was caused by largely random forces but these random forces molded a species capable of reason.

I was hoping that they had moved beyond the anthropocentrism they would undoubtedly accuse me of for holding a metaphysical theory that posits that the universe is the perception of minds.

I was hoping that they had moved beyond the anthropocentrism they would undoubtedly accuse me of for holding a metaphysical theory that posits that the universe is the perception of minds.
Believing that humans can reason isn't necessarily antropocentrism though.

Just because you say you won doesn't mean you did. Evolution is crap and can't be proven.

Neither can Creationism. And don't cite the bible as a source: it is NOT an objective historical account: it is the writings of Jewish scribes in around 700 BCE concerning stories that had been passed down for generations. If there was any truth in the bible stories, it was probably lost before the bible was even written! That's not to mention the countless English translations there are of the Hebrew, etc.

The fact is, there is much more evidence for evolution than there is creationism. Deal with it. Creationist lost. Go hide in your holes and then you go away, allowing for the intelligent and educated members of society to share their correct ideas without getting flamed by religious nuts!

/Internet Rant

Yea I support evolution 110%.

Quiet about the percentage...

EDIT: I agree it's just a theory: it doesn't say anywhere in my post that it is fact; however, there is more evidence for it than for Creationism.

I agree with Karl Popper's perspective: evolutionism is a research project, not a scientific theory.
By the other side, creationism is a completely metaphysical belief; however, I am not sure creationism cannot be adapted to some kinds of evolutionism.

Actually, I think you mean "scientific fact": If it's a research project, it's a theory.

god created everything, whenever he felt it suited him, and it took him however long. there. end of story

The Bible has the monopoly on truth!!! Believe every single word of the Bible with the utmost gullibility you can muster!! Any scientific evidence that does not agree with the basic principals of the most infallible book in the universe, the bible, is horse-shit created by satan to lead the elect away from salvation!!!! Let's go and slaughter all the scientists of the world and leave only the parishioners and preachers!! Science is the devils work. The Bible is the true word of God!!

-Sincerely, the very sarcastic Tury

Ok, this was asked by a comedian, it answers alot if you think about it, If we evolved, why are there still monkeys and apes? If we evolved from them, shouldn't they look more human? In Africa they grew almost side by side with humans, so why wouldn't they come out a bit more human looking? Or why don't we look more apish?

Another thing, that sounded true, I wouldn't know, I remember a little of it, and I don't know what evidence supports it or goes against it. The fact that people can still be born will irregularities, very frequently, is a sign that evolutionism isn't what some people thought, if people continued onward and onward reproducing like we have, then we wouldn't have these irregularites. Physical and Mental disabilities wouldn't plague us, not to the extent most people have, as evolution would have weeded it out, as we reproduce we give half of our genetics and only the dominant ones are placed into a child. And in the times when only the strongest survived, such genes that caused those enfeeblements would have been nearly eradicated as the people died from it, that would be the thought unless people then were willing to take care of the sick. Now the last part the source said was that it proves that god exists because of him causing it, but were I not a man of my different belief, I might have been drawn into it more so to remember all of it, but I believe that god is just and truly forgiving, not vengeful enough to send down plagues just for the hell of it.

I dunno, I was never impressed by "evidence for evolution". I was converted to evolution when I was 11...a week later, after really thinking about it, I promptly converted back to Christianity.

But I find it amusing about all this talk about "proof for Christianity". To begin with, there is quite a bit archeological evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible (isn't that the same token evolution works on...?)...but the thing about Christianity is that Christianity can NOT be proven, unless God himself comes to every person on the planet and announces it to be so. Christianity is a faith, and that is all it ever will be in our bodily existance.

But...where Christianity is not provable, neither is evolution. Isn't it ironic how two completely polar beliefs are so similiar? Both have "evidence" for them from acheological findings...but none of this evidence can be truely verified and none of this evidence really proves anything other than the theory works, not neccessarily that it's true. You can NOT prove Christianity and you can NOT prove evolution. No matter how much archeological proof you find verifying the Bible, it can never prove Christianity...and no matter how much acheological proof your find verifying evolution, you can never prove the "theory". So, all in all, your debates are pointless.

:headbang:

Neither can Creationism. And don't cite the bible as a source: it is NOT an objective historical account: it is the writings of Jewish scribes in around 700 BCE concerning stories that had been passed down for generations. If there was any truth in the bible stories, it was probably lost before the bible was even written! That's not to mention the countless English translations there are of the Hebrew, etc.

The fact is, there is much more evidence for evolution than there is creationism. Deal with it. Creationist lost. Go hide in your holes and then you go away, allowing for the intelligent and educated members of society to share their correct ideas without getting flamed by religious nuts!

/Internet Rant

Yea I support evolution 110%.

Quiet about the percentage...

EDIT: I agree it's just a theory: it doesn't say anywhere in my post that it is fact; however, there is more evidence for it than for Creationism.

Not all religious people are nuts, only the deep southern ones, or the strict catholics. I resent that remark, as well as that there are far more intelligent people who are well educated and members of society who want to share their theoretically correct ideas, and I doubt they're afraid of people on the internet flaming their ideas. You put forth too much effort and belief in scientific humans being intelligent, I know many who are close-minded and won't even bother listening to someone else's beliefs just because he doesn't want to hear this slander to what he knows.

I dunno, I was never impressed by "evidence for evolution". I was converted to evolution when I was 11...a week later, after really thinking about it, I promptly converted back to Christianity.

But I find it amusing about all this talk about "proof for Christianity". To begin with, there is quite a bit archeological evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible (isn't that the same token evolution works on...?)...but the thing about Christianity is that Christianity can NOT be proven, unless God himself comes to every person on the planet and announces it to be so. Christianity is a faith, and that is all it ever will be in our bodily existance.

But...where Christianity is not provable, neither is evolution. Isn't it ironic how two completely polar beliefs are so similiar? Both have "evidence" for them from acheological findings...but none of this evidence can be truely verified and none of this evidence really proves anything other than the theory works, not neccessarily that it's true. You can NOT prove Christianity and you can NOT prove evolution. No matter how much archeological proof you find verifying the Bible, it can never prove Christianity...and no matter how much acheological proof your find verifying evolution, you can never prove the "theory". So, all in all, your debates are pointless.

:headbang:

I'm quite certain micro-evolution has already been proven to exist. As for macro-evolution, that's more subjective.

Ok, this was asked by a comedian, it answers alot if you think about it, If we evolved, why are there still monkeys and apes?
We didn't. We evolved from the same base creature that they did. A proto-chimp sort of thing. Some of them lived in one place, others lived in another. The ones that lived in place A found it advantagous to have certain characteristics over others, and the ones that lived in place B found it advantagous to have some (different) characteristics over others. Over time, the two populations diverged and became different animals incapable of breeding with one another.

Okay, that was really simple, but thats the gist of it.

The fact that people can still be born will irregularities, very frequently, is a sign that evolutionism isn't what some people thought, if people continued onward and onward reproducing like we have, then we wouldn't have these irregularites.
Well, one; Humanity doesn't actually function on the "survival of the genes that last until reproductive age" principal anymore. Therefore, things that are bad for survival in the purest sense (like a stigmatism or muscular dystrophy) get passed around quite a bit.

Two; Things which are "bad" in some situations aren't bad in others. Sickle Cell Anemia, for example, is horrendous in its dominant form. People who are only carriers, though, are... Either immune or resistant (I can't remember which) to malaria. Thats a pretty handy thing to have in a place like Minnesota, where there are lots of mosquitos... Or in Central America, where there are lots of jungles AND mosquitos.

Three; Variation in reproductive "flaws" is neat and if life, the universe, and everything has taught us anything; Its that the divine (or universe, take your pick) has a very very very sick sense of humor.

so, after reading that, id just like to know...

Do any of you achually understand how or even what evolution really is?

And did you know you can see it every day? (with a microscpe)

Bacteria and viruses multiply at an alarming rate, making it possible for them to evolve quickly. This is where antibiotic resistant bacteria comes from, evolution. Those that are unfit to survive are lost and the gene pool is those only capable of living.

Look at Ebola. There is nothing on the planet that comes close to it. I think we know the origional viral strain that it came from, but it is so genetically differant from it that it has to have evolved to be that way, or God just decided that the parent virus to ebola wasn't cutting it. Things dont just appear on the planet, or else there would be evidence of that.

Seriously, if you want a good topic of evolutionary discussion, you should familiarize yourselves with terrance maccenna.

Then we can talk about the effects of psychodelic mushrooms on the evolution of the human consciousness.

<ajax> Some people...have the idea that evolution is a fucking system of...
<ajax> "oh i need flippers, i'd better grow some" type bullshit. :P
<ajax> It's more like "Oh shit look at that freak over there with the flippers hahaha OH SHIT I AM DROWNING OH GOD SAVE ME FLIPPER BOY".

taken from http://bash.org/?95326

Seriously, you wanna know why any given species still exists despite the theory of evolution? Simple answer - it hasn't drowned childless yet.

Actually, I think you mean "scientific fact": If it's a research project, it's a theory.
I actually meant "scientific theory". Popper's falsificasionism says that a theory is scientific only if it can propose an experience that could eventually show that the one or more statements of the theory are false. If yiu can't imagine such experience to a scientific theory, so the theory is not scientific - it´s a research program (e.g. the evolutionary biology) or it´s just pseudoscientific (e.g. the Freudian theory of mind).
A research project can generate lots of theories, but it is not itself a theory.

^^^^^^^

:d

It's ironic, really. The theory of evolution is based on cold hard logic, and yet it basically posits that humans are animals driven not by reason, but by the same sorts of irrational forces governing other animals in the quest for survival.

Your point?
Humans kill each other for land and resources. (See: Every war mankind has waged)
Animals kill each other for land and resources.(see: Chimps and their wars on each other, colubus monkeys, and baboons)

Well, I will take the side of evolution, but I favour the idea that not all evolution takes place over thousands of generations, but that evolution can be a swift response to major shifts in planetary conditions, requiring big changes over relatively short intervals of time.

Creationism- well, it's frankly not credible. Look, the Bible wasn't written by God, it was written by a number of people over hundreds of years, and the old testament wasn't even committed to the written form for a longer time than that.

God is described in as many different ways as God is worshipped. Whether you perceive God as one entity, as a dualistic pair, as a three-for-one combo, or as an entire pantheon of Gods, God has been around an awful long time. Since before there were any books of any sort. But what is a book, anyway- when it's compared to the universe? It's a small, small thing. a well-intentioned thing, no doubt, but...it's lacking in all the ways that matter.

Just an aside here, but: why do people feel that God needs a weekly affirmation? God is, well, God, right? This entire continuum is God's creation, God personally invested himself into all creation. So then, why does God need to be told once a week how great he is? Isn't he around? Doesn't he have a pretty good idea just how fab-o this whole existence thing is? It seems to me that God doesn't need the ego stroke half as much as the clergy needs new vestments. Besides, what does God need with clergy, anyway? Aren't we, all of us, as much the children of God as those in the employ of organised religion? A priest or minister is like a lawyer- interpreting layer upon layer of archaic nonsense laid down in another time, focusing on the fine print. God is best served by enjoying his creation and everybody in it, not by sycophancy.

Okay, that was more than just "an aside", but that's stream of consciousness for you.

Your point?
Humans kill each other for land and resources. (See: Every war mankind has waged)
Animals kill each other for land and resources.(see: Chimps and their wars on each other, colubus monkeys, and baboons)

Except for Benobo Chimpanzees, who resolve conflict by having sex...and to whom we are even more closely related than the Chimps Jane Goodall studied...

Except for Benobo Chimpanzees, who resolve conflict by having sex...and to whom we are even more closely related than the Chimps Jane Goodall studied...

are those the chimps whose communication is based upon sex too?

NOOOO!!!!

Don't ask, you'll start this again, and its pointless.

i can't help it man, i just need one more hit, just one more.

For the sake of God almighty, will anyone state the obvious here?!

Number one, Evolution happens. Gee guys, I'm so sorry if you think otherwise, but the theory of evolution just makes too much freaking sense. Genetics change, animals change slightly, if it's an improvement, they do better. It works. I have yet to see anyone ever tell me that genetics cannot change to benifit animals.

However, I now say something to tick EVERYONE off. How about we say that as none of us are over 110 years of age, and (big revelation here) were not around at the beginning of time. HEY! I think I just might have hit on something. I studied peleontology literally since I was 2 until I was 16. There are massive holes and unexplained things in the fossil record. Don't you dare try and tell me there aren't. No one is scientifically "sure" of anything that happened, including the "Big Bang" theory, the start of life on earth and it's process of giving rise to nearly a quarter of current living mammels, much less the billions of species of insects.

Now I round on my own comrades, the Creationists. Only by faith can you accept Creationism. I find faith in it myself. It does no good except to defend that it is possible, and in our hearts is true. Do not go bashing the Evolutionists, just make them aware that our answer is possible. It cannot be proved and asks us to explain hundreds of millions of archeological finds. I have in my own heart, but that is a matter of faith.

Debate is good, but bugger it, it seems like none of you like looking at the facts. I'll admit myself that I am not nearly as good about it as I should be, but chill out, all of you. Evolutionists, why don't you actually read the Bible and all the things it says. I did it, it was most enlightening. Creationists, read The Origin of Species. It will greatly assist you in understanding where the opposing side is coming from. Steven J. Gould is the current big theorist on the subject, if you would prefer him.

Now, sit down, discuss quietly, and play nice.

May the Lord bless you all and give you wisdom in your hearts.

-R. S. of UC

we have outgrown our need for religion to help us understand the universe

we now have the church of math and scientific method

Ok, this was asked by a comedian, it answers alot if you think about it, If we evolved, why are there still monkeys and apes? If we evolved from them, shouldn't they look more human? In Africa they grew almost side by side with humans, so why wouldn't they come out a bit more human looking? Or why don't we look more apish?


We didn't evolve from the primates that we share the world with today, we share a common ancestor with them.

we have outgrown our need for religion to help us understand the universe

we now have the church of math and scientific method

which just goes to prove you really can't teach an old dog new tricks. We've exchanged one form of dogma for another.

Why not live life unbounded instead? Screw the church, both the old- and the new!

we have outgrown our need for religion to help us understand the universe

we now have the church of math and scientific method

ANd the biggest difference between them is that one teaches us that all matter in the universe sprang forth from a single source... and the other... uh... hmm...

:D

we now have the church of math and scientific method

...forgive us our miscalculations as we forgive those who miscalculate against us. and lead us not into obscure journals that nobody reads, but deliver us into tenure. for thine is the well endowed research institution, and the funding, and the glory, forever and ever. amen.

which just goes to prove you really can't teach an old dog new tricks. We've exchanged one form of dogma for another.

Why not live life unbounded instead? Screw the church, both the old- and the new!

obviously

modern science is trying to do what origional religion tried to do, explain the universe.

ones based on objectivity, ones based on 2000 year old documents....

one is based on the idea that we must observe and remove our biases, the other has systems of control that go as far as dictated psysical movements.

obviously

modern science is trying to do what origional religion tried to do, explain the universe.

ones based on objectivity, ones based on 2000 year old documents....

one is based on the idea that we must observe and remove our biases, the other has systems of control that go as far as dictated psysical movements.

Okay, but objectivity is impossible. We fool ourselves into thinking that we are objective, but reality is entirely subjective. There just happen to be a number of conventions that we agree upon as being inherently true, "the sky is blue", etc. I guess that what I'm saying is, you still have to "take it on faith", even with the church of maths and science, and therein lies the problem. It's just another expression of a limiting factor, one that I think we're better off without.

I dont see why creationism and evolution could both work together. There are two creationism stories... and the second one, if I remember correctly depicts God creating the world and all life on it, starting with water, plants, small animals, all the way up to humans. The story in the bible seems to follow a very similar order to what scientist believe the "order" or development of evolution on the planet earth. Could God have created earth and then let it evolve from there, could God have guided evolution.
I can't say I have made up my mind about whether I believe in God or creationism, but I do believe that both could co-exist together.
Just my opinion anyway.

Hmmmm... I think these are ridiculous debates, especially when any side scoffs at the other. The guys I have the most laugh are the "scientists", specially when they start sounding like 13th century scholastics (Darwin said it! Your stuff is so silly it isn't recognized by major scientists!) ... (St. Thomas said it! Those Cathars are heretics because they contradict the Paris school of theology!)

For starters, science and religion cannot even compare to one another because they are all based on different mindsets of thinking, and both have different aims in explaining phenomenom.

Science is an attempt to explain data into a coherent and logical mindest (or a theory), not to find the truth. Science by definition knows that its statements have assumptions that can and will be proved wrong. But it will uphold the explanation until a better theory can be proved. The nature of science is empirism, based on what senses perceive, but knows that by focusing on that it cannot hold to an idea, such as "truth".

In this case, fossil records and life diversity point to a process that "evolves" over time, and in which the most adapted species seem to prevail, and from the ideals of 19th century progresism, a guy name Darwin came with evolution theory. Evolution IS the best explanation the historic record of life, but it's not the final word. The problem is that the statement that species adapt to its enviroment is ad hoc, because it may be that the environment is adapting to species. Furthermore, genetics mutations keep showing even in stable "pools", and sometimes may be dominant with no apparent reason. Realize the hint into "chaos theory" and its implications?

On the other hand, Christianity is based on ideal and rational thinking, who concentrates on understanding something that by definition is beyond empirism (ideas, escense, etc..). This understanding cannot come from the senses, so religion focus on the idea of revelation, that somehow the "truth" which is unatainable by the senses, was given by an exterior entity (God). To religion, a scientific theory will always be incomplete because it fails to include the final assumptions that make it true.

Therefore, religion can adapt its beliefs with science because science can't disprove its tenents of truth. In example, the Catholic Church can "evolve" from backing Ptolemaian geocentric theory and Astrology (REMEMBER ALL WISEASSES OUT THERE, THIS WAS THE MOST ACCEPTED THEORY WHEN THE CHURCH WAS FORMED) to Copernican Heliocentricity (THE GUY WAS A PRIEST) to Newtonian physics to the Big Bang and Evolution because none are focused at the essence, and none disprove the Revelation (in other words, all can work because they were caused by a creation God).

On the other hand, Christianity is based on ideal and rational thinking, who concentrates on understanding something that by definition is beyond empirism (ideas, escense, etc..). This understanding cannot come from the senses, so religion focus on the idea of revelation, that somehow the "truth" which is unatainable by the senses, was given by an exterior entity (God). To religion, a scientific theory will always be incomplete because it fails to include the final assumptions that make it true.

noun rational
Consistent with or based on or using reason

noun reason
An explanation of the cause of some phenomenon
The capacity for rational thought or inference or discrimination
A justification for something existing or happening
A fact that logically justifies some premise or conclusion

I think you'll find that religion doesn't need to explain, infer, justify, or use logic to make its case. Calling religion rational isn't really in line with the definition I'm familiar with.

Neither is believing that absolute chance aligned molecules in such a way that life was formed.

I don't know whose reaching further; Creationists or Evolutionists

HELLO THERE IT'S ME GOD. I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUE AND THAT THE APOSTLES MADE THE BIBLE UP JUST TO COVER IT UP. THERE, IT HAS BEEN PROCLAIMED AND IT IS SO.


I DEEM THIS "CONTROVERSY" A SIN AND ANYONE WHO BRINGS THIS UP AGAIN WILL BURN IN HELL FOR IT.

-GOD ALMIGHTY