Creationism vs Evolution

My best friend had really bad eyes, and they were getting worse. She prayed for several years, but it kept getting slightly worse. One day, at a prayer meeting, she had enough, walked up to the guy, ripped her glasses off, snapped them in half, and said "Pray for my eyes." She went to a doctor's appointment a few days later, and she had perfect vision. How can someone fake that? And, since she was praying for years, if it was "power of the mind" as you say, don't you think it would have happened sooner? (btw, she has an account on this site, so I can have her come here and verify if you want)

Also! My brothers have autism, and we've been praying for years. Almost everytime we take them to a special service prayer meeting, they get slightly better. Can someone fake that?




As for the creationism vs. evolution..

I even have the link to back it up: http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67

 

The human mind is something that we as human beings have not fully come to understand. If there is just a faint glimmer of hope, the human mind can fight against any disease. Even when you're sick you know you're going to get better. But someone with cancer who are told they have x number of days to live? They're going to believe that just like a doctor who tells them that there is a slim chance they can recover.

I am not saying that your friend or your brothers couldn't have gotten better by no means don't interpret my words that way. I'm just saying it's hard for me to accept the fact that some entity up in the sky healed/is healing them.

So you quoted some other persons thoughts on the issue rather than typing out your own. Honestly that link is some person offering to give money to the person that can give him proof of what he wants to hear. Sounds like a hoax to me.

 

I stick with my simple answer of "Go find me a half evolved monkey"

 

I quoted him becuase he has the best defense against evolution I've ever seen, and he does it way better than I ever could. Plus, all my stuff is based off of his, so I figured I'd save time by linking to the orginal.

It's not a hoax. Think about this: Why would someone work so hard to defend something that is based on "Thou shalt not bear false witness", and then lie?


Also: Give me Scientific proof of evolution. (I'm talking the first 5 kinds, not microevolution)

That's what I used to say too lol

Also, why aren't we still evolving?

 

Exactly! if evolution was going on, why don't i have like [exageration]8 arms that can do 50 things at once[/exagerration] and adapt to the weather so that we nevre have to have heaeting or cooling or instant reflexes so that we can never get hurt, or somethign that instantly gets rid of viruses wihtout needing vaccines?

 

Why do we have Christian charities claiming to give money to starving children in Africa and then find out the money went to the renovvations of this church or that Christian holy site?

Man is motivated by greed.

I could easily say this: 'Give me scientific proof that there is a God.' I cannot bring forward proof of the evolution of the universe same as you cannot bring forth proof of God and the angels.

We are still evolving. More children are being born without appendixes and some people don't grow wisdom teeth.

 

Dr. Kent Hovind did in his videos. I don't remeber every single detail, so I'm not gonna put it here, but you could rent his videos (or buy them on amazon), watch them, then come back and disprove his stuff.

 

I'l leave the miracle stuff to someone else. However... Kent Hovind. The creation "scientist "(and I use that term...

VERY

loosely), that even Answers in Genesis dislike.

1. No. Chaos theory, man. The universe is extremely weird and we're just barely understand the things in it.
2. True. Howver, if there's more than one, Hovind's "hypotheses" are disproven even more than they already are.
3. Agreed.

1. Oh yes. Christianity is obviously the ONLY religion. *facepalm* I cannot say that it was not a supernatural force, but it definitely wasn't yours.
2. This is not a static universe.
3. Agreed... Except the part in the parentheses. The big bang=/= evolution.

1. NO! Big bang =/= evolution
2. Correct, but it's not the same evolution as in Australopithecus>man.
3. NO! Abiogenesis =/= evolution
4. Agreed.
5. Not "spontaneously." It evolved over billions of years.

Evolution is not a belief. It is a scientific theory that has gained a mountain of evidence over the past 150 years. With the "We must teach all worldviews" support, it's also saying that it's alright to teach white supremacy. Evolution is not a religion. A religion has (a) God(ess(es))(s) and talks about spirituality. Evolution talks about NONE. It is SCIENCE. If teaching evolution is a violation of the First Amendment, then teaching Creationism is even worse. It does alter minds. With evolution, we have created new medicines and vaccines.


Kent Hovind is currently in jail for tax frauds, by the way. Not saying this to invalidate his claims (as that would be ad hominen).

 

First off, that link is a lame thing and he has it wrong. Some of what he wrote is absolute dribble, though fancied up to look legitimate. Also, those who said it was a scam are correct. In simple, you can -never- argue logic with someone who is of absolute faith. It cannot win ever! If Christian zealots were to actually study the theories before them instead of taking the word of some stupid idiot that does not know them himself, well, we might get somewhere in this debate. I find it disturbing that even the Creationist supporters here do not know what the Big Bang Theory truly is, and yet many of us who support Evolution can take quotes from the Bible and understand them perfectly fine. Creationism scientists lie. Until someone actually looks at the Theories and doesn't just read a one-sided view, there is no way to talk with these people at all. It's like they are afraid to view the truth of what is 'really' written in theories of science, but they are so candidly motivated to pass scientists a Bible. Then we read it and go 'wtf'. At least scientists actually -read- it and study it. I have yet to see a proper study done by a Creationist and I doubt I will ever see it done. I can better debate Intelligent Design versus Evolution because both come to paths of agreement and some realism, even if 'faith' is tacked on the end for ID.

Logic is rationalizing out, studying, ****yzing and critically examining and thinking about things. It is not perfect but with the minds of many people doing so and tangible evidence, things do happen. Science is diverse though and so there are more than one theory on nearly any topic, because there are different ways with evidence to look at something. It's how Objective versus how Subjective we will be when examining things before our eyes. Objective is taking in the information and Subjective is how we perceive it and ideas that formulate around them.

Science does NOT answer all questions. As a scientist, one of the little things you do in your life is understand that you will not have all the answers to every single question and some must be left "open-ended" to be researched later or by other people in the future. Science does not go out of its way to say God doesn't exist except to point out to Christians that it WILL not exist in a "Science" research because it is something that cannot possibly be studied until we reach that point. We take -real- things, look at them. Science moves around 'Faith' because Faith does not study anything. It sees what it is told to see and what it puts in its heart to believe. Science does not, despite every zealot Christian's fear, go out of its way to say God doesn't exist and the only reason it has a problem with religion is because of issues with dating, discoveries that contradict the books in events, and we study farther than a few doctrines can ever reach.

Christian Science is a farce and should be eliminated from the realm of science altogether. It's like saying Scientology is science and it is clearly not. You cannot go into science with the point of proving something exists that you already believe in and learning things of science incorrectly to form views and solidify your faith. If the material is corrupted from the beginning, ALL results will therefore be corrupted and all this is in the end is a 'reaffirming' of someone's personal faith by skewing evidence and lying. You don't need that to believe in a religion, I would hope, but that IS what Christian Science is about.

Science is studying that which is around us and using the 5 senses. It is critical views of what is there to be noticed and what does it mean, its function, its purpose and how can it be used, altered etc. It is not going to answer solidly about God because it is something someone either believes in or does not. Atheists disbelieve in God. So, many atheists are scientists. Not all are. So, some Christians, Jews, Islamic followers are Scientists. Not all support Creationism or even support Christian Science. I know several Christians that support the Theory of Evolution and other things that 'contradict' the Bible. I work with them in archeology and learn from some of them. The studies of science are meant to come from as -neutral- of a mind as you can be and to put personal beliefs and your own 'theories' to the side line so you can investigate things with an open mind: Not a closed one which is what Christian Science does. Science itself will not go out of its way to disprove OR prove God because quite simply we do not have the answers yet to do so. However, we can study matter, atoms, water, molecules, genetics, the galaxies, black holes, wormholes, entanglement, quantum physics, biology, botany etc. No text book that kids ever read says "There is no God". It will not happen regardless of what some scientists believe because that is a personal opinion and there is no evidence. It is also a personal opinion that God exists.

Just because something marvelous exists and we study it and go 'wow' doesn't mean a -true- scientist is going to just say that "God did it" because the answer to that is unknown and to say so corrupts the work done by many people to maintain a neutral point of saying 'this is how it works in the present time and this is how it worked formerly'. ANYONE can say -anything- they find was created by God and will make some reason for it to have been possible. I can also at the same time say the Pink Puffy Jellyfish made the Milky Way Galaxy and is now sending our galaxy on a path with meeting the Andromeda Galaxy. I also can have as much 'evidence' as what extreme Christians do when they say God did it.

If I went to some meeting on the Theory of Evolution and said "The Pink Puffy Jellyfish" is responsible for all the miraculous universe and our existences, I'd be laughed out of there because I have made it a personal belief and no one else is going to believe that, even if I convince some colleagues and start a "cult". If I went to a Christian Science get together and did the same thing, I would be called blasphemous, but what makes my Pink Puffy Jellyfish any less real than God is when saying there is a Divine Creator? I too can write a book and say I was divinely inspired. All cults/religions start out that way. This is WHY exactly that the Bible can be studied for some Historic quality but other than that, it is not so accurate for much else. The only evidence of God is that there are a few books out there and a mass culture of people that 'believe' in it. This is -not- proof. The Christians of the past made sure to wipe out mythologies of Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Norse and Celtic ideals (and more) and to absorb some of their holidays and designs even to make more people believe but what makes God anymore real than Thor? If Thor is now just reduced to being of the status of a mythology, why should we treat God any different? Just because people 'believe' it does not make it true. Someday Science may have the ability to prove whether God exists, or whether Thor exists or if either ever truly existed. However, it is simply not to that point yet and as there is very little evidence to support things either way, we are caught at an impasse and most scientists will not even bother with that and instead focus on what is -real- and there to be studied. Evolution has tangible evidence you can hold in your hand and therefore it is examined and studies continue. The point is to not say whether it was created by God or not, but to say THERE it is and it exists! Someday this will be understood because this war between belief and logic has gone on for hundreds of years and killed many great people who dared to think outside of the bun.

P.S. Thank you Mirai for doing what I debated on doing and taking apart that Hovind article. I didn't want this post to be anymore of a novel than it already is.

 

Sorry Repliku but I don't have time to read your monster post right now, I'll be sure to find a retort to it later. As for Mirai, most of what you said in there was arguing semantics instead of actual ideas. All you’ve shown is that he could phrase things better and needs to learn exactly which terms he should use where, many (but not all) of his actual thoughts however are still valid by your dissection. There are a few points in there I disagree with but dissecting a dissection just gets too messy and they're not all that big.

I’m glad someone actually brought that up. Science does not tell us what is truth, it tells us what are lies and we assume truth from that. There is no such thing as a true law, only theories that have yet to be disproved. There is also the matter that our seemingly most accurate results come from experimentation; but you can’t exactly replicate a process that takes at least hundreds of years in a lab can you? Much less with several trials.

 

It isn't an argument about semantics, as to what he posted. Read it again. He posted it out without being as long winded as I am in breaking it down.

Some of the man's points were valid and others are skewed and twisted to fit his meanings. That is the whole problem. He looks at it from saying 'God exists' and does not look at it from 'How does this work'. He on purpose words things the way he does to play with it and report to people his way what it means. That is lying. If he can't even get the theories right in the first place, he cannot debate what is wrong with them.

Because theories in science are attempted to be disproved much more often, and some stand the test very well, think on that a bit. When a theory is disproved, it is removed and new examinations and former studies are reopened and investigated. This is what religion cannot do and why Creationists should not have Christian Science near anything related to Science at all. It should be called Christian Rubbish. I went to a seminar where some Creationist Scientist tried to say that earth is the only place that holds water. This is bull. There are worlds out there with evidence of water, and there are moons and worlds with water on them. It would really help if people would stop spreading lies to support their beliefs. Science is not about breaking beliefs. It is about understanding the marvelous place we dwell in.

 

That was the longest post i've ever not read. Seriously man no one actually CARES if they did they would just talk to each other about they'd do something.

 

Here's a wild thought:What if God creted us through Evolution?
"Wait," you're thinking. "God supposedly created the Earth in a week."
How are you going to explain billions of billions of years to people in the 1st or 2nd century? Not by using big numbers. I guess the writers of the Bible decided to shorten it down to a week so that it all made sense. Each day stands for something he created.
In my opinion, God did create the Universe, but in a way we'll never understand because our brains are too small.

 

Unfortunately that would contradict the "and he formed Adam out of mud/earth and Eve from his rib" statement. Therefore the theory of Evolution is not provided as a means of creation through the Bible. The sentiment is appreciated though.

Also it is not a matter of brain size which solely dictates the logic and comprehension processes of the brain, rather it is the immeasurable ability to come to concessions with other ideas that dictates the "ability" of the brain. (IE: Dolphins have larger brains then us in terms of mass, however as far as we know they are not more intelligent than us.)

Anyway, to keep on topic, people claim evolution is still not valid because "we aren't still evolving". Given that we do so many unnatural alterations to ourselves we have what can best be compared to an overflowing pool; another would be the evolutionary points the others have pointed out as well as an add-on about the higher number of C-sections in childbirth as well as the defects in children in general.

Are physical defects a gift from God? Science explains and evidences that the same physical defects come from errors in genetic coding which are linked to the theory of evolution.

 

This is a very good point. I believe the reason we are seemingly no longer evolving (although there was a report which I saw which said that development of the human species had gone up like 10 times over the last few hundreds of years [ugh wish I could remember the exact details x.x]) is because we have taken control of our own evolution. Natural selection through survival of the fittest no longer applies in the developed world. People with diseases caused by genetic errors now live long enough to have children which passes on genetic material which in the past would eventually die out. This means that weak material is staying in the gene pool, thereby weakening the human race overall.

 

Humans have been evolving still. We are growing on the whole larger than our ancestors previously. Selective genetic alterations also would include that some local groups are able to breathe more efficiently in higher altitudes and others can swim under water for longer durations. There are people who are born without wisdom teeth and some also who are born without appendices. There are changes and the information is out there and all a person has to do is check up on it instead of just saying 'we aren't evolving anymore'. Even our cultures evolve and the ways we interact change.

This is not a new thought. It is known as Intelligent Design, which in simple tries to merge Evolution together with the thought that a great mover initiated it and now and then alters things. The problem with this is that you still have to dismiss the Bible to say its true because there are still too many holes in it. Intelligent Design though, since God cannot be proven or disproved anymore than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is just a way to try to force that God does exist and until Science can count it does, it's just a hypothesis and not even a theory. However, in saying such, it makes more sense than Creationism ever will.

 

i believe in Evolution, we humans didn't come during the first centuries of the earth, we came way after, but in the bible it says that "god" created humans just a day later after the animals, the bible is someting which was made long ago, but it is filled up with stories, many people may have changed the story of the creation of the earth, the creation of the earth story where god created everything in a week could just be someone's story where it got mis-read and got put in the bible.

until i get proper truth that "god" is real i believe in evolution.

 

I would like to point out that much of the bible has debatable translations and much of it is metaphorical.

For example, the world being created in seven days isn’t entirely right. The Hebrew word used there for “days†means a length of time. Day, minute, month, year, age; we don’t know for sure what was originally meant so it is anyone’s guess, but if we take it to mean age the idea of Genesis still stands in science.

As for the “he formed Adam from the mud†bit can’t this very easily mean the bacteria living in the soil? It is said that bacteria form the base of the evolutionary chain. The whole thing with Eve coming from Adam’s rib I’ve yet to dissect enough to make scientific sense of though.

 

I believe that that believing in god is awkwardly more absurd than it sounds..... seriously so many people believe there is a person in the sky thats almighty and can do whatever he wants to us and we are like his action figures. so I go evolution (mostly cause I don't believe in god. also there is way too much proof of evolution. I'm sorta like a rebel cause my parents are catholic and stuff.... though my grandpa also doesn't believe in god and I think thats where I got my ideas from (even though he died before I turned 1 year old)

 

But how do you know it's correct? [Just arguing because I feel to add a point mate.] So we look at apes and monkeys and say, "Hey, they share 90% of our DNA{numbers are not exact}." If we're cousins, how come their not humans? If we came a ape-like ancestor, how come apes aren't human?
Here's a scenario: The first cell appears on Earth. But it dies because it has no way of eating and getting rid of the waste. So it dies. The basic cell cannot live. So what's it gonna do? Come back to life and keep dying till it gets it right? no.
There had to be some intelligent planning in the creation of the Universe.
Another point: The Big Bang. Scientist say there was nothing, then there was a huge KA-BLOOIE! and over millions of so-so years, our solar system came to be. But that's not right. There had to be a action for the reaction to happen. There had to be two gases or something to make it happen. If there was nothing, then how can an explosion randomly happen?