Evolution versus Creationism

Hence why I pretty much stopped discussing that subject here. I agree the most surefire way of making a creationist no longer a creationist is for them to examine the evidence. The problem is you can bring the horse to water, but you can't make it drink. For many creationists, they simply refuse to 'drink.' You can show them all the evidence in the world, but it doesn't matter.



True. For the truly diehard, there's no point in discussing anything of the nature at all with them as they simply don't want to examine their belief. They believe it is true because they want it to be true. Facts don't matter. And there's no point in examination and trying to prove it is true because that isn't what they care about.



I don't doubt that some creationists use logic and reason, but the vast majority of literals are dead to the concepts.



Except when logic and reason contradict their beliefs. Good Christians follow the word of Christ, that the morals and ethics take precedent. Literal Creationists do something entirely different, where they worship the Bible as a God, and thereby any attack on its validity is a attack on God.

Like you said before, the fastest way to make a Christian not a Christian is for them to academically study the bible. The same goes for Creationism. The problem is actually having them do it.
 
There ya go, play dumb; plead ignorance. After all you do it so well. I notice though that in all of your claims of my ignorance you haven't answered any of my direct and valid questions at all. And what you have contributed has been of no value at all in adding to the debate. So although you may be a legend in your own mind, you haven't challenged me at all. And until you stop evading my questions and either answer them or refute them, I guarantee that you wont impress anyone other than the other atheists around here who need all the help they can get.

OH, and by the way, there is an ignore button. Feel free to use it as I probably will if you don't show you can debate the facts and issues. But you already know there is one. But you just can't help but lie some more to protect your cover.
 
Everyone has heard the tired old hypothetical of a infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters eventually producing Shakespeare.

It seems pertinent here because, from what I gather, the foundation of Creationism is that this world and its various processes are far to intricate, to systematic, to perfect, to have been created by an inanimate, unintelligent, unsentient non-being.

What I have never heard fully addressed from a Creationist perspective is the fact that if God created Earth, then what do I make of the billions of imploded stars, the failed solar systems, the cold, lifeless galaxies which, as far as we know proceed into infinity.

Yes, we live on a magnificent, uncannily perfect planet. But if some intelligent being created it, and we are the end result, then this intelligent being failed horribly billions of time before finally creating a planet and a system that harbors life on some of its surface some of the time.

How does Creationism reconcile intelligent design (the operative word being intelligent) with the fact that the tiniest percentage of the solar system harbors any life at all? This is brute force methodology. If you try a hundred billion times and fail before getting it right, how omnicient and omnipresent does that make you?
 
do all animals have the ability to think and reason?? NO. do all animals have a conscience? NO do animals have the ability to study or read? NO . how are we animals? explain to me your ignorance of the fact that we were created!
 
Come again? Animals have no spirits? The Native Americans would disagree with you right there. They believe that man, like all creatures inhabits the same spiritual world, that nature itself is above all, not that man is spiritual above the rest. The grand thing is that their belief is no more provable then your's is. Thereby, both are equally true and equally false, meaning you cannot assert your belief as truth without first disproving theirs. And seeing how neither are provable, you're completely out of luck. I notice that you, like most creationists simply run away like cowarRAB when the issue of other religion/spiritual beliefs is added to the mix of creation vs. evolution. Instead of a two entity fight, it becomes far, far more. I recently had a discussion about arguments theists should not use, and discussing more then one religion is one of them. I noticed my thread about Norse vs Genesis got little to no attention from the creationist sect here.



Huh? Where has anyone argued that the spiritual world can be proven scientifically? Last time I checked, people argued both cannot be proven scientifically. Science is the study of the natural world. Spirituality and supernatural both lie outside the jurisdiction and study of science. I cannot study natural geology with marketing as geology is outside the scope of what marketing studies. Likewise, science cannot prove either.



No it is not evident that the world was created by a intelligent being. You cannot prove this.



I'm sorry we don't share your "openness"



I was a Christian until several years ago. So much for your argument.



Blah, blah, blah, blah thanks for proving you believe because you are a coward
 
i'd like to hear some examples (at least one) of physical and observable evidence of god's love. you'll also have to provide instances or god interacting with believers. finally, what miracles within your community are you talking about?


this is where we differ. how am i to determine whether god has forsaken me or not, if i never experience favorable conditions? what is the point of believing god's presence is in my life if my condition is identical to if he wasnt in my life? if the righteous suffer problems and see successes, and the unrighteous suffer problems and see success, then where is the advantage of god being with me over him not being with me?


like i said before, both the sinner and believer go through temptations and overcome them. both the sinner and believer learn from their unpleasant experiences. both the sinner and believer feel strengthened to face life after being through harRABhips. sometimes sinners fall into temptations are suffer for it, and sometimes they are wise and evade it. same with the believers.

so whats the difference? how could the believer's position be superior to the sinner's?


the only person that defines god for me is me. and i came up with my beliefs about god at a time when i believed in god


you'd have to help me grasp the concept and significance of god "seeing us through" situations. if god is simply monitoring man's dilemas and observing silently as we blunder and develop, then what good is that to us? whether god is watching or not, wouldnt the effect be the same? how does the belief that god is only keeping an eye on things benefit anybody?
 
No contest really, Creationism contradicts my own observations, so believing in it would require me to disbelieve my own senses. Frankly it belongs with Flat Earthism and Geocentrism.
It does make an intresting comment on peoples openness to persusion by unqualified sources, as the creationists are so fond of saying; "You need an open mind" though and open mind is like a fortess, with its gate unbarred and unguarded.
 
First, for the most part, bacteria reproduce asexually.

Whether asexually or through gene transfer of some kind, where do the drug resistant genes come from? In a population of bacteria that has no genes for antibiotic resistance, where do you think this brand new gene comes from?

Genes are transferred from parent to oRABpring. In sexual reproduction, the genes get mixed around, but no new genes are formed. Unless...
 
it seems to me that i am derailing this thread then, because my issue is not really creation vs evolution, but rather creation and christianity vs reason. it so happens that the facts and data that contradict creation are the very facts and data that evolution and the theories of spontaneous origin are based on. it doesnt mean that rejecting creation automatically makes you subscribe to evolution or vice versa, but at the same time noone can deny that the facts and data are there


you clearly state your reasoning to support what you believe and i dont discredit you because it is based on the world as you observe it. and, as you continuously point out, the evolutionists draw their conclusion based on their observations and interpretation of what they see in the world. so i wont argue that either position is superior because as you see it, both perspectives are on par

my personal reasons for rejecting creation thus far is based on what i have observed. in my view, god is not a reliable source of benefits and favors, neither does he come through on any of the promises the bible claims he will. the favor of god, if you can call it that, is absolutely unrelated to the righteousness or sinfulness of the person in question, because everyone is equally prone to fortune or grief, whether they believe in god or not. i have never seen, nor heard from even the most educated believers, that a correlation exists between theism and favor

beyond that, the issue of genesis creates a problem of its own. genesis serves as the introduction of the bible and the foundation of christianity. it establishes the two pillars that 1. god is all powerful and 2. man is sinful and in need of reconciliation. remove either one of these pillars and christianity falls flat. yet according to what we observe, it is not possible for the earth to have been created as the bible describes. if so, why should we assume that god is all powerful? and evolution predicts that there was no first man and first woman pair that was hand made by god and created perfect, so how could we assume that there is such a thing as original sin?


whether evolution or creation requires "more faith" is debatable. for someone who believes in god, believing in genesis, despite its contradiction to reality, is a small feat. likewise, starting from an atheist standpoint, evolution is not hard to accept. but disproving evolution does not automatically validate creation, and you need to remember that. even if i were to prove that both evolution and creation were false, it would still mean that creation is false. arguing that the evolution is false doesnt help support creation in any way whatsoever
 
i dont know if you noticed but not once have i made any assumptions about evolution. in fact i said that WITHOUT evolution, the creation concept raises contradictions and problems that are easily trumped by reality.

first of all, dating rocks is based on a number of methoRAB that support each other. for example, rocks found in deeper levels of the ground are consistently dated to be older than rocks found at shallower levels. the only "evidence" that creationists use to counter these findings is "well thats not what the bible says, so that cant be right!" what "accurate" method of dating rocks have creationists employed to show that the other methoRAB are not accurate and that their methoRAB coincide with what the bible says?

second, where in the bible does it account for the period of dinosaurs, mammoths, cave drawings, the ice age, etc. if god created the earth in 6 days, where in that timeline did he squeeze in these events?

third, i suppose you also believe that the method used for measuring the distance of visible stars is also incorrect, and that there are accurate methoRAB of calculating the distance of these stars that give us values in accordance to what the bible predicts?

you have to remember that evolution and the theories of spontaneous origin can be wrong or right, and the concept of creation can be wrong or right, both independent of each other. convincing yourself that the rocks arent accurately dated doesnt prove that creation is true. creation must be true on its own merits for it to be valid. i'm not stating that creation is false, i'm asking you how could creation be true, when all this evidence implies otherwise?
 
Interesting that you ignore this part.



The whole acceptance of Neanderthal Man was based on just part of an arm bone. Doesn't that embarrass you ? Is that enough evidence for you to accept that Neanderthal Man is an actual descendant of humans ? Are you that gullible ? The important point here anyway is that it is very likely he is nothing more than an Ape. No evidence you can produce can prove anything you say conclusively since the whole science is based on fraud and bogus assumptions. IT IS A FAIRY TALE BASED MORE ON WISHFUL THINKING THAN ANY RELIABLE FACTS. ONCE AGAIN, IT IS JUNK SCIENCE. LET'S LOOK AT:

 
Pretty big "if"...

Your "problem", that you wish to be something more than "just an animal" does not affect the reality.
 
It's interesting Arch how you ignore me when my link clearly shows your statement which followed mine to be false.

Creationism: Doing what's easy rather then what's right.
 
Heck, everyone knows God's love is everywhere and abundant.

Grab a machete and drop into Sudan. Witness the glory of God's perfect creation.

Grab a gasmask and let's take a tour of Aushwitz. God's love and beauty is everywhere.

Grab a box of condoms and let's go to South Africa! We'll get to see the indwelling of the Holy Spirit everywhere!


This world is big and beautiful and mysterious, therefoooooore - a man in the sky made it for ME! I am the pinnacle of all of this! God died for ME! I am too special to ever die! I WILL LIVE FOREVER!

And all that stuff up at the top is just God granting us free-will, because he doesn't want us to be automatons.

No, God doesn't want robots - that why he created hell! You get to make your OWN decision! But if you choose wrong, it's dark and hot and people rub their teeth together a lot.
 
If you knew the mechanism with which the bacteria and insects "build up tolerances", you would know you are refuting your own argument.

I'll let you try to figure it out. You are on the right track with the short life cycle and lots of generations of organisms coming along in a relatively short time (relative to us, that is.)

You are a hoot, Archie. You are describing evolution, and you don't even know it.
 
You change the subject... Then you change it back.

I challenged you to tell us about Tiktaalik. Why can't you do it, Archie?
 
Back
Top