Creationism vs. Evolution

[Will_00]

All of those supporting Global Warming, Darwinism, etc seem to just believe that a bunch of "scientists" say that something is real, then it must be so - Ridiculous. That is similar to saying that if a bunch of doctors stated that colds came from looking at the ground - and they had "proof" then it must be true.

[Halofan48]

Lets see, thousands of independant people who conducted tests find that there is is very strong evidence of evolution vs. Something from a 2000 year old book. Hm, i wonder which is more valid and up to date?

[Will_00]

Lets see, thousands of independant people who conducted tests find that there is is very strong evidence of evolution vs. Something from a 2000 year old book. Hm, i wonder which is more valid and up to date?

First of all the Bible is the Absolute Truth. As well, it doesn't matter of the "up to date" level. If it is true there is no necessity for it to be up to date.

[Magnus]

Quote by: Will_00 First of all the Bible is the Absolute Truth. As well, it doesn't matter of the "up to date" level. If it is true there is no necessity for it to be up to date.

This is classic stuff ! ROFL

[Tycoon]

First of all the Bible is the Absolute Truth. As well, it doesn't matter of the "up to date" level. If it is true there is no necessity for it to be up to date.

Yes, it does need to be "up to date", as with the passage of time there comes more and more evidence of exactly how untrue the bible is.

[Century 25]

Quote by: Will_00 All of those supporting Global Warming, Darwinism, etc seem to just believe that a bunch of "scientists" say that something is real, then it must be so - Ridiculous. That is similar to saying that if a bunch of doctors stated that colds came from looking at the ground - and they had "proof" then it must be true. ..and: First of all the Bible is the Absolute Truth. As well, it doesn't matter of the "up to date" level. If it is true there is no necessity for it to be up to date.

You make a sterling example of a spokesperson for the.. 'creationist' populace.

[Will_00]

Yes, it does need to be "up to date", as with the passage of time there comes more and more evidence of exactly how untrue the bible is.

No, because God can look into the future. He knows what will happen before it happens.

You make a sterling example of a spokesperson for the.. 'creationist' populace.

----

[Tycoon]

No, because God can look into the future. He knows what will happen before it happens.

If that were true then God would have made the bible more scientifically correct to fit the scientific world of today. Therefore one can infer that either God does not exist or that God cannot look into the future.

[Will_00]

If that were true then God would have made the bible more scientifically correct to fit the scientific world of today. Therefore one can infer that either God does not exist or that God cannot look into the future.

This is completely ridiculous. God is Infinitely Greater then "scientific fact" and has no need to do such. It is Faith.

[Darebirth]

As an Agnostic, I don't have a 100% belief in either side of the argument. However, who is to say that Creationism and Evolution are the only two sides of the arguement. The way I see it, there are four possibilities:

1. Creationism is true and Evolution is false - In this possibility, we see that evolution is incorrect, and everything in the universe was created by an ultimately powerful being, or a god. However, the question of which god created everything is still unanswered.

2. Creationism is false and Evolution is true - In this possibility, all of the religions of the world are false. A god did not create the universe, but we instead evolved from simpler single-celled organisms into the creatures that we are today. (Seeing as how there is more evidence of this, I tend to agree with it more often.)

3. Creationism and Evolution are true - In this possbility, the entire universe is created by a higher power, or a god. This god creates simple single-celled organisms which evolve into more complex creatures over time.

4. Creationism and Evolution are false - Before you ask me how this is possible, try to imagine that we are all alive 300 years ago, when the popular counter-theory of creationism was abiogenesis, the idea that life could form from non-living material (People actually got this idea when they would see maggots on or in rotting food). Abiogenesis, however, has been disproven for almost 200 years. Just because Abiogenesis was incorrect didn't necessarily mean that Creationism was correct, because the idea of Evolution came later.

Who's to say that either Evolution or Creationism have to be true. Perhaps in 100 years, a scientist would propose aother theory which would trump both of our current proposals.

[Jack]

Perhaps in 100 years, a scientist would propose aother theory which would trump both of our current proposals.

And science would be fine with that. Religion, not so much.

[Will_00]

However, the question of which god created everything is still unanswered.

Obviously, this has already been answered with the fact that God (the One and Only God) created the Universe.

(Seeing as how there is more evidence of this, I tend to agree with it more often.)

Do show. What, you believe we evolved from a lightning strike that hit mud? Ha

Who's to say that either Evolution or Creationism have to be true. Perhaps in 100 years, a scientist would propose aother theory which would trump both of our current proposals.

If you KNOW it to be an absolute fact that a certain belief MUST be True, then what doubt would there be?

[Jack]

What, you believe we evolved from a lightning strike that hit mud? Ha

Why ridicule a concept that you clearly don't fully understand? Very few scientists grasp the evidence well enough to even venture a guess how life originated. Without an equal understanding of the processes that may have been involved in initiating life, I'd say it's premature to discount any natural process.
And how is lightening striking mud any more fantastic than the idea of a supreme being blowing on dirt? Both sound a bit simplistic and nonsensical. No doubt there were many factors and conditions involved.

the One and Only God

Everybody who claims a god claims its the one and only. How is that claim substantiated?

[Will_00]

Why ridicule a concept that you clearly don't fully understand? Very few scientists grasp the evidence well enough to even venture a guess how life originated. Without an equal understanding of the processes that may have been involved in initiating life, I'd say it's premature to discount any natural process. And how is lightening striking mud any more fantastic than the idea of a supreme being blowing on dirt? Both sound a bit simplistic and nonsensical. No doubt there were many factors and conditions involved.

Why attempt and rebel a topic in which is undoubtedly True?

Everybody who claims a god claims its the one and only. How is that claim substantiated?

This has been stated numerous times. Through Faith, Belief, Miracles, etc.

[Jack]

But Christianity isn't alone in having "Faith, Belief, Miracles, etc." Nothing there suggests uniqueness or substantiates the claim that the Christian god is the only true god. But I'm getting off topic, and apologize for that. I'll quit this line of debate here.

[gela]

First of all the Bible is the Absolute Truth. As well, it doesn't matter of the "up to date" level. If it is true there is no necessity for it to be up to date.

In that case, you musn't believe in creationism.

[Will_00]

But Christianity isn't alone in having "Faith, Belief, Miracles, etc." Nothing there suggests uniqueness or substantiates the claim that the Christian god is the only true god. But I'm getting off topic, and apologize for that. I'll quit this line of debate here.

But the other "faiths" are incorrect.

In that case, you musn't believe in creationism.

How does that even relate?

[Halofan48]

But the other "faiths" are incorrect.

He was pointing out that there are numerous faiths who also say there god is the only true god, and all have no proof to this claim whatsoever.

How does that even relate?

Well, this is a thread on creationsim vs. Evolution, so it's pretty much on topic.

[Will_00]

He was pointing out that there are numerous faiths who also say there god is the only true god, and all have no proof to this claim whatsoever.

Of course there is Proof - although there is no need.

Well, this is a thread on creationsim vs. Evolution, so it's pretty much on topic.

But the statement was:

First of all the Bible is the Absolute Truth. As well, it doesn't matter of the "up to date" level. If it is true there is no necessity for it to be up to date.

In that case, you musn't believe in creationism.

[Halofan48]

Of course there is Proof - although there is no need.

If you want to make a good argument in a debate, your going to have to present it.