Evolution & Creationism Debate at Museum

[Mandalore]

Odin promised the end of all ice giants. Jesus promised the end of all wickedness. Seen any ice giants around? Scoreboard [female dog]!

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

Odin promised the end of all ice giants. Jesus promised the end of all wickedness. Seen any ice giants around? Scoreboard [female dog]!

If she isn't one, she's a descendant.

Scoreboard [female dog]!

[Mandalore]

Clearly a valkyrie, learn your creators other creations.

[Col. Hstar]

Here are some truths about evolution not many people think about.

1 - To believe in evolution is to believe that life came about purely by chance. This means that we humans are an accident. It means that we have no more purpose in life then a regular house fly. If your comfortable with that then great you need not read anymore.

2 - To a greater extent it means that the planet we live on, the galaxy and universe we live in came about on its own DESPITE the natural tendency for all molecules to revert to a neutral state. FOR EXAMPLE: A car left alone over time will rust. A hot cup of coffee will go cold. The natural course that molecules take is to neutralize. Yet our solar system runs like clock work. Never degrading never neutralizing, and yet it was supposed to gain its form alone, by accident???

3. Evolution is in fact not based on scientific fact

It scares me to know that ours is the only first-world nation in which the majority of people still deny evolution as fact.

No offense to Pepsi though because he makes a very common mistake many people make. It's not that science is wrong, but the people who conduct the experiments can be. Humans despite what they want to believe do not know everything. It is not uncommon for proven scientific experiments later become proven inaccurate, incorrect, or falsified. When you put your faith in science, you are putting your faith in fallible human beings. People who cannot and do not have all the answers. People who are not immune to pressures from agendas that they want to prove right, ESPECIALLY when they want to explain the origin in life without including the existence of God.

To make the statement that you only believe in what you can see is the height of arrogance. To say you'll wait until it can be proven is ignorance.



Now some truths about the creation account found in the bible.

1 - The belief that the earth was created in 6 literal 24 hour days is one of those errors. The Bible frequently uses the term “day” to designate various periods of time. In some cases these periods are of an unspecified length.

2 - While the bible is not a scientific textbook it is sound in areas that do touch on science.
A) Refers to the circle of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)
B) Earth is suspended on nothing (Job 26:7)
While these are not worded in a technical scientific fashion, they are accurate according to what science has proven.

The flood is not an error. To some extent the earth is still flooded. Seawater covers about 71 percent of the earth’s surface. So in reality the floodwaters are still here. And if the glaciers and polar ice caps were to melt, the sea level would rise to cover cities like New York and Tokyo. Not to mention the moisture in the atmosphere. The account says the heavens were opened up so it's not a stretch to say that the whole earth was flooded.

3 - Absolutely true that interpretation of the bible can be misread, and twisted. That's why it's important that each person read the bible themselves and make their own conclusions. If you read it with an open humble mind, God helps us to understand. (Matt 11:25)

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Unfortunately, I don't have time to address each of your contentions Homestar, but I would inform you that accepting Evolution cannot be construed as accepting that life came about by chance. Evolution does not purport to explain the origin of life, rather it seeks to explain the changes undergone by species over time. Natural Selection is fact - it has been observed, documented, and theorists have made many convincing arguments as to its role in the development of the animals and plants currently found on our planet.

Though science cannot effectively explain our origins, it doesn't claim to, and what little we have is substantiated with mountains of evidence, much of which can be found with a simple Google Search. In fact, evidence for the Fact of Evolution is so abundant that I'm surprised you haven't (provided you've conducted adequate research) become inundated with it.

---

About the Bible being accurate - whether or not the 6-day Creation account is to be interpreted literally, the book still provides no evidence as to the actual creation of the universe. And if something can't be taken for what it is on the page, then you can stretch anything ever written down to meaning anything - you create this incredibly low standard for what can be qualified as evidence and simply ignore everything else.

It doesn't er if there are some accurate statements made within the Bible. That doesn't make everything it contains fact (ex. Noah's Ark, Sodom & Gomorrah, etc.) A list of contradictions within the text itself: http://www.greenwych.ca/bible-a.htm If I, whatever followers I would manage to gather, etc. were to write a Holy Book and if we referenced the United States and known scientific fact while simultaneously claiming we were gods, even if what historical references and scientific musings we relay are factual, we are not necessarily gods. Simply b/c two things are mentioned within the same text and one happens to be factual or semi-factual, it doesn't mean the other thing is necessarily factual as well. That's Fallacy by Association.

The Bible is a compilation of writings. Texts written at different time periods and serving entirely different purposes were crammed together, and others were omitted entirely (Gospel of Thomas, gospel of Mary Magdalene) because they didn't conform to the teachings those in power wanted the public to adopt.

The flood? Really? We have evidence illustrating the existence of the oceans for hundreds of millions of years past (http://science.howstuffworks.com/how-the-ocean-came-to-be-info.htm) - the Earth wasn't barren before waters came from the sky. And by the way, the glaciers are composed of fresh water, the oceans of saltwater...

[Col. Hstar]

I'm sorry but isn't the title of this thread evolution and creation debate. When it comes to creation the entire argument is that life came about by a creator. God created man from a lifeless form. How can you debate between the two without bringing in the origin of life????

The reason you want to ignore the origin of life point is because evolution fails completely in explaining this. You can't explain that life evoloved from a series of mutations over many generations without explaining what started those mutations.

This is why your statement that evolution is a fact is flawed. It's an incomplete explanation.

I may put my faith in the bible but at least I acknowledge it as faith. In my opinon my faith in it is proven by the wonders of what I see around me. Life, not just human life but all life and the way it is designed proves to me that a creator had to be involved.

You put your faith in evolution, but because faith is a dirty word for you, you instead claim to have the backing of indisputable scientific fact. When the truth is that's it's an incomplete theory.


EDIT
I don't intend on going 100 pages with this thread so respond debate as you want. I'll give the last word to you.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

Clearly a valkyrie, learn your creators other creations.

I am a MASTER Gauntlet player, so I think I'd know a Valkyrie if I saw one!



duh...all TRUE Valkyrie are blonde!

[(SWGO)DesertEagle]

[color=#0000FF
It doesn't er if there are some accurate statements made within the Bible. That doesn't make everything it contains fact (ex. Noah's Ark, Sodom & Gomorrah, etc.) A list of contradictions within the text itself: http://www.greenwych.ca/bible-a.htm If I, whatever followers I would manage to gather, etc. were to write a Holy Book and if we referenced the United States and known scientific fact while simultaneously claiming we were gods, even if what historical references and scientific musings we relay are factual, we are not necessarily gods. Simply b/c two things are mentioned within the same text and one happens to be factual or semi-factual, it doesn't mean the other thing is necessarily factual as well. That's Fallacy by Association.

The Bible is a compilation of writings. Texts written at different time periods and serving entirely different purposes were crammed together, and others were omitted entirely (Gospel of Thomas, gospel of Mary Magdalene) because they didn't conform to the teachings those in power wanted the public to adopt.

The flood? Really? We have evidence illustrating the existence of the oceans for hundreds of millions of years past (http://science.howstuffworks.com/how-the-ocean-came-to-be-info.htm) - the Earth wasn't barren before waters came from the sky. And by the way, the glaciers are composed of fresh water, the oceans of saltwater...[/color]

Name ONE archaelogical discovery that contradicts the Bible. I'll save you time, no such thing. The Bible holds up to testing far better than any other historical document, it has yet to be proved wrong in ers of history.

Here is an example: the BIble talks about a people called the Hittes. For years, scholars mocked Christians for believing in them. And then one day, an archaelogical discovery unearthed their existence. Not only their existence, but their high importance in the ancient world, they held power similar to that of Eygpt.

Oh, and the Bible's "Contradictions" are only found when twisting the interpretation of the text. The Gospel of Thomas and others were not considered scripture because they do not follow the known doctrines and have always been considered apochryphal works from nearly day one. An authority did not "impose" the current canon, it was reached by consensus, and there was little debate, as if things were already clear. There was some debate over some of the books like Jude because of quotations of apochryphal literature, but not much.

On any of the major doctrinal points, there is absolutely no contradiction in the Bible. On more minor points, there is very little if any. Give me one contradiction that affects a major point in the Bible. Put it here please, I don't want to skim several pages.

Evidence for millions of years you say? Again, flood = earth appears old. You are starting from different assumptions and so refuse to admit that there is an alternate explanation.

Tell me this: why does pretty much every culture have some sort of flood story if there was never a worldwide flood? Did they all just simulaltenously and separately make them up? Native americans have several versions of the story for example, and they had no contact with Christians for thousands of years. Kinda strange for mass deception to occur like that. And why are many of the details so similar (most of the stories mention a man and a boat that he escaped in with animals).

Don't feel sorry for us Creationists, we are very comfortable with our theory. Sure, it needs tweaks here and there, but it is quite sound and self-consistent.

You are choosing to see only the problems with creationism and only the strengths of evolution. Evolution is not nearly as strong as you would like to believe. You are commiting a fallacy by refering to natural selection being everywhere than extrapolating to say that it can result in macroevolution. I totally agree that natural selection occurs, but I would refer you to a book called Genetic Entropy (http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-T ... 0981631606), where you will see that things are not nearly as sound as you think. Natural selection is a negative process, it removes information, it does not add. There are so many problems with evolution on the genetic level that it is not even funny.

You admit that evolution does not explain the origin of life and so have a sort of faith that it "just happened," and yet you criticize creationists for doing essentially the same thing.

We can argue about the theories all day, but in the end I will concede that evolution is a valid theory if you take your starting assumptions into account (i.e. no God, so things have to build and informatino has to be generated). I see all kinds of problems with it, but nobody was there to see it, so you can believe what you like. However, will you concede that creationism is a valid theory, or you will use the common tactic of denial to avoid upsetting a theory that you are uncomfortable with?

I understand why you cling to strongly to evolution and so strongly attack creationism: you have no alternative. You cannot believe Creationism because that would entail believing in a god/God, so you are rather stuck. You cannot for a moment admit that Creationism is even scientific because if you did, you would be admitting that God could exist, and you cannot do that. Therefore, you bring up all kinds of arguments, some valid some not, but you are missing the point here.

In the end here it is: Evolution is a valid historical model. Creationism is a valid historical model. Both have testable scientific components. Those who deny this have mixed up philosophy and science and have turned evolutionism into effectively a religious belief, one that cannot have a rival. The moment that you do so, debate goes out the window, and we have nothing more to talk about, because we cannot scientifically debate a religion.

[haasd0gg]

I am a MASTER Gauntlet player

Elf needs food. Badly.
Not that I wouldn't challenge that title, I may like you a little more now.

[Mandalore]

If I had to guess I wasn't even alive when that game came out. Although I did play one of the sequels which didn't completely suck ass.