• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Evolution v Creation. Whats the difference?

dsg94 said:
Your statement just proves my point.

What is false or dishonest about telling the truth about two differing views on on how this earth came into being. You think you know and Christians(and others) think they know how things came to be. If you are honest with yourself you admit that you want to believe the Earth was formed in a certain way and its OK to think so but you CANNOT prove it.

PROOF is a word, in science, that is limited to mathmatics. In out legal system also, we don't require proof, but beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT. Beucase some stinky semetic people made up a story, and Romans and Brits compeled it upon people, does not satisfy the "reasonable" portion for doubt.

If the expectation is that before things can be understood, full knowledge and absolute proff are necessary, well, that is unreasonable. See the Thoery of Evolution, really, ENCOMPASSES THE TOTATILY THAT IS BIOLOGY and a huge Portion of Chemistry as well. PAUSE FOR A MOMENT, and think of EVERYTHING that is LIFE. (Which is IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO DO, PERIOD.)

Now assuming you even attempted (which a basic understanding may take a good year), if you imagine that the intracacies and variences of the totality of known life to be explained in three senteces, you are grossly mistaken.

Because a system is SOOOO Complex and varied, and is beyond ANY single person's complete understanding and ability to know, DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING ELSE KNOWS THE SYSTEM. Nor does it mean anyone created the system. Creationism is FAR more an expression of Man's inadequate mind than anything else.

With the Scientific and Industrial revolutions, we found away, using our capacity for communication to mitigate the limitations of a single mind, and coordinate and share our knowledge, using mechanism of reason and logic. This in effect multiplies the processing power of each human brain by each new person added, by working in concert with other humans, thus circumventing cultural superstitions, dogma, tradition, and limitations of each person, to trancend beyond the mind of a single being, to that of a kind of "mental collective" contributed to by MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people into the body of knowledge known as Science.

Day in and day out, people are searching, researching, studying, collecting and communicating relatively small bits of information and knowledge into a vast pool. As if we were small machines, or ants, going out into the world, collecting little bits of food, and bringing it back for EVERYONE else to look at, Examine, Study, Consume and Digest, in order to incorporate this new thing into their own beings.

People fear Evolution, becuase it exposes their limitations, imperfections, and insecurities. They have not the mind to understand part of it sufficiently, let alone EVERYTHING ABOUT IT. Evolution and Biology show, we are NOT PREFECT CREATIONS. We have organs we don't use, and organs in which the complete fuction can never be realize INSIDE THE BODY. And the Idea that we are not special Children of God, perfectly Created by a masterful God, scares the crap out of people because we are afraid to face our own mortality.

The problem is, everyone wants to be super special, and in reality, nobody is.

From a biblical perspective, PRIDE is a sin too ya know, a cardinal sin in fact, one that would prevent the sinner from entering Heaven. And Being so Proud that one would ignore the universe (God's Universe at that), because they are too unduly pround to admit they are not special... well, that doesn't seem like the Godly path to me.
 
dsg94 said:
You have two theories that cant be proved. I have to say that evolutionist annoy me more than creationist. People that believe God created the earth accept that on faith. IMO, evolutionist put out a bunch of theories and try to pass them off as fact.

Simple. One theory is an attempt to explain the diversity of life by natural causes. An attempt to explain naturally observed phenonema by natural explanation is the realm of science.

The other there attempts to explain the diversity of life by supernatural causes. An attempt to explain naturally observed phenonema by supernatural explanation is the realm of religion.

I don't see what the fuss is about.
 
Iriemon said:
Simple. One theory is an attempt to explain the diversity of life by natural causes. An attempt to explain naturally observed phenonema by natural explanation is the realm of science.

The other there attempts to explain the diversity of life by supernatural causes. An attempt to explain naturally observed phenonema by supernatural explanation is the realm of religion.

I don't see what the fuss is about.
Well, one is a SCIENTIFIC Theory, the END PRODUCT of the Scientific Method, with its research, independent verification and findings of consistency and accuracy over a wide range of events.

The other one is a belief.
 
The debate of evolution vs creation is all wrong.
In Darwin's book, The Origan of Species, he does not write about evolution. What he does write is about adaptation.
 
Loch said:
The debate of evolution vs creation is all wrong.
In Darwin's book, The Origan of Species, he does not write about evolution. What he does write is about adaptation.

You may be correct, though I think Darwin wrote a later book adapting the theory to the evolution of man, which was further developed by his followers.
 
libertarian_knight said:
PROOF is a word, in science, that is limited to mathmatics. In out legal system also, we don't require proof, but beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT. Beucase some stinky semetic people made up a story, and Romans and Brits compeled it upon people, does not satisfy the "reasonable" portion for doubt.

If the expectation is that before things can be understood, full knowledge and absolute proff are necessary, well, that is unreasonable. See the Thoery of Evolution, really, ENCOMPASSES THE TOTATILY THAT IS BIOLOGY and a huge Portion of Chemistry as well. PAUSE FOR A MOMENT, and think of EVERYTHING that is LIFE. (Which is IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO DO, PERIOD.)

Now assuming you even attempted (which a basic understanding may take a good year), if you imagine that the intracacies and variences of the totality of known life to be explained in three senteces, you are grossly mistaken.

Because a system is SOOOO Complex and varied, and is beyond ANY single person's complete understanding and ability to know, DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING ELSE KNOWS THE SYSTEM. Nor does it mean anyone created the system. Creationism is FAR more an expression of Man's inadequate mind than anything else.

With the Scientific and Industrial revolutions, we found away, using our capacity for communication to mitigate the limitations of a single mind, and coordinate and share our knowledge, using mechanism of reason and logic. This in effect multiplies the processing power of each human brain by each new person added, by working in concert with other humans, thus circumventing cultural superstitions, dogma, tradition, and limitations of each person, to trancend beyond the mind of a single being, to that of a kind of "mental collective" contributed to by MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people into the body of knowledge known as Science.

Day in and day out, people are searching, researching, studying, collecting and communicating relatively small bits of information and knowledge into a vast pool. As if we were small machines, or ants, going out into the world, collecting little bits of food, and bringing it back for EVERYONE else to look at, Examine, Study, Consume and Digest, in order to incorporate this new thing into their own beings.

People fear Evolution, becuase it exposes their limitations, imperfections, and insecurities. They have not the mind to understand part of it sufficiently, let alone EVERYTHING ABOUT IT. Evolution and Biology show, we are NOT PREFECT CREATIONS. We have organs we don't use, and organs in which the complete fuction can never be realize INSIDE THE BODY. And the Idea that we are not special Children of God, perfectly Created by a masterful God, scares the crap out of people because we are afraid to face our own mortality.

The problem is, everyone wants to be super special, and in reality, nobody is.

From a biblical perspective, PRIDE is a sin too ya know, a cardinal sin in fact, one that would prevent the sinner from entering Heaven. And Being so Proud that one would ignore the universe (God's Universe at that), because they are too unduly pround to admit they are not special... well, that doesn't seem like the Godly path to me.
And as you scold us for thinking God created mankind you of course are aware that the world and biology you study is NOT in the state of perfect creation due to Noah's flood. So you would also be aware that any comparison between a post flood specimen and a preflood specimen has no relavance.
 
bgdawg said:
And as you scold us for thinking God created mankind you of course are aware that the world and biology you study is NOT in the state of perfect creation due to Noah's flood. So you would also be aware that any comparison between a post flood specimen and a preflood specimen has no relavance.

I had thought Christian doctrine posited that we do not have a state of perfect creation because of the fall.
 
Iriemon said:
I had thought Christian doctrine posited that we do not have a state of perfect creation because of the fall.
I don't know what this means.
 
bgdawg said:
I don't know what this means.

The original sin of Adam and Eve was the cause of sin and imperfect creation, not the great flood.
 
Iriemon said:
The original sin of Adam and Eve was the cause of sin and imperfect creation, not the great flood.
Orginal sin didn't change creation the flood did that. Adam still had the body created by the hand of God. He was sent from the garden, but the garden wasn't the only place that was perfect. Adam lived for 900 yrs aproximatly 800 after sin. The world as a whole was still in the same state as at creation. The pre-flood world was VERY different than what we see today.
 
bgdawg said:
Orginal sin didn't change creation the flood did that. Adam still had the body created by the hand of God. He was sent from the garden, but the garden wasn't the only place that was perfect. Adam lived for 900 yrs aproximatly 800 after sin. The world as a whole was still in the same state as at creation. The pre-flood world was VERY different than what we see today.

Genesis 3:

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."
 
Evolution v Creation. Whats the difference?

Hmm,
well one is based on a book of stories that has been written and rewritten by man for 100’s of years and the other is based on facts gathered by Scientific Study.
How’s that for a short answer?:roll:
 
Loch said:
The debate of evolution vs creation is all wrong.
In Darwin's book, The Origan of Species, he does not write about evolution. What he does write is about adaptation.
"adaptation" is part of Evolution. What darwin wrote 150 years ago is as relevant is the Wright brothers are in Space Shuttle design.

Or didn't you know that it is the Scientific Evidence from all the researcg since that relly matters?

Now, What I am concerned with is that you didn't know that "adaptation" (aka. natural Selection) was part of the process of Evolution. perhaps we can help you with sources to help you enhance your understanding of Evolution?
 
bgdawg said:
And as you scold us for thinking God created mankind you of course are aware that the world and biology you study is NOT in the state of perfect creation due to Noah's flood.
For one, the process of Evolution is not affected by any flood, which makes your statement bizzare. Secondly, depending on what you MEAN with "Noah's Flood," the evidence AGAINST such a worldwide occurence is solid.
So you would also be aware that any comparison between a post flood specimen and a preflood specimen has no relavance.
First you have to show that a Flood like that actually occured.
 
bgdawg said:
Orginal sin didn't change creation the flood did that. Adam still had the body created by the hand of God. He was sent from the garden, but the garden wasn't the only place that was perfect. Adam lived for 900 yrs aproximatly 800 after sin.
You have no verifiable evidence for this, of course.
The world as a whole was still in the same state as at creation.
What creation? please provide Scientific Evidence for this creation.
The pre-flood world was VERY different than what we see today.
Please show that there was a "pre-flood world" as you describe it.
 
Iriemon said:
Genesis 3:

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."
Right Like I said he was sent out of the garden. The above scripture talks about how he now has to provide for himself instead of the Garden being his source. And the curse of death was upon him as God had promised. How does any of this change the condition of things. God changed Adams address and his diet. The Flood changed the earth Geologically, atmospherically. After the Flood God changed the diet of all creatures, this changed life expectancy for all creation. Before the flood man lived for 900 yrs after the flood 120. I'm not trying to have a spritual conversation, I am trying to talk about the fact that we see biology today based upon a post flood world. Most fossils are of pre flood biology.
 
bgdawg said:
Right Like I said he was sent out of the garden. The above scripture talks about how he now has to provide for himself instead of the Garden being his source. And the curse of death was upon him as God had promised. How does any of this change the condition of things. God changed Adams address and his diet. The Flood changed the earth Geologically, atmospherically. After the Flood God changed the diet of all creatures, this changed life expectancy for all creation. Before the flood man lived for 900 yrs after the flood 120. I'm not trying to have a spritual conversation, I am trying to talk about the fact that we see biology today based upon a post flood world. Most fossils are of pre flood biology.

The quoted passage shows that God cursed ground, not a "curse of death", and produced thorns and thistles -- all a change because of Adam's original sin.

Where are the passages that proclaim the geological changes you identify?
 
cherokee said:
Evolution v Creation. Whats the difference?

Hmm,
well one is based on a book of stories that has been written and rewritten by man for 100’s of years and the other is based on facts gathered by Scientific Study.
How’s that for a short answer?:roll:
Your use of the word fact is your opinion only. I will gladly demonstrate that.

Steen Wrote:
For one, the process of Evolution is not affected by any flood, which makes your statement bizzare. Secondly, depending on what you MEAN with "Noah's Flood," the evidence AGAINST such a worldwide occurence is solid.
My point is that EVERYTHING you see on earth today is biology that is either pre-flood or post flood. So you are seeing it as it is, NOT as it was, applying your current theory to it. Your claim that you have solid evidence against a world wide deluge is absolutely false, from the physical record all the way down to the oral record. Simply put, aside from the vast physical evidence, we have over 270 cultures who tell a folklore of a man who saved his family and all the animals in a boat. 270 seperate cultures from all over the world. We have man made artifacts found in coal deposits 1000's of feet below the earth. Oysters and aquatic plants found above the tree line on every mountain range in the world. Thousands of petrified trees that are found standing across several layers of strata. This would mean that a tree stood and didn't decay for millions if not billions of yrs.
 
bgdawg said:
Right Like I said he was sent out of the garden. The above scripture talks about how he now has to provide for himself instead of the Garden being his source. And the curse of death was upon him as God had promised. How does any of this change the condition of things. God changed Adams address and his diet.
But then, theBible is not a Science Textbook, it is not a Scientifically accurate document.
The Flood changed the earth Geologically, atmospherically.
Please provide Scientific Evodence of this flood, particularly in the face of Scientific evidence against a worldwide flood.
After the Flood God changed the diet of all creatures, this changed life expectancy for all creation. Before the flood man lived for 900 yrs after the flood 120. I'm not trying to have a spritual conversation, I am trying to talk about the fact that we see biology today based upon a post flood world.
But that would be false, as there is no scientific evidence to that point. It is merely your "because I say so" subjective postulation.
Most fossils are of pre flood biology.
Well, as this flood of yours is not evidenced to occur, that's a bit difficult to verify.
 
steen said:
But then, theBible is not a Science Textbook, it is not a Scientifically accurate document.
You of course are aware that the Bible has never been proven false. In fact in every regard concerning archelogical evidence the Bible has been proven infalible. In other words, everytime the bible has been compared to the acheologcal record, what is found on earth is as the bible said it was.

steen said:
Please provide Scientific Evodence of this flood, particularly in the face of Scientific evidence against a worldwide flood.
How about you do the same for your view point.
 
bgdawg said:
Steen said:
For one, the process of Evolution is not affected by any flood, which makes your statement bizzare. Secondly, depending on what you MEAN with "Noah's Flood," the evidence AGAINST such a worldwide occurence is solid.
My point is that EVERYTHING you see on earth today is biology that is either pre-flood or post flood.
For one, there are lots of things that are not biology at all. Secondly, your claim of this flood and its dividing factor is still only a subjective postulation by you. merely claiming a flood doesn't prove its existence to begin with.
So you are seeing it as it is, NOT as it was, applying your current theory to it.
Irrelevant. The process of Evolution continues regardless.
Your claim that you have solid evidence against a world wide deluge is absolutely false, from the physical record all the way down to the oral record.
Really? As the "physical record doesn't document a world-wide flood, (1) your claim is false, and (2) you are deliberately misrepresenting scientific findings. Such deception doesn't help your credibility and will result you in being met with hostility for being dishonest.
Simply put, aside from the vast physical evidence,
Could you please evidence some of this "vast physical evidence"? Your "because I say so" really isn't that convinsing.
we have over 270 cultures who tell a folklore of a man who saved his family and all the animals in a boat. 270 seperate cultures from all over the world.
And?
We have man made artifacts found in coal deposits 1000's of feet below the earth.
Nope, we have not. The creationist claim is false and has been debunked. Even Answers_in_Genesis is advicing against that claim as "evidence:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
‘Gold chains have been found in coal.’ Several artefacts, including gold objects, have been documented as having been found within coal, but in each case the coal is no longer associated with the artefact. The evidence is therefore strictly anecdotal (e.g. ‘This object was left behind in the fireplace after a lump of coal was burned’). This does not have the same evidential value as having a specimen with the coal and the artefact still associated.
Oysters and aquatic plants found above the tree line on every mountain range in the world.
Yes, welcome to the process of plate techtonics? huh? You never heard of it? Well, that's your problem right there.
Thousands of petrified trees that are found standing across several layers of strata. This would mean that a tree stood and didn't decay for millions if not billions of yrs.
No, it didn't:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html


So instead of merely making silly, uneducated claims that were disproved many decades ago, why not dig out some ral evidence?
 
steen said:
But then, theBible is not a Science Textbook, it is not a Scientifically accurate document.

And I don't even think the Bible asserts there was a dramatic geological change after the flood.
 
bgdawg said:
You of course are aware that the Bible has never been proven false.
That claim is a lie. Pi is not 3.0. The sun didn't stop its path accorss the sky to help joshua have a longer day to kill off te opposition. Salt doesn't go bad and lose flavor. Plants didn't grow before sunlight existed. Birds didn't come to be before land animals. Etc. etc. Again, the Bible is not a science textbook, And any such misrepresentation merely demeans the bible.
In fact in every regard concerning archelogical evidence the Bible has been proven infalible.
Your claim is flat-out false. Please don't insult us with such absolutist falsehoods and silliness.
In other words, everytime the bible has been compared to the acheologcal record, what is found on earth is as the bible said it was.
Who said anything about Archeology?
How about you do the same for your view point.
What is it you see wrong? The silly examples you gave above, examples even creationists know are false? Hmm....
 
Iriemon said:
And I don't even think the Bible asserts there was a dramatic geological change after the flood.
Indeed. Rather, for the creationist, unsubstantiated beliefs, such claims MUST be made. hence, they are bearing false witness about God's word. Obviously, spitting God in the eye like that by bearing false witness, that doesn't bother them at all.
 
I love your pompass attitude. Oh please don't treat me with disdain, I need your respect. Can you read sarcasm? Or does that escape you as well?

Concerning Floods and petrified trees. You give me a link to pictures drawn a 100 yrs ago as if I'm so dim I didn't expect such. How about a real life picture.

http://genesismission.4t.com/Flood/Rapid_Burial.html

Notice the Fossil grave yard. Any Idea on how actually rare a fossil is? Oh of course you do, you are after all the scientific one. How do you get a fossil grave yard with potentially millions of varying species in it, with out a mass of dead bodies floating into a low lying sedementary area?

Concerning geological changes post flood. Well lets see Adam and Eve were in the Garden Naked. Today we have Ice caps and snow capped mountains. The scriptures discuss the "fountains of the deep Break forth" It doesn't say gush forth, it says something broke. The bible also places the rainbow as something new after the flood, how could that be? Something changed.

Is the bible a science text book? I didn't say it was. I said the bible has never been proven to be incorrect.

By the way Get over yourself and how much you think you know, I'm not impressed. How about you provide one of your "Solid Evidences" still waiting.
 
Back
Top Bottom