Creationism Vs. Evolution

[Mosasauria]

It doesn't explain how life began.

It doesn't try, it isn't about that. Evolution assumes life did start and goes on from there. The theories of abiogenesis deal with the beginnings of life, and they are rather less solid than evolution. We're getting there, however.

There is always the possibility that the first amino acids on earth may have been extraterrestrial(Hence why abiogenesis is shaky).
But we'll find out soon enough.

[Farnhamia]

It doesn't try, it isn't about that. Evolution assumes life did start and goes on from there. The theories of abiogenesis deal with the beginnings of life, and they are rather less solid than evolution. We're getting there, however.

There is always the possibility that the first amino acids on earth may have been extraterrestrial(Hence why abiogenesis is shaky).
But we'll find out soon enough.

Well, no that doesn't shake abiogenesis, only terrestrial abiogenesis.

[Sociobiology]

(Image)

I hate this picture, raptors have feathers, damn it.

[Ifreann]

Name one problem with evolution.

It doesn't explain how life began.

Nor does gravity.

[Mosasauria]

Your calling it fact. Are you a scientist?

You don't need to be a scientist to observe somethig as a fact...
Try breeding/crossbreeding/hybridizing various fish(Smaller cichlid, guppies, platies, etc.). Go ahead, give it a try.
Then wait several months. Then tell me evolution isn't a fact.

[Mosasauria]

There is always the possibility that the first amino acids on earth may have been extraterrestrial(Hence why abiogenesis is shaky).
But we'll find out soon enough.

Well, no that doesn't shake abiogenesis, only terrestrial abiogenesis.

*Self-facepalm*
Thanks for the correction.

[Farnhamia]

Your calling it fact. Are you a scientist?

You don't need to be a scientist to observe somethig as a fact...
Try breeding/crossbreeding/hybridizing various fish(Smaller cichlid, guppies, platies, etc.). Go ahead, give it a try.
Then wait several months. Then tell me evolution isn't a fact.

Exactly. You don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows. Hey, great line ... *runs off to write a song with that in it*

[Mosasauria]

(Image)

I hate this picture, raptors have feathers, damn it.

But not Troodon or Compsognathus.

[Awesome voices]

Woooow its fact that i came from a monkey!?!! I cant believe they found out how to prove that!! (please note sarcasm)

[Mosasauria]

You don't need to be a scientist to observe somethig as a fact...
Try breeding/crossbreeding/hybridizing various fish(Smaller cichlid, guppies, platies, etc.). Go ahead, give it a try.
Then wait several months. Then tell me evolution isn't a fact.

Exactly. You don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows. Hey, great line ... *runs off to write a song with that in it*

In fact, throught this method, I created a Jack Dempsey-Red Devil cichlid hybrid a while ago. The fish grew bigger than both of it's parents. However, it was sterile(Or so it seemed). This very mixing of genes in itself is evolution.

[Urwumpe]

It doesn't explain how life began.

Guess what: Evolution doesn't even attempt it. Evolution only answers the question how species change and new species are created. It describing just a process. Your car mechanic does also not answer you the question, why your TV is broken.

What you are searching for is the theory of Abiogenesis, or the theory how inanimate matter can turn into reproducing cells.

This one has many open holes that still need to be filled, but generally speaking, it is pretty hard to find a better alternative to it. Many substances can be explained by it with simple chemistry, others need so carefully chosen environments, that it is doubtful that they formed as easily. DNA and RNA can for example be explained relatively easy, with precursors forming already in short times in laboratory experiments (since DNA and RNA are just different kinds of sugar).

The biggest point of discussion in the Abiogenesis community is the order how things started. Did cells first learn to reproduce or first develop a metabolism? This isn't answered yet, the evidence of that time is rare and experiments suggest that there must not be a special order, at least not under laboratory conditions.

Still, if you think that Abiogenesis isn't the way, you would have to find evidence how it could be different. Just saying "Chuck Norris kicked everything into existence" isn't enough. You would have to find his footprints or videotape him kicking RNA molecules around.

[Scotovy]

It doesn't explain how life began.

And it's not supposed to.
I believe you are looking for abiogenesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Jesus, can any creationist use a unique argument for once?

Come on dude! Don't say that about people. Evolutionists aren't unique either in their arguments then. And don't label me as a creationist. I tell you a problem with evolution and you don't accept it. Who is ignoring facts?

[Ceannairceach]

Woooow its fact that i came from a monkey!?!! I cant believe they found out how to prove that!! (please note sarcasm)

You didn't come from a monkey. We share an ancestor with them. But, yes, we did prove it.

[Mosasauria]

Woooow its fact that i came from a monkey!?!! I cant believe they found out how to prove that!! (please note sarcasm)

You didn't. You share a common ancestor with most primates. You are a hominid ape. You share a common ancestor with today's other apes. Your ancestors have been uncovered in Africa.

[Wessontonia]

(Image)

I hate this picture, raptors have feathers, damn it.

Well we have Spielberg and Jurassic park to blame for that.

[Sociobiology]

Look, it's not about what you can and can't say, it's that you've got your facts wrong. If you refuse to acknowledge that, we will refuse to acknowledge you.

That's your opinion and stop attacking me! I'm not attacking any of you for your beliefs. I'm not refusing to acknowledge anything. I may be wrong. I'm not a scientist so i don't know correct teachings.

welcome to debating, if you did not want to debate then posting on a debate based forum was a mistake.
not teaching evolution because it it controversial (in the social sense it is in no way controversial in science) is no different than skipping the civil war in a history class because it might upset southerners.

in my opinion, everyday at least one belief you hold dear should be challenged and you should be presented with something offensive at least once. It will help people keep perspective.

[Ceannairceach]

And it's not supposed to.
I believe you are looking for abiogenesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Jesus, can any creationist use a unique argument for once?

Come on dude! Don't say that about people. Evolutionists aren't unique either in their arguments then. And don't label me as a creationist. I tell you a problem with evolution and you don't accept it. Who is ignoring facts?

You, but indirectly; Evolution doesn't seek to explain how life began. Ergo, it isn't a problem.

[Scotovy]

It doesn't explain how life began.

Guess what: Evolution doesn't even attempt it. Evolution only answers the question how species change and new species are created. It describing just a process. Your car mechanic does also not answer you the question, why your TV is broken.

What you are searching for is the theory of Abiogenesis, or the theory how inanimate matter can turn into reproducing cells.

This one has many open holes that still need to be filled, but generally speaking, it is pretty hard to find a better alternative to it. Many substances can be explained by it with simple chemistry, others need so carefully chosen environments, that it is doubtful that they formed as easily. DNA and RNA can for example be explained relatively easy, with precursors forming already in short times in laboratory experiments (since DNA and RNA are just different kinds of sugar).

The biggest point of discussion in the Abiogenesis community is the order how things started. Did cells first learn to reproduce or first develop a metabolism? This isn't answered yet, the evidence of that time is rare and experiments suggest that there must not be a special order, at least not under laboratory conditions.

Still, if you think that Abiogenesis isn't the way, you would have to find evidence how it could be different. Just saying "Chuck Norris kicked everything into existence" isn't enough. You would have to find his footprints or videotape him kicking RNA molecules around.

Doesn't disprove God then.

[Mosasauria]

And it's not supposed to.
I believe you are looking for abiogenesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Jesus, can any creationist use a unique argument for once?

Come on dude! Don't say that about people. Evolutionists aren't unique either in their arguments then. And don't label me as a creationist. I tell you a problem with evolution and you don't accept it. Who is ignoring facts?

1. Why not?
2. Really? Look at my arguments. Then compare them to Cean's. Then everyone else.
3.I'm sorry, but this is where I have to laugh. You didn't state a problem; you stated a common misconception that I and several others corrected you on. I'm not ignoring facts. You are.

[Farnhamia]

Guess what: Evolution doesn't even attempt it. Evolution only answers the question how species change and new species are created. It describing just a process. Your car mechanic does also not answer you the question, why your TV is broken.

What you are searching for is the theory of Abiogenesis, or the theory how inanimate matter can turn into reproducing cells.

This one has many open holes that still need to be filled, but generally speaking, it is pretty hard to find a better alternative to it. Many substances can be explained by it with simple chemistry, others need so carefully chosen environments, that it is doubtful that they formed as easily. DNA and RNA can for example be explained relatively easy, with precursors forming already in short times in laboratory experiments (since DNA and RNA are just different kinds of sugar).

The biggest point of discussion in the Abiogenesis community is the order how things started. Did cells first learn to reproduce or first develop a metabolism? This isn't answered yet, the evidence of that time is rare and experiments suggest that there must not be a special order, at least not under laboratory conditions.

Still, if you think that Abiogenesis isn't the way, you would have to find evidence how it could be different. Just saying "Chuck Norris kicked everything into existence" isn't enough. You would have to find his footprints or videotape him kicking RNA molecules around.

Doesn't disprove God then.

Science doesn't care if there is a god or not.

[Scotovy]

Come on dude! Don't say that about people. Evolutionists aren't unique either in their arguments then. And don't label me as a creationist. I tell you a problem with evolution and you don't accept it. Who is ignoring facts?

You, but indirectly; Evolution doesn't seek to explain how life began. Ergo, it isn't a problem.

In that case what disproves God then?

[Mosasauria]

Guess what: Evolution doesn't even attempt it. Evolution only answers the question how species change and new species are created. It describing just a process. Your car mechanic does also not answer you the question, why your TV is broken.

What you are searching for is the theory of Abiogenesis, or the theory how inanimate matter can turn into reproducing cells.

This one has many open holes that still need to be filled, but generally speaking, it is pretty hard to find a better alternative to it. Many substances can be explained by it with simple chemistry, others need so carefully chosen environments, that it is doubtful that they formed as easily. DNA and RNA can for example be explained relatively easy, with precursors forming already in short times in laboratory experiments (since DNA and RNA are just different kinds of sugar).

The biggest point of discussion in the Abiogenesis community is the order how things started. Did cells first learn to reproduce or first develop a metabolism? This isn't answered yet, the evidence of that time is rare and experiments suggest that there must not be a special order, at least not under laboratory conditions.

Still, if you think that Abiogenesis isn't the way, you would have to find evidence how it could be different. Just saying "Chuck Norris kicked everything into existence" isn't enough. You would have to find his footprints or videotape him kicking RNA molecules around.

Doesn't disprove God then.

And nobody claims it does. You can believe in a god and accept evolution for the fact it is. Look at me for example.

[Farnhamia]

You, but indirectly; Evolution doesn't seek to explain how life began. Ergo, it isn't a problem.

In that case what disproves God then?

Lack of evidence. Real, direct evidence.

[Mosasauria]

You, but indirectly; Evolution doesn't seek to explain how life began. Ergo, it isn't a problem.

In that case what disproves God then?

Ourselves. Not science. In science, it does not matter whether there is a god or not.

[Ceannairceach]

You, but indirectly; Evolution doesn't seek to explain how life began. Ergo, it isn't a problem.

In that case what disproves God then?

Nothing; but it shows he is irrelevant.