Creationism Vs. Evolution

[Urwumpe]

Wrong I'm still a creationist.

And you are still pretty lonely down there.

[DaWoad]

point out where that was said.

NO! I said along time ago I'm done and I wasn't now I'm really done.

lmfao. So, it didn't happen then? 'Cause I looked and I'm pretty sure it didn't happen. Oh sure lots of people we're utterly demolishing your arguments but those were on the basis of silly little things like "facts" and "logic". No one actually managed to fault you for the important stuff like sentence structure or spelling.

[DaWoad]

Maybe you didn't insult me, but others did especially when people say I use incorrect grammar and I can't be taken seriously because of that!

Ignore the grammar trolls, I've never encountered a forum without them. They are like pests around grain silos.

except he didn't get grammar trolled. No. Seriously, I know it's odd and all but it doesn't happen much 'round here and it definitely didn't in this case.

[Ape managment]

Evolution should be the only one taught in school. Many people believe that this is a two sided debate when it is not, it is a million side debate. There are million of different theories on how life was created and evolution is backed by well over a majority of scientists. It would not make sense to just teach Evolution and Adam Eve when ther are millions of other stories just as likely as Adam and Eve.

[F1-Insanity]

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?

Lets reverse that question, shall we? What proves 'god'? How are we to be convinced of its existence?

[F1-Insanity]

I think the evolution side can sum up this post with two words: Concession Accepted.

Wrong I'm still a creationist.

You are totally free to believe whatever you want, as long as it doesn't do any direct harm to anyone. But when exactly did ignorance become a point of view?

[Ragnvaldr]

This my get me banned from the forums for awhile, but at this point I don't give a shit because this debate is futile. I'm not going to agree with you and your not going to agree with me.

If you people want to know so bad about holes in evolution, fucking look it up yourselves. I'm not your bitch and I'm I sick of being told I don't know what I'm fucking talking about, treated like I'm piece of shit creationist and not having any fucking person listen to my views while I listen to yours. I respect yours, but hell no I don't have my veiws respected. Well fuck it then! Go to hell! All of you evolutionists. You know something douches I had respect for evolutionists once, but no fucking more. I've realized how god damn narrow fucking minded evolutionists are. You people are a disgrace. EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO THEIR OWN OPINIONS, BUT YOU GUYS HAVE BASICALLY SAID YOU DON'T GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT MINE. WELL FUCK YOU THEN. I'M DONE.

You can think of me how you wish. I could care less.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

No offense, but calling people who (in some cases religiously) follow the theory of evolution, who, by definition, support something can change instantly given the propper evidence, is a bit silly.

There's plenty of retarded teenagers that will say evolution is right and you are dumb for not believing it, dispite not knowing what it really is. These are just as bad as the close minded religious folk. There are, obviously, also more open-minded religious folk than some of the evolution folk.
There will always be exceptions, but this is the image religious people have created for themselves, either by having the more loud idiots scream or simply this sort of behaviour.

[Ragnvaldr]

In that case what disproves God then?

Lets reverse that question, shall we? What proves 'god'? How are we to be convinced of its existence?

Isn't proving god removing faith, which is exactly what God doesn't want? I might be wrong here but this is what I recall hearing.
Argueing, trying to prove God exists, is a show of lack of faith. I suggest to the religious people in here to just "turn the other cheek" and let us support our theory and you continue to believe your religion.
If you must take part of this debate, try to explain why you think it should be taught, other than your opinion and your religious bias.

[Sociobiology]

Ignore the grammar trolls, I've never encountered a forum without them. They are like pests around grain silos.

except he didn't get grammar trolled. No. Seriously, I know it's odd and all but it doesn't happen much 'round here and it definitely didn't in this case.

he did about 8 or 9 pages back.

[Sociobiology]

name one.
Name one fact that "punches a hole in evolution"

still waiting.

ditto

[DaWoad]

except he didn't get grammar trolled. No. Seriously, I know it's odd and all but it doesn't happen much 'round here and it definitely didn't in this case.

he did about 8 or 9 pages back.

No one will take you seriously if you keep telling me (and by the way i believe in both evolution and creationism) what i can and can't say.

No one will take you seriously if you use bad grammar, along with denying the proper usage of a term, and refusing to acknowledge evidence.

I don't think that counts as grammar trolling given that it was one part of a larger argument.

[Tekania]

I believe that God created earth and all the people and animals, but I think that neither should be taught in schools. Throughout my learning in school, we have never even talked about the subject. If you believe in evolution, fine. Learn about it from your parents. If you believe in creationism, learn about if from your parents as well. I don't think that this subject should be discussed in schools, because it really has no purpose being there.

Biology is a required course in most schools.

[Sociobiology]

I believe that God created earth and all the people and animals, but I think that neither should be taught in schools. Throughout my learning in school, we have never even talked about the subject. If you believe in evolution, fine. Learn about it from your parents. If you believe in creationism, learn about if from your parents as well. I don't think that this subject should be discussed in schools, because it really has no purpose being there.

Biology is a required course in most schools.

not to mention with open source genetics being made available it will become even more important.

[Tekania]

So......faith is fact??? I don't think so. That's why it's called faith not fact.

it's like arguing with a pile of wool...

The wool would have got it by now.

[Tekania]

Where does it say gravity is fact? What about relativity? That's Einstein's theory.

Pick something up. Drop it. Congratulations, you have just observed gravity. Unless you're on a lot of drugs, you can accept that gravity is a fact.

Yep:

@Scotovy

That something falls (gravity) is a fact, the process and mechanics of how this occur are the theory...

Same with evolution... That life evolves (changes over time) is a fact, the process and mechanics by which this change occurs are the theory.

In both cases the theories are the best-fit mechanisms which hold to the observational evidence and tests.

[Tekania]

What say evolution subtly proves creationism? What if they actually are not enemies but both theories on life? In Science, creationism just doesn't work, (and I am a theist, a Christian), because if you don't understand something, the acceptable response may be: 'God doesn't want us to understand yet, so I won't try' or 'God says so'. However, evolution doesn't teach the same moral values that creationism does, like being kind, humble, to have integrity, family values, etc...So in science, forget God for a second, embrace the universe as a test tube for your experiments, but when outside, let your spiritual life come through. (Of course if you are religious.) I believe undoubtedly that creationism is correct, but I also believe evolution must be correct in order for science to progress. Like all 'controversial' theories in physics, they have to be there to progress, so let it be.

how can both creationism and evolution be correct when they are fundamentally at odds with each other?

They are not necessarily at odds, depending on how one defines "Creationism"... In Systematic Theology "Creationism" is merely the categorical name for theological viewpoints relating to the creation of the universe, some "Creationist" theological models do involve in degrees scientific viewpoints relating to evolution, some do not. In Christian Creationist Theological models, for example, you have views which have no concept of evolution such as Literalistic Creationism, and Day-Age Creationism; you have views which completely absorb evolutionary theory ideas such as Theistic Evolution and Evolutionary Creationism; and also views which make differentiations in evolution and only partly support the scientific idea such as Progressive Creationism. So to state that "both creationism and evolution" are "fundamentally at odds with another" is not true.

[Pottslande]

Sadly, there is possibly no more a hopeless argument than that of creationists vs evolutionists.

Both sides have beliefs so deeply ingrained in ourselves that it's impossible to change ways either way without some huge wallop to the head. And you can't deliver that wallop over a forum.

I think, for there to be any real discussion, we should try to find some sort of things we can agree on. Can we agree that life is a fascinating miracle, whether it came from god's hand or marched out of the sea? Can we agree that life is complex and mystical, if that mysticism comes from chemical reactions or a soul?

Both sides have valid points, and unproven points. What is needed is perhaps not a compromise, but an understanding.

[Tekania]

Sadly, there is possibly no more a hopeless argument than that of creationists vs evolutionists.

Both sides have beliefs so deeply ingrained in ourselves that it's impossible to change ways either way without some huge wallop to the head. And you can't deliver that wallop over a forum.

I think, for there to be any real discussion, we should try to find some sort of things we can agree on. Can we agree that life is a fascinating miracle, whether it came from god's hand or marched out of the sea? Can we agree that life is complex and mystical, if that mysticism comes from chemical reactions or a soul?

Both sides have valid points, and unproven points. What is needed is perhaps not a compromise, but an understanding.

Both sides have valid points in different realms. Evolution in science, Creation in Theology. But there is little common ground for the two in a science classroom as Evolution is science, Creation is Theology, and one does not teach theology in a science classroom.

[Pottslande]

Sadly, there is possibly no more a hopeless argument than that of creationists vs evolutionists.

Both sides have beliefs so deeply ingrained in ourselves that it's impossible to change ways either way without some huge wallop to the head. And you can't deliver that wallop over a forum.

I think, for there to be any real discussion, we should try to find some sort of things we can agree on. Can we agree that life is a fascinating miracle, whether it came from god's hand or marched out of the sea? Can we agree that life is complex and mystical, if that mysticism comes from chemical reactions or a soul?

Both sides have valid points, and unproven points. What is needed is perhaps not a compromise, but an understanding.

Both sides have valid points in different realms. Evolution in science, Creation in Theology. But there is little common ground for the two in a science classroom as Evolution is science, Creation is Theology, and one does not teach theology in a science classroom.

Teaching something in a classroom does not necessarily make it an untouchable subject, likewise with teaching it in the church. Slavery was taught in many pre Civil War classrooms as a positive thing. Likewise, many churches have painted the native american as a savage who must be tamed in the past.

I'm not saying evolution=slavery, or creationism=racism. I am simply saying that only stating something is spoken of in a certain building does not make that subject something else. It is the subject itself that must prove itself.

[Ragnvaldr]

Sadly, there is possibly no more a hopeless argument than that of creationists vs evolutionists.

Both sides have beliefs so deeply ingrained in ourselves that it's impossible to change ways either way without some huge wallop to the head. And you can't deliver that wallop over a forum.

I think, for there to be any real discussion, we should try to find some sort of things we can agree on. Can we agree that life is a fascinating miracle, whether it came from god's hand or marched out of the sea? Can we agree that life is complex and mystical, if that mysticism comes from chemical reactions or a soul?

Both sides have valid points, and unproven points. What is needed is perhaps not a compromise, but an understanding.

Both sides have valid points in different realms. Evolution in science, Creation in Theology. But there is little common ground for the two in a science classroom as Evolution is science, Creation is Theology, and one does not teach theology in a science classroom.

This is probbably the clearest way I've heard this arguement phrased yet, bravo sir.

[Tekania]

Teaching something in a classroom does not necessarily make it an untouchable subject, likewise with teaching it in the church. Slavery was taught in many pre Civil War classrooms as a positive thing. Likewise, many churches have painted the native american as a savage who must be tamed in the past.

I'm not saying evolution=slavery, or creationism=racism. I am simply saying that only stating something is spoken of in a certain building does not make that subject something else. It is the subject itself that must prove itself.

And once again, Creation is theology, not science, and is not taught in a science classroom, anymore than instrumental music is taught in a science classroom. If one wants to study Creationism one takes a course in systematic theology, if one wants to study instrumental music performance, one takes band.

[Pottslande]

Teaching something in a classroom does not necessarily make it an untouchable subject, likewise with teaching it in the church. Slavery was taught in many pre Civil War classrooms as a positive thing. Likewise, many churches have painted the native american as a savage who must be tamed in the past.

I'm not saying evolution=slavery, or creationism=racism. I am simply saying that only stating something is spoken of in a certain building does not make that subject something else. It is the subject itself that must prove itself.

And once again, Creation is theology, not science, and is not taught in a science classroom, anymore than instrumental music is taught in a science classroom. If one wants to study Creationism one takes a course in systematic theology, if one wants to study instrumental music performance, one takes band.

However, I still do not see how this goes against my initial point-that the argument between creationists and evolutionists will rarely, if ever, come to any sort of conclusion without already beaten out nastiness. Therefor, we should try something new-find a bit of common ground and understanding.

[Blouman Empire]

These threads should be locked the moment posted. If the OP wants to know about the debate they can go look up the 100's of other threads on this topic. NSG just gets congested with this shit

[Pottslande]

These threads should be locked the moment posted. If the OP wants to know about the debate they can go look up the 100's of other threads on this topic. NSG just gets congested with this shit

While I agree to some point, I think there could be an interesting opportunity to try to come up with something new in this debate.

[Brandington]

So lets for a second pretend were all believe in creationism. OK so the earth was created in 7, says the bible. 7 earth days or is "days" a wild card. If earth wasn't created yet, then could a day could be any period of time. Could that mean the a day could be 7 million earth years. When the bible says" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters". That's Day one. Now i know that most of you don't believe in this.

Now lets all pretend we believe in evolution. Hear is part of of Darwins theory of evolution" In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

debate about it

If you see any holes in my idea please feel free to flame as long as its constructive criticism, i don't care if you cures my family's guts, just i want to make this theory creditable with little holes.

i left it opened ended because you believe what you believe.

thanks and if you like stuff like this Google Tim Scott, Hammond WI
(for the forum moderators, the Tim Scott thing it isn't advertising its me helping people0. btw IM NOT TIM SCOTT