Creation vs. Evolution

Do you believe in creation or evolution?

  • Creation

    Votes: 21 23.3%
  • Evolution

    Votes: 57 63.3%
  • Other (?) - Please specify

    Votes: 11 12.2%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 1 1.1%

  • Total voters
    90
Well i believe science HAS proof that the big bang happened.
example:Let say you got a little balloon.more air in it and it will go bigger and bigger.
well thats happening now in the galaxy.The starsystems move away from each other every second.If you rewind it it comes all toghether in 1 point.There was matter and Anti matter in that ball.
When the BIG BANG happened there was slightly more matter then antimatter and thx to that the galaxy existed with us in it.Not a god or something like that.
To say God is more believable then evolution is absurd and wrong.
 
First of all, your understanding of the Big Band is grossly flawed. The Big Bang was actually a massive chain reaction of explosive outbursts of matter and energy into space time due to the interaction of several 'branes' or energy fields located in the higher dimensions which collapsed down to the Planck length in the first few nanoseconds after the BB.

Second, what has the BB got to do with Evolution? Science still doens't know what caused the BB.

Your last sentence is an unsupported opinion, and nothing more.
 
Originally posted by Switch625


What has one got to do with the other?

Nothing really... I think he might be getting at the fact that if there is higher entity to create us than the Big Bang would have been un-needed.

I firmly believe in evolution, there is far more evidence to support it than Creationists could ever scrounge up.
 
Originally posted by philippe
if you deny evolution you deny the big bang

Absurd.
Both of them are completely separated.
And the Big-Bang, while more or less accepted, is not a tenth as proved as evolution. The BB stays a very controversed theory.
 
I firmly believe in evolution, there is far more evidence to support it than Creationists could ever scrounge up.
(by Ohwell) This is simply not true, as I think both me and FearlessLeader2 have shown in this thread.

To civ1-addict and CurtSibling who were in on this discussion early, when there were still sort of a friendly tone over it: FearlessLeader2 and me are saying the same things, just phrasing ourselves differently. The part about Natural Selection (actually being God) is what makes the early Darwin theory of Evolution not seem logical. (For the people that entered the discussion late, please read through the early posts)
 
Originally posted by Homie
(by Ohwell) This is simply not true, as I think both me and FearlessLeader2 have shown in this thread.

To civ1-addict and CurtSibling who were in on this discussion early, when there were still sort of a friendly tone over it: FearlessLeader2 and me are saying the same things, just phrasing ourselves differently. The part about Natural Selection (actually being God) is what makes the early Darwin theory of Evolution not seem logical. (For the people that entered the discussion late, please read through the early posts)

I have made my views clear.
And I have nothing more to say on the debate.

Have fun.
 
I have a question that may have already been asked but I'll ask it anyway, If evolution is wrong then what happened? Do humans just appear 50,000 years ago?
 
Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Well and good except for one problem. The Bible describes the earth as being formed in six distinct stages that mesh completely with the description given by science. First the universe, then the solar system, then the earth cools, then water and land, then life in the sea, then on land, plants first in both cases. The Bible does not say that God waved a magic wand and out popped the modern Earth. It describes a lengthy process, so long that it wore out a God.

Exactly FearlessLeader2, this is the escape available to match Genesis with the most likely theories from a scientific point of view, i.e. Big Bang and Evolution, and for that specific part.

Couple of things. Since English is not my mother tongue and I do not want this to be a war of words I'd like to be clear on what you mean with "mesh with" and "it wore out a God".

Also, your explanation invokes a Biblistic interpretation issue for the way time is measured. There are two basic issues in Genesis.
1) Creation is done in 6 days, while you describe it as a lengthy process.
2) The number of years used by strict Bible interpreters to calculate the start of all of it involves the chronoligical overviews of whom begat whom.
Example: And Methuselah lived a hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech. And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters. And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

Now how strict are you on these expressions of time measurement?

Main point remaining IMHO: a reasoning like "there is a creator and he is still controlling all of it and he is intentionally hiding evidence so there will never be real proof of creation" is making a fact based exchange of arguments very difficult.

The Bible, again IMHO, is a representation of how mankind explained their few of the world given the information they had. New insights mean new explanations which later might turn out to be little to wide off-track.

An example is Newtons theory of gravity. Einstein revealed that it was true in some circumstances, i.e. low speed / low mass, but that in other circumstances it works differently. This does not mean that Newton was wrong, it means he got it right for a limited set of circumstances and it makes his view an extremely good achievement given the information and tools he had. I think the Bible should be put in the same perspective.
 
Originally posted by Beammeuppy
Couple of things. Since English is not my mother tongue and I do not want this to be a war of words I'd like to be clear on what you mean with "mesh with" and "it wore out a God".
'mesh with' means completely agrees.
'wore out a God' means it took God so long to do, and so much effort, that He needed to rest.
Originally posted by Beammeuppy
Also, your explanation invokes a Biblistic interpretation issue for the way time is measured. There are two basic issues in Genesis.
1) Creation is done in 6 days, while you describe it as a lengthy process.
2) The number of years used by strict Bible interpreters to calculate the start of all of it involves the chronoligical overviews of whom begat whom.
Example: And Methuselah lived a hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech. And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters. And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

Now how strict are you on these expressions of time measurement?
Many Bible scholars take the Bible literally where it is symbolic, and symbolically where it is literal, giving rise to confusion, and worst of all, Young-Earth Crationists.
Point one mentions that it took God six 'days' to creat the world. These days are clearly symbolic, for in the first one, the earth had to be created, and how can there be a day without a world for it to dawn on?
So what is a day to God?
In a Bible verse that I cannot recall book chapter and verse on, we get a clue:
"...a thousand years are as a day to the Lord."
But this passage too is not a literal one. It uses the common speech of the metaphor 'as a', to indicate that a thousand years of human time are LIKE a day of 'God time'.
So what are a thousand years to men, so that we can better understand what a day is like for God?
The age of Methusela is the perfect example. He only lived for 969 years, and he was the longest-lived human ever. So not even the most long-lived human ever tolive has seen a thousand years go by. Yet a thousand years are like a day to God. Put the two together, and a day to God is a period of time longer than any man can comprehend. At that point, the six days of Creation could easily represent 18 billion years.
Originally posted by Beammeuppy
Main point remaining IMHO: a reasoning like "there is a creator and he is still controlling all of it and he is intentionally hiding evidence so there will never be real proof of creation" is making a fact based exchange of arguments very difficult.

The Bible, again IMHO, is a representation of how mankind explained their few of the world given the information they had. New insights mean new explanations which later might turn out to be little to wide off-track.
I understand your objection to my contention that God's desire for His worshippers to have faith makes it impossible to ever prove either Creation or Evolution, on the grounds that it makes the debate rather meaningless, but OTOH, my position does have the virtue of being internally consistent.
Originally posted by Beammeuppy
An example is Newtons theory of gravity. Einstein revealed that it was true in some circumstances, i.e. low speed / low mass, but that in other circumstances it works differently. This does not mean that Newton was wrong, it means he got it right for a limited set of circumstances and it makes his view an extremely good achievement given the information and tools he had. I think the Bible should be put in the same perspective.
On what basis? There is not a single statement in the Bible that science can refute with anything approaching 100% certainty.

If evolution were a closed case, I would have no leg to stand on to make an argument against it. Yet here I am, and while some here would LIKE to brush me aside as just some whacky lunatic, they still feel the need to try to prove their theory or attack mine, as if the answer is still in question(which, no matter how much they proclaim the contrary, it is).

The simple fact is, they don't KNOW how the series of changes in life from the first simple start up to now occurred. They THINK they have a good idea, but they're still trying to prove it. I KNOW, based on my faith, that God created the universe and everything in it, but I'll never be able to PROVE it, because I'd have to out-sleuth God to do so.
 
Originally posted by Beammeuppy
Exactly FearlessLeader2, this is the escape available to match Genesis with the most likely theories from a scientific point of view, i.e. Big Bang and Evolution, and for that specific part.
I wanted to address this part seperately.

A question: Which came first, the publication of the Bible, or the publication of Origin of the Species and the Big Bang Thory?

It seems to me that the fact that the Genesis account of the observations made by those two later works is exactly correct about the sequence of events is awfully darn impressive work. Moses had neither an archaologist team, nor a radiotelescope, yet he managed, apparently all by his loneseome, (if he wasn't inspired by God to write the Septuagint) to make a letter-perfect guess as to the order of events starting from the beginning of the universe down to the advent of man. Pretty neat trick for a glorified goatherd. :rolleyes:

How do you explain that?
 
Oh, okay, so where's the Egyptian equivalent of the Genesis account that says the exact same thing? Honestly, if that's your best shot, why did you even point it at me? Unless you can supply me with an Egyptian source that mirrors Genesis, I'm not buying it.
 
Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

'mesh with' means completely agrees.
'wore out a God' means it took God so long to do, and so much effort, that He needed to rest.

Thanks! :goodjob:

Many Bible scholars take the Bible literally where it is symbolic, and symbolically where it is literal, giving rise to confusion, and worst of all, Young-Earth Crationists.
Point one mentions that it took God six 'days' to creat the world. These days are clearly symbolic, for in the first one, the earth had to be created, and how can there be a day without a world for it to dawn on?
So what is a day to God?
In a Bible verse that I cannot recall book chapter and verse on, we get a clue:
"...a thousand years are as a day to the Lord."
But this passage too is not a literal one. It uses the common speech of the metaphor 'as a', to indicate that a thousand years of human time are LIKE a day of 'God time'.
So what are a thousand years to men, so that we can better understand what a day is like for God?
The age of Methusela is the perfect example. He only lived for 969 years, and he was the longest-lived human ever. So not even the most long-lived human ever tolive has seen a thousand years go by. Yet a thousand years are like a day to God. Put the two together, and a day to God is a period of time longer than any man can comprehend. At that point, the six days of Creation could easily represent 18 billion years.

If my reading is correct than you say that the time references should be put in perspective and that "a day" could represent a period of time?

I understand your objection to my contention that God's desire for His worshippers to have faith makes it impossible to ever prove either Creation or Evolution, on the grounds that it makes the debate rather meaningless, but OTOH, my position does have the virtue of being internally consistent.

Your position is internally consistant, yet how is internally defined?

On what basis? There is not a single statement in the Bible that science can refute with anything approaching 100% certainty.

Science very much is about formulating a hypothesis and challenge it. Science should not be dogmatic and always be challinging itself.

If evolution were a closed case, I would have no leg to stand on to make an argument against it. Yet here I am, and while some here would LIKE to brush me aside as just some whacky lunatic, they still feel the need to try to prove their theory or attack mine, as if the answer is still in question(which, no matter how much they proclaim the contrary, it is).

The simple fact is, they don't KNOW how the series of changes in life from the first simple start up to now occurred. They THINK they have a good idea, but they're still trying to prove it. I KNOW, based on my faith, that God created the universe and everything in it, but I'll never be able to PROVE it, because I'd have to out-sleuth God to do so.

I truelly respect your faith, and I do. Scientific theories will never ever be a closed case and from that perspective I propose to compare Creationism and Evolutionsm from a scientific perspective.
 
Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

I wanted to address this part seperately.

A question: Which came first, the publication of the Bible, or the publication of Origin of the Species and the Big Bang Thory?

It seems to me that the fact that the Genesis account of the observations made by those two later works is exactly correct about the sequence of events is awfully darn impressive work. Moses had neither an archaologist team, nor a radiotelescope, yet he managed, apparently all by his loneseome, (if he wasn't inspired by God to write the Septuagint) to make a letter-perfect guess as to the order of events starting from the beginning of the universe down to the advent of man. Pretty neat trick for a glorified goatherd. :rolleyes:

How do you explain that?

Some observations. If Moses ever lived how could he know what happened in the thousands of years before him (apart from faith)? Also, Genesis is NOT exactly correct at all. That is what we discussed in other threads.
 
Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Oh, okay, so where's the Egyptian equivalent of the Genesis account that says the exact same thing? Honestly, if that's your best shot, why did you even point it at me? Unless you can supply me with an Egyptian source that mirrors Genesis, I'm not buying it.

Hmmm, one of the issues with the Bible as an accurate historical source is that there is little reference from other sources to the Bible or the Jewish people. Putting it the other way around does not really help to promote the Bible as being historically accurate.

Multiple references to the Bible (or related topics) from ancient sources will kill this POV of course.
 
Originally posted by Beammeuppy
Thanks! :goodjob:

You're welcome. Debater's Motto: seek first to understand, then to be understood. If you can't understand what I'm saying, I can't convince you of anything, can I?
Originally posted by Beammeuppy
If my reading is correct than you say that the time references should be put in perspective and that "a day" could represent a period of time?
Precisely!

Originally posted by Beammeuppy
Your position is internally consistant, yet how is internally defined?
I do not understand the question.

Originally posted by Beammeuppy
Science very much is about formulating a hypothesis and challenge it. Science should not be dogmatic and always be challinging itself.
I do not understand how that relates to what it was a reply to:
On what basis? There is not a single statement in the Bible that science can refute with anything approaching 100% certainty.
 
Originally posted by Beammeuppy
Some observations. If Moses ever lived how could he know what happened in the thousands of years before him (apart from faith)?
Um, isn't that MY argument? :confused:
Originally posted by Beammeuppy
Also, Genesis is NOT exactly correct at all. That is what we discussed in other threads.
Genesis says the universe came first. So does science.
Genesis says the earth came next. So does science.
Genesis says the sea came next. So does science.
Genesis says the life came next. So does science.
Genesis says the life started in the sea. So does science.
Genesis says the land had plants first, then animals. So does science.

So how is Genesis wrong?:confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom