Creationism vs. Evolution

[Maison]

i am not...me and ryan are still friends reguardless...
just because were different religions doesnt mean i hate him.

[moonrash]

There will always be critics. Creationists like yourself do not trust the capabilities of man itself, since God is 'omnipotent'. You guys could argue no matter how close science gets, it would all be attributed to God 'throwing us a bone'. Say someone did invent a time machine for us to view the past. Would you consider it legit, or some wacky experiment with no merit, blasphemy?

The same could be said for the current health sciences. Whether you disprove it or not, other creationists may view topic such as genetics a bunch of lies and coincidence that 'if we take this piece of skin and scan it under this thingamajig, we'll get these Xs and Os!'.



We can't see evolution because it is shaped over millions of years, beyond our lifetimes. Any immediate changes would be termed 'mutation' by scientific definition. What we can base evolution on, is obtainable, physical evidence left on the planet by our ancestors and ancestors of other species. But I know what you're thinking. Again, all coincidence that doesn't mean a damn, right? Just as you say evolution is as much a faith is religion, doesn't mean it is false. After all, you believe your religion to be true, yes?

Creationists only base their perception of God and the like on written historical works, supported by organizations and major events such as wars of which all come from The Bible itself. All we have are relics of the past, scientific footprints and written works like the Bible. No one has seen God (as you say, he doesn't want to be seen, thus can hide or erase our memories at will). So does that make your faith any more legitimate than our 'faith'?



They do. They have brains, don't they? Brains store memory, if anything science has shown, removal or damage to certain parts of the brain (eg. cerebrum) will impair memory and alter personality. This is something we know for certain, we can observe immediately. Because of severe brain damage, people we term 'psychopaths' are also said to lack conscience, if literary more than science. It's all relative to the brain.

If anything, it's to do with brain size. Organisms with small brains such as fish still have a conscience; but due to limited processing capability, they quickly forget. Emotions such as joy, fear, etc. But they do fear (for instance) when the moment calls for it, and go out to aid their kind. Same with predators, they have a conscious to kill, a tiger doesn't blindly run against 10 elephants out of instinct, it evaluates the situation for the time best to strike. But if you argue that killing is not moral or involving a conscious, what about humans who kill animals for food? Yes, we too evaluate and think about it before killing (most of the time), so shouldn't we also lack a conscious then, by your definition?

I hope you don't go around beating dogs and 'lesser animals' because you see them as lacking a conscience, by your ideals.

As for you seeing humans as the only intelligent beings in existence and thus, God must have created us alone, right? The universe is too expansive for us to know of other extraterrestrial species. You're probably thinking now, 'Yeah, could be. But until we find them, evolution is a bunch of BS'. Humanity simply isn't as incredible as you believe it to be. We're still very primitive and should civilization survive another 1,000 years, we will be far more understanding and technologically advanced by then (and continue until extinction of humans itself). Just as you can argue we haven't found Aliens yet and are thus unique creations of God, we can say we just don't have the means to now, and that God doesn't exist because we can't find 'him'.

You're going to say we can't find him because he doesn't want us to. Well if he's so all-powerful as your ultimate reason, why even have this debate? Anything we say can be vetoed by that, whether we know the truth or not. Be open to understanding and enforce an argument with believable, comprehendable facts at the 'mortal' level, otherwise it's just plain meritless.

I guess we'll know for sure when Aliens rain down from their motherships and blast us to bits, huh? Or maybe you'll tell us it's God's interpretation of the tribulation and apocalypse?

you deserve this.

[Nath]

I can't say what I want to without sounding dickish.

I feel that OP doesn't really understand the evolution theory and that kinda makes this pointless to me.

[Poem]

@(you need an account to see links) wanna see evolution? Read into caterpillars and butterflies

That isn't evolution in the slightest. They are still the same species; they just look different. A larva of a species can look very different from teh adult.

There will always be critics. Creationists like yourself do not trust the capabilities of man itself, since God is 'omnipotent'. You guys could argue no matter how close science gets, it would all be attributed to God 'throwing us a bone'. Say someone did invent a time machine for us to view the past. Would you consider it legit, or some wacky experiment with no merit, blasphemy?

Sure, why not? I don't see where you are going with this. Invent one and let me witness evolution and then we'll talk.

The same could be said for the current health sciences. Whether you disprove it or not, other creationists may view topic such as genetics a bunch of lies and coincidence that 'if we take this piece of skin and scan it under this thingamajig, we'll get these Xs and Os!'.

No, genetics are not coincidences. I believe that. You are generalizing about other creationists as well. Genetics are one of the many intricately designed things that God has created, along with every single microscopic protein in your body.

We can't see evolution because it is shaped over millions of years, beyond our lifetimes. Any immediate changes would be termed 'mutation' by scientific definition. What we can base evolution on, is obtainable, physical evidence left on the planet by our ancestors and ancestors of other species. But I know what you're thinking. Again, all coincidence that doesn't mean a damn, right? Just as you say evolution is as much a faith is religion, doesn't mean it is false. After all, you believe your religion to be true, yes?

Alright, give me an example of said coincidences. It strikes me as odd how there are no "transitional" fossils, as they say. We've only gotten fossils in completed stages and very very few (if they are valid) in between. If evolution were really true there would be as many half-bird, half-dinosaur fossils as birds or dinosaurs, for example.

Also, mutations are almost all negative. It is very difficult to produce a mutation that would benefit you--but evolution is just that. Mutations.

Evolution is a faith so you cannot act superior as if you are on higher grounds. Both ideas take belief to make it happen, so what I am saying is not to belittle others for being creationist.

Creationists only base their perception of God and the like on written historical works, supported by organizations and major events such as wars of which all come from The Bible itself. All we have are relics of the past, scientific footprints and written works like the Bible. No one has seen God (as you say, he doesn't want to be seen, thus can hide or erase our memories at will). So does that make your faith any more legitimate than our 'faith'?

I believe there are more evidence of creationism than evolution that still exist today. All the many diverse and intricate living creatures that cannot have happened by chance. I invite you to take a look at something that are taught in gradeschool: all cells come from preexisting cells. Where was the first cell? And also, there are a number of chicken-egg (who came first) loopholes in evolution, such as protein and protein synthesizers.

I never said God doesn't want to be seen. I believe that when we go to Heaven, we will see Him. But that's another topic entirely, and this is strictly creationism versus evolution.[/QUOTE]

They do. They have brains, don't they? Brains store memory, if anything science has shown, removal or damage to certain parts of the brain (eg. cerebrum) will impair memory and alter personality. This is something we know for certain, we can observe immediately. Because of severe brain damage, people we term 'psychopaths' are also said to lack conscience, if literary more than science. It's all relative to the brain.

Here, take a look at dictionary.com's definition of conscience:
1. the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.
2. the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.
3. an inhibiting sense of what is prudent: I'd eat another piece of pie but my conscience would bother me.
4. conscientiousness.
5. Obsolete . consciousness; self-knowledge.

I think you have merely misinterpreted what a conscience is. Having a brain does not equal to having a conscience, and essentially I am finding you arguing that we are the same as other animals in all senses that are not physical, which most people would agree on is not true. Our values are different and we have a whole spectrum of emotion that they do not exhibit. Fear is instinctual. Help is also instinctual. And what you describe as joy is not really joy, I would argue. Give me an example and let's discuss it.
A conscience to kill? No, that's survival. Refer to the above definition of conscience and let's continue to talk about it after you have understood the definition of it. Evaluation of circumstance once again, is not a "conscience" working.

I hope you don't go around beating dogs and 'lesser animals' because you see them as lacking a conscience, by your ideals.

I don't. But that doesn't change the fact that they lack a conscience.

As for you seeing humans as the only intelligent beings in existence and thus, God must have created us alone, right? The universe is too expansive for us to know of other extraterrestrial species. You're probably thinking now, 'Yeah, could be. But until we find them, evolution is a bunch of BS'. Humanity simply isn't as incredible as you believe it to be. We're still very primitive and should civilization survive another 1,000 years, we will be far more understanding and technologically advanced by then (and continue until extinction of humans itself). Just as you can argue we haven't found Aliens yet and are thus unique creations of God, we can say we just don't have the means to now, and that God doesn't exist because we can't find 'him'.

I didn't say that. Besides, the existence of aliens doesn't really add to evolution, but supports creation far more. As the minuscule chance of evolution happening here happened somewhere else too.... well that doesn't really help your case, does it? I believe God can create other beings. I don't know if he has or has not, but He can.

And God is beyond space and time since he created both these concepts. As we are space-time creatures, we cannot fathom living outside of such a zone. We will not be able to find God unless we come to Him after death, but again not relevant to the debate.

You're going to say we can't find him because he doesn't want us to. Well if he's so all-powerful as your ultimate reason, why even have this debate? Anything we say can be vetoed by that, whether we know the truth or not. Be open to understanding and enforce an argument with believable, comprehendable facts at the 'mortal' level, otherwise it's just plain meritless.

Well, no. If you read anything I've said, most of it didn't include that statement unless you specifically mentioned something about God "e.g. we can't find Him, we can't see Him".

I believe I'm pretty understanding, and I believe I provided plenty of facts and responses to every single attack.




EDIT:

I can't say what I want to without sounding dickish.

I feel that OP doesn't really understand the evolution theory and that kinda makes this pointless to me.

Well, I believe I know more about evolution than all of you know about creation. I've had to correct you guys more times than I can remember.

[Brittanee]

(you need an account to see links)

[Haku]

evolution imo.
too lazy to explain why but my brain and instict tell me so.

[Mod]

Sure, why not? I don't see where you are going with this. Invent one and let me witness evolution and then we'll talk.

You say that now, but would you still be convinced if you could see the past in your lifetime? We both know at the present, technology has nowhere to even begin on creating a time machine, if ever possible, you were blowing smoke in your original comment. If you're asking me to invent one and let you witness evolution, I could ask the same of you invent one and show me God's miracles written into The Bible with my own eyes. My point? Your first comment was just to bash @(you need an account to see links). I'm perfectly fine leaving this here, since there is no end to the "time machine", but if you still want at it, then go ahead.

No, genetics are not coincidences. I believe that. You are generalizing about other creationists as well. Genetics are one of the many intricately designed things that God has created, along with every single microscopic protein in your body.

Fair enough about my generalizing - I'm not going to touch on that part about God designing genetics as it's the same topic as creationism and macroevolution (see everything posted before and after this). Apologies for judging you with other creationists nonetheless.

Alright, give me an example of said coincidences. It strikes me as odd how there are no "transitional" fossils, as they say. We've only gotten fossils in completed stages and very very few (if they are valid) in between. If evolution were really true there would be as many half-bird, half-dinosaur fossils as birds or dinosaurs, for example.

What @(you need an account to see links) posted, her article, vestiges of prehistoric life in stasis by amber. But if you need more physical evidence, look into the well-known Archaeopteryx, particularly images of its fossils. Clearly the feathers themselves are gone, but there are wisp-markings over the 'wings' of the Arcaeopteryx (going to refer to as Arc onward), which signify feathers.

Further proof of half bird-dinosaurs, as you put it, look at fossils of Deinonychus. The unguals and talon-fossils of it highly resemble birds of today, pictures and an article itself below:

(you need an account to see links)

No other living animal today has digits and a foot structure akin to that, other than raptor birds themselves.

If you want more articles about bird-dinosaurs, I can supply them to you - I recently had a course focusing on comparative vertebrate biology.

If you argue now that other vertebrates don't apply to humans, then Google "Human Evolution" to find opinions and proof by evolutionists. If you have access to a primary article database online (which all college students/graduates should), then detailed reports are there. But to scratch the surface here, transitional human fossils are all around us, in extinct hominid species. Archaic Homo sapien fossils for instance, show remarkable similarity to ours, both in skull and skeleton structure. AHS came from Homo erectus, which while are quite different from modern H. sapiens' skeletal structure, show similarity to AHS, thus transitional fossils and transitional species. Public image examples only cite the most extreme fossil findings to show species difference to the commonman, but there are also examples of skulls which are progressively similar to human skulls (some nearly indistinguishable). These skulls are not publicized to avoid confusion, but if you ring up a local anthropologist at an accredited university, they can show you from their fossil banks.

Also, mutations are almost all negative. It is very difficult to produce a mutation that would benefit you--but evolution is just that. Mutations.

That is correct, I don't see what the debate is with this statement. Mutations are very common and in the majority of the current population (which we don't see). They range from benign, few base-pair DNA changes to extreme distortions that cause illness (the ones readily seen). Mutation is within an individual. Evolution is a mutation carried over generations (typically x00,000 years; no less than x0,000 years) by reproduction, which applies to a population of species. The majority of mutations are negative, yes. The significant ones kill people. Thus they have limited reproductive success (or have kin with the same limit in reproduction). But rarely, a positive mutation occurs which benefit survival, and thus is passed onto future generations until it becomes the dominant genotype.

Evolution is a faith so you cannot act superior as if you are on higher grounds. Both ideas take belief to make it happen, so what I am saying is not to belittle others for being creationist.

But that's what you are doing yourself, belittling evolutionists. Comments with no basis like the time machine, and referring to evolutionary articles as a "kid's book". We are just as fervent about evolution as you are to creationism, so don't say disparaging comments without expecting retaliation.

I believe there are more evidence of creationism than evolution that still exist today. All the many diverse and intricate living creatures that cannot have happened by chance. I invite you to take a look at something that are taught in gradeschool: all cells come from preexisting cells. Where was the first cell? And also, there are a number of chicken-egg (who came first) loopholes in evolution, such as protein and protein synthesizers.

You believe there is more evidence of creationism than evolution, but where is it, other than The Bible and related written accounts of the past? I could fabricate a series of books, scatter them well across the Earth, then 10,000 years later, have future archaeologists unearth them and judge they are true. I'm not saying the written works of God are false (for all I know, they could be true), but using them alone vs. obtainable evidence science can provide us is absurd. And if something is inexplicable, you find a way to explain it. Falling back on creationism because you just believe life was too intricate for evolution is a weak stance.

Yes, all cells come from pre-existing cells by mitosis and meiosis. There are only commonly accepted theories on the first cell, but with the limits of human logic, are plausible. You're going to say they are just 'theories', nothing more. But that can be said for The Bible too. Going back to the first cell, one such theory is the 'Primordial Soup'. Atoms and elements in a coincidental balance, struck by electrical charge (either by lightning, or mixture of heat and ionic charge) to give a 'beat', eventually forming a cell. I'm sure you know that mitochondria has evidence it was previously an independent lifeform, before being endocytosed within a larger phage and mitosed along with it, to create other eukaryotic cells. That itself is a mutation, and over successive generations of mitosis, became an evolution.

We currently don't have enough evidence to be conclusive on whether the chicken or the egg came first. But we also don't have enough evidence to show creationism had a role in it. This point is moot, I'll leave it at that.

Here, take a look at dictionary.com's definition of conscience:
1. the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.
2. the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.
3. an inhibiting sense of what is prudent: I'd eat another piece of pie but my conscience would bother me.
4. conscientiousness.
5. Obsolete . consciousness; self-knowledge.

I think you have merely misinterpreted what a conscience is. Having a brain does not equal to having a conscience, and essentially I am finding you arguing that we are the same as other animals in all senses that are not physical, which most people would agree on is not true. Our values are different and we have a whole spectrum of emotion that they do not exhibit. Fear is instinctual. Help is also instinctual. And what you describe as joy is not really joy, I would argue. Give me an example and let's discuss it.
A conscience to kill? No, that's survival. Refer to the above definition of conscience and let's continue to talk about it after you have understood the definition of it. Evaluation of circumstance once again, is not a "conscience" working.

I don't. But that doesn't change the fact that they lack a conscience.

We exhibit a whole spectrum of emotion other animals don't, because they don't have the facial muscles to articulate it, the vocal flexibility (save for parrots) to differentiate it, or the brain capacity to focus it to an expression. But animals do get sad, mad, and for some animals, remember those who have been bad to them (ever attack a pet, only to have them avoid or show hostility to you later?). When you give a dog a treat, it wags its tail. It can't smile, but it can express it in ways we cannot, with its tail.

1. the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.

Like my first example involving the tiger and elephants. It strikes after evaluating the situation, the right action - the right conduct. It's conscience is based on survival, it must kill and eat to survive, there is no way around it. If it's too afraid of hurting other animals' families, it might as well just roll over and wait for the sun to toast it. Tigers and other animals are limited physiologically, they must eat meat because they do not have the digestive systems and enzymes to process plants. And it kills savagely, again, due to its physiology. Just powerful forelimbs and claws to tear. Do you expect it to pick up a tranquilizer gun, shoot an elephant, drag it over, then delicately eviscerate it, toss it into a pot of boiling water, spice it, and stew, using a stove in the middle of the plains?

Humans still kill animals. You can say we are civil about it, but because we are not limited physiologically. If we only had powerful claws as opposed to dextrous fingers, we would be just as bloody as predatory animals. Likewise if we did not have the enzymes to process plant matter. Do we have a consciences to regret killing animals? Only if they have personal bearing to us, like pets. We farm chickens and cattle, then send them to death without a second thought - like any other animal species.

Still on this topic, but a different aspect of it, is familial and clan relatedness. Humans are protective of friends and family, so are many (I won't say all, as there are cannibalistic species too) species of animals. Otherwise, mothering animals would eat their own eggs or young at birth, causing extinction of a species. Parental animals protect their young when they are still juvenile, bears for instance. To extend that to friend/clan motives, look at wolf packs or gorilla herds. Silverbacks and mature gorillas will protect their young, but also the young of their fellow gorillas. This contributes to 'inclusive fitness' and 'reciprocal altruism', which you should read up on if you're unaware. So are they still lacking a conscience, if they do just as we humans do?

5. Obsolete . consciousness; self-knowledge.

Self-knowledge. Google 'Theory of Mind'.

Species display ToM, such as monkeys. They are aware of themselves and others of their own species. When observing other monkeys' actions, mirror neurons fire in their brains just as if they did it themselves. In addition, monkey experiments have shown they can learn by observation of others of their own kind.

But to add depth to this part, we can see the same for octopi and elephants. There are experiments involving an octopus unable to unscrew a jar to reach for crab-prey inside. But after observation of another octopus of the same species (which has been conditioned to open the jar), the previously 'unlearned' octopus now can. It surely would not have been able to do so if it didn't recognize the 'learned' octopus as like itself.

(you need an account to see links)

And the article linked to the video, if you think the video was faked:

(you need an account to see links)

As for elephants, a recent experiment has shown they can distinguish themselves in a mirror, and reach for marks on their heads with their trunks by looking in a mirror. If elephants were not self-aware, they would just see the figure in the mirror as a different elephant. Yes, these require a database login. Again, no problem with college ID authorization. If you don't have one, then there are express articles written by (ugh) journalists that summarize the findings, although brief and often misinformed.

(you need an account to see links)

I don't want to talk any more about animal conscience, but here are my facts to support my stance on it. Thus, I believe animals have a conscience.

I didn't say that. Besides, the existence of aliens doesn't really add to evolution, but supports creation far more. As the minuscule chance of evolution happening here happened somewhere else too.... well that doesn't really help your case, does it? I believe God can create other beings. I don't know if he has or has not, but He can.

And God is beyond space and time since he created both these concepts. As we are space-time creatures, we cannot fathom living outside of such a zone. We will not be able to find God unless we come to Him after death, but again not relevant to the debate.

"but supports creation far more". So have you made a decision tree where anything that can't be immediately explained, is instantly directed to "God did it"? As mortal creatures ourselves, I find it incredibly difficult, or incredibly easy (if you think of it this way) to support creationism, if all you're going to do is that.

I respect your view on creationism, but frankly, is not possible to have a punch-for-punch debate if we humans don't have accessible, fathomable evidence for creationism; all we have are blind jabs against evolution because we are "too amazing" to have come from evolution, and God is omnipotent, so he must have done it?

I am not an advocate of creationism, but I'm not one to disparage it either. But I am an advocate of evolution, so if one starts to say it's a bunch of lies, I will defend it. You picked a difficult side to contest with, I will admit (based on my reasoning in the above sentences), but you picked it yourself. With just impossibility and omnipotence of God, don't expect to convince many of us evolutionists otherwise.

Well, no. If you read anything I've said, most of it didn't include that statement unless you specifically mentioned something about God "e.g. we can't find Him, we can't see Him".

What I said above, and I did point out his omnipresence in my first post. Have another read at it.

Plus, your post, #13:

How can't He? He's God. Omnipotent (or almost. He cannot do evil.)

I believe I'm pretty understanding, and I believe I provided plenty of facts and responses to every single attack.

You've provided responses to every attack, but all are biased, using God's omnipotence and impossibility of life as your forerunners.

The facts you provided don't have specific scenarios, details, or citations, and are at the shallow-most level at best. Your counter-claims refer us to read on things like:

I invite you to take a look at something that are taught in gradeschool: all cells come from preexisting cells. Where was the first cell? And also, there are a number of chicken-egg (who came first) loopholes in evolution, such as protein and protein synthesizers.

If you want to convince others, argue with detail in your own words and opinions, don't throw people the tip of an iceberg and expect them to find out themselves. Any potential supporters would be thrown off, just from the laziness of humanity and work they must do to be swayed to a side. I think this post exemplifies that.

Remember, you started this debate. There aren't many other creationists here at cK, so you're going to have to back it up fully if no one else will.

EDIT:

Well, I believe I know more about evolution than all of you know about creation. I've had to correct you guys more times than I can remember.

That itself is a belittling comment towards evolutionists (remember what you said up there?). If you know so much about creationism, then do share and elaborate. All you've said thus far is retort our comments as rubbish and if we can't explain it, then the only end is creationism. I'd personally like to stop here and hope other evolutionists at cK (@(you need an account to see links), @(you need an account to see links), @(you need an account to see links), etc.) can answer future remarks. I don't want to explain my stance in several sentences to a paragraph with cited support, if I'm the only one doing so.

Lastly, @(you need an account to see links), the can of worms has already been opened, so there wouldn't be anyone seen as a dick here,

[Poem]

Here comes my response... whew. Sorry that took so long. @(you need an account to see links) for you

You say that now, but would you still be convinced if you could see the past in your lifetime? We both know at the present, technology has nowhere to even begin on creating a time machine, if ever possible, you were blowing smoke in your original comment. If you're asking me to invent one and let you witness evolution, I could ask the same of you invent one and show me God's miracles written into The Bible with my own eyes. My point? Your first comment was just to bash @(you need an account to see links). I'm perfectly fine leaving this here, since there is no end to the "time machine", but if you still want at it, then go ahead.
Honestly, I don’t know why you are nitpicking at it. No different than picking on grammar or spelling. I was just using an analogy to show the only way evolution can stray from being a “faith”, as I call it. And I’ll drop the subject here.

What @(you need an account to see links) posted, her article, vestiges of prehistoric life in stasis by amber. But if you need more physical evidence, look into the well-known Archaeopteryx, particularly images of its fossils. Clearly the feathers themselves are gone, but there are wisp-markings over the 'wings' of the Arcaeopteryx (going to refer to as Arc onward), which signify feathers.

Prehistoric life is may not be necessarily a sign of evolution. Just because something does not exist today does not make it extinct because it evolved. I believe in a worldwide flood (and many things do prove that idea, such as a massive amount of sea creature bones that have washed up in one place, agreeing records from other historical cultures, etc.) that have caused the extinction of a few animals, namely dinosaurs and other animals that existed back then but do not exist now.

Further proof of half bird-dinosaurs, as you put it, look at fossils of Deinonychus. The unguals and talon-fossils of it highly resemble birds of today, pictures and an article itself below:

(you need an account to see links)

No other living animal today has digits and a foot structure akin to that, other than raptor birds themselves.

Alright, but how do you explain how they turned from cold-blooded to warm-blooded? There is no such thing as a half-cold-blooded creature or a half-warm-blooded; it’s black and white.
Also, I’d like to point out that the transitional fossils are very very few compared to the many non-transitional. Even out of the ones discovered, a lot turn out to be hoaxes (I’m sure you’ve heard of the Piltdown man).

….. Mutationsare very common and in the majority of the current population (which we don't see). They range from benign, few base-pair DNA changes to extreme distortions that cause illness (the ones readily seen). Mutation is within an individual. Evolution is a mutation carried over generations (typically x00,000 years; no less than x0,000 years) by reproduction, which applies to a population of species. The majority of mutations are negative, yes. The significant ones kill people. Thus they have limited reproductive success (or have kin with the same limit in reproduction). But rarely, a positive mutation occurs which benefit survival, and thus is passed onto future generations until it becomes the dominant genotype.

My point is that it is very rare for this many beneficial mutations to occur (remember, for evolution to happen there must have been billions of positive mutations, some at the cellular level.) I forget where I read this from but a while ago I read that the probability of evolution happening is comparable to a printing shop exploding and resulting in the unabridged English dictionary.
Another thing I’d like to point out is how flight supposedly evolved three different times: in birds, mammals (bats), and insects. Here is where I want to use the “what good is half a wing” argument. When did birds first decide “I think I want to hang out up there” or insects say “hmm… maybe it’d be cool to grow things that can propel me into the air!”

But that's what you are doing yourself, belittling evolutionists. Comments with no basis like the time machine, and referring to evolutionary articles as a "kid's book". We are just as fervent about evolution as you are to creationism, so don't say disparaging comments without expecting retaliation.

Alright, I guess I was caught up in the heat of the moment. I apologize for that, but at the same time I would like to point out that it was evolutionists first that referred to my faith as a “fairy tale” and ask that evolutionists not belittle my faith either in this debate. @(you need an account to see links)

You believe there is more evidence of creationism than evolution, but where is it, other than The Bible and related written accounts of the past? I could fabricate a series of books, scatter them well across the Earth, then 10,000 years later, have future archaeologists unearth them and judge they are true. I'm not saying the written works of God are false (for all I know, they could be true), but using them alone vs. obtainable evidence science can provide us is absurd. And if something is inexplicable, you find a way to explain it. Falling back on creationism because you just believe life was too intricate for evolution is a weak stance.

The evidence is everywhere, as I have stated, in the present. Our bodies work together so perfectly and intricately designed. Every animal in itself is a piece of artwork. Wouldn’t artists be offended if we said their words are results of paint splatters?
As for the Bible itself, there is plenty of historical basis for that. For one, all the names and kings mentioned in the Bible agrees with history. They also recently discovered a perfectly preserved giant collection of these books. At the time, if it was not widely renown as fact, wouldn’t people have discredited it long ago? But it did survive and was approved by the people of the time. Now we criticize it as being false because we have not witnessed the events in it, but the people of the time knew it was true.
It’s not a weak stance. It’s a perfectly valid reason. There are flagrant elements of design in the universe and therefore there must have been a designer. For example, the earth is just the perfect distance from the sun. A tiny bit closer and we’d be burned, and a tiny bit cooler we’d all be frozen. Furthermore, Earth is the only planet to contain liquid water for us. So much perfection could not have come about by chance.

Yes, all cells come from pre-existing cells by mitosis and meiosis. There are only commonly accepted theories on the first cell, but with the limits of human logic, are plausible. You're going to say they are just 'theories', nothing more. But that can be said for The Bible too. Going back to the first cell, one such theory is the 'Primordial Soup'. Atoms and elements in a coincidental balance, struck by electrical charge (either by lightning, or mixture of heat and ionic charge) to give a 'beat', eventually forming a cell. I'm sure you know that mitochondria has evidence it was previously an independent lifeform, before being endocytosed within a larger phage and mitosed along with it, to create other eukaryotic cells. That itself is a mutation, and over successive generations of mitosis, became an evolution.

If it’s really as simple as that, why don’t scientist try to create a cell by sending a charge through an atom or two? I look forward to a cell being born.

We currently don't have enough evidence to be conclusive on whether the chicken or the egg came first. But we also don't have enough evidence to show creationism had a role in it. This point is moot, I'll leave it at that.

That was never one of my points…

We exhibit a whole spectrum of emotion other animals don't, because they don't have the facial muscles to articulate it, the vocal flexibility (save for parrots) to differentiate it, or the brain capacity to focus it to an expression. But animals do get sad, mad, and for some animals, remember those who have been bad to them (ever attack a pet, only to have them avoid or show hostility to you later?). When you give a dog a treat, it wags its tail. It can't smile, but it can express it in ways we cannot, with its tail.

But animals are not at all like humans. They do not wonder about God or evolution. They do not create occupations or invent things with their minds. They do not inspire, imagine, or create and pursue goals.
You are trying very hard to prove that animals are on the same level as humans, but they are not. We are superior to them. And no, this doesn’t mean I beat animals.

Like my first example involving the tiger and elephants. It strikes after evaluating the situation, the right action - the right conduct. It's conscience is based on survival, it must kill and eat to survive, there is no way around it. If it's too afraid of hurting other animals' families, it might as well just roll over and wait for the sun to toast it. Tigers and other animals are limited physiologically, they must eat meat because they do not have the digestive systems and enzymes to process plants. And it kills savagely, again, due to its physiology. Just powerful forelimbs and claws to tear. Do you expect it to pick up a tranquilizer gun, shoot an elephant, drag it over, then delicately eviscerate it, toss it into a pot of boiling water, spice it, and stew, using a stove in the middle of the plains?

I believe the “right or wrong” means morally good or bad in this sense, and not “the right approach to kill an animal”. You’re talking about how it can best get about its meal. I’m talking about the guilt we feel when we betray our friends.

Humans still kill animals. You can say we are civil about it, but because we are not limited physiologically. If we only had powerful claws as opposed to dextrous fingers, we would be just as bloody as predatory animals. Likewise if we did not have the enzymes to process plant matter. Do we have a consciences to regret killing animals? Only if they have personal bearing to us, like pets. We farm chickens and cattle, then send them to death without a second thought - like any other animal species.

I feel like you’ve been twisting my words a lot. Again, this was never one of my points. I never said animals didn’t have a conscience when they kill others savagely. My point was always that animals do not have a conscience because they do not know right or wrong or question their life. You’re the one who mentioned the tiger strategizing to kill the elephant or whatever and you are building on your own point, as far as I can see. So I won’t comment on this.

Still on this topic, but a different aspect of it, is familial and clan relatedness. Humans are protective of friends and family, so are many (I won't say all, as there are cannibalistic species too) species of animals. Otherwise, mothering animals would eat their own eggs or young at birth, causing extinction of a species. Parental animals protect their young when they are still juvenile, bears for instance. To extend that to friend/clan motives, look at wolf packs or gorilla herds. Silverbacks and mature gorillas will protect their young, but also the young of their fellow gorillas. This contributes to 'inclusive fitness' and 'reciprocal altruism', which you should read up on if you're unaware. So are they still lacking a conscience, if they do just as we humans do?

But I might argue that it’s instinctual. Animals need to care for each other or else they won’t be able to survive.
Humans also have the instinct to protect those close to them, to show affection. But humans have developed the idea into something far more complex. Think of all the social structures and hierarchies. Think of all the ways humans form a more complex government. Think about finding the “right friend circles”, etc. Since we have a conscience, we understand the concept of family far better than animals have and ever will.

Self-knowledge. Google 'Theory of Mind'.

Uhh, you’re the one who suggested that I explain things instead of referring you guys to search engines. But I’ll let that one go.

Species display ToM, such as monkeys. They are aware of themselves and others of their own species. When observing other monkeys' actions, mirror neurons fire in their brains just as if they did it themselves. In addition, monkey experiments have shown they can learn by observation of others of their own kind.

I think learning by observation does prove that animals exhibit some sort of copying skills. But this does not say anything about a conscience.
It is necessary to survival to copy others, for example, babies fresh out of the womb mimic their mother’s actions, and this goes for many animals.

As for elephants, a recent experiment has shown they can distinguish themselves in a mirror, and reach for marks on their heads with their trunks by looking in a mirror. If elephants were not self-aware, they would just see the figure in the mirror as a different elephant. Yes, these require a database login. Again, no problem with college ID authorization. If you don't have one, then there are express articles written by (ugh) journalists that summarize the findings, although brief and often misinformed.

(you need an account to see links)

I don't want to talk any more about animal conscience, but here are my facts to support my stance on it. Thus, I believe animals have a conscience.

The article on the elephant was very fascinating, and it intrigues me. If the experiment were true, they must be able to recognize themselves. However, the fact that they recognize their physical appearance doesn’t attribute to what constitutes as self-knowledge or self awareness as we know it. Humans talk a lot about “knowing themselves”. A lot of concepts and inspiring quotes: “Be yourself, love yourself etc.” would only be meaningful to us.
We can stop talking about the conscience if you want to since we clearly have different definitions of what it is.

"but supports creation far more". So have you made a decision tree where anything that can't be immediately explained, is instantly directed to "God did it"? As mortal creatures ourselves, I find it incredibly difficult, or incredibly easy (if you think of it this way) to support creationism, if all you're going to do is that.

Well the next sentence elaborated on it by disapproving evolution. I don’t see how the link is so ambiguous that you describe it as an instant direction. And all I did was certainly not that.

I respect your view on creationism, but frankly, is not possible to have a punch-for-punch debate if we humans don't have accessible, fathomable evidence for creationism; all we have are blind jabs against evolution because we are "too amazing" to have come from evolution, and God is omnipotent, so he must have done it?

Once again, the “too amazing” is present in the element of design. It is what I believe to be the biggest support to creationism, and yes, that is my main argument. Just not the way you describe it.

I am not an advocate of creationism, but I'm not one to disparage it either. But I am an advocate of evolution, so if one starts to say it's a bunch of lies, I will defend it. You picked a difficult side to contest with, I will admit (based on my reasoning in the above sentences), but you picked it yourself. With just impossibility and omnipotence of God, don't expect to convince many of us evolutionists otherwise.

Hmm, what kind of evidence are you looking for? And I realize which side I’m on. If I were an evolutionist I don’t expect as much a debate on this website.

What I said above, and I did point out his omnipresence in my first post. Have another read at it.

Plus, your post, #13:

That was only one case.
And I felt it was necessary, being asked a question such as “how can somebody have no body create something?”
Clearly, my answer would be “it’s God we’re talking about here.”
But if you wish for me to elaborate, it’s in Genesis: God said “Let there be light” and there it was, etcetera.

If you want to convince others, argue with detail in your own words and opinions, don't throw people the tip of an iceberg and expect them to find out themselves. Any potential supporters would be thrown off, just from the laziness of humanity and work they must do to be swayed to a side. I think this post exemplifies that.

Remember, you started this debate. There aren't many other creationists here at cK, so you're going to have to back it up fully if no one else will.

Alright, thanks for the tips. I will do that in the future. I’ll actually admit I’ve been a bit lazy, especially since school is giving me so much work. But I’ll work on it.

[Mod]

Okay, I'm working on a response. I'll edit this post when I'm done with it.

Thanks for your response, Mod. I respect and appreciate the rational and insightful argument.

Take your time, I look forward to reading your counter (though I'm quite flustered to immediately respond, just from what I just wrote), and learning more from a creationist's perspective.

Having a second read at it, I'd like to say sorry if it sounded overbearing and aggressive towards you, particularly at the end. I guess all of what I wrote got in me into somewhat of a frenzy and irritated when trying to wrap things up at the end. It was not my intention to QQ if it looked like it to you,

[moonrash]

Well, I believe I know more about evolution than all of you know about creation. I've had to correct you guys more times than I can remember.

Honestly, the reason I don't know much about creationism, is that I don't take the time to study fairy tales :/ Not trying to blatently bash, but that's my opinion.

So no, I don't know much about the creationism theory.