I am all for evolution. Seems like a lot of grade school logic being thrown around with statements like "Everything is also too perfectly balanced to allow for such a theory as evolution", "our body parts and organs work together perfectly" or "I have yet to see a dog have debates regarding evolutionism or creationism--and that's just the thing".
The debate is pointless when arguments like "I have yet to see a dog have debates regarding evolutionism or creationism--and that's just the thing" come about. I mean really? Even when a joke, hopefully that is what it is, like that pops up it is hard to read further when such things are brought us as "evidence".
You are offering blatant opinions about everything not actual evidence.
Animals can feel and have emotions, if an animal is hurt it will feel pain if you disregard that emotion and feeling of pain then please state further how you describe emotion and feeling. As for distinguishing from right and wrong I am going to assume you will disregard animal studies that involve the ease of teaching rats the right and wrong choice to get something such as a treat vs. getting an electric shock. If you do disregard the ability to teach animals the choice of right vs. wrong then please again restate what you mean by "cannot tell right from wrong". If you mean morals of right from wrong then mention that.they cannot feel things the way we do and cannot tell right from wrong
Pick up a book on evolutionary biology and it can make much more sense and one becomes much more able to imagine how things have come about.Everything is also too perfectly balanced to allow for such a theory as evolution. For example, our body parts and organs work together perfectly. It's hard to imagine how eyes, wings (flight), or livers developed out of nowhere. And since birds came from dinosaurs, when did they make the leap between cold-blooded and warm-blooded?
Humans have the same instincts. Food, water, security, nursing and caring for young and so on. It is basic because that is a carried set of traits passed through evolution.However, I don't call that a conscience. I call that an instinct. Every animal has the instinct to survive, to nurse their young, to feel protective of them. It's the basic maternal instinct that some animals do have.
Yes there is a difference between humans and animals because the immense time scale of evolution that has created so many different organisms. However if your argument for creationism is based on broad statement of "we are different from animals" then I there is really nothing that can be said because it is such a poor piece of evidence. Please go further into an actual piece of evidence about why that is your argument other than simply saying a blanket statement of "we are different". There are many books on biology to help you if you need it.What my argument really is, is that humans are vastly different from animals. The gap between human and the next animal in place is immense
Again animal studies will show that animals can question and make their own choices based on what is presented.Humans know how to question. Animals just accept.
Provide the evidence then. Stating "I feel" or "in my opinion" is not evidence. Need some journal articles, or peer reviewed books, maybe some statements from actual researchers and their findings and so on. Evidence, not opinions.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.
All you have given is opinions and the blanket statement of "God did it all". If that is your end-all argument then it is pointless to have the debate.
@(you need an account to see links):
I didn't provide evidence or anything because I didn't feel the need to. All of my arguments are easily observable by just anybody, such as obvious elements of design. But here, since you asked:
This is from (you need an account to see links) there are other articles too, like the miracle of air or water. After all these years of research, scientists have not yet uncovered another planet suitable for life like earth! This shows elements of design.Of all the energy the sun gives off, only 0.45 billionth of its daily output strikes the earth. The sun provides the earth with energy estimated at over 239 trillion horsepower, about 35,000 horsepower for each current resident. Even though there likely exist several hundred billion galaxies in the universe, each with 100 billion stars, there is only one atom for every 88 gallons of space, which means the vast majority of the universe is empty space!
If the moon was much larger or nearer to the earth, the huge tides that would result would overflow onto the lowlands and erode the mountains. If the continents were leveled, it is estimated that water would cover the entire surface to the depth of over a mile! If the earth was not tilted 23� on its axis, but rather was on a 90� angle in reference to the sun, we would not have four seasons.
Without seasons, life would soon not be able to exist on earth—the poles would lie in eternal twilight, and water vapor from the oceans would be carried by the wind towards both the north and south, freezing when it moved close enough to the poles. In time, huge continents of snow and ice would pile up in the polar regions, leaving most of the earth a dry desert. The oceans would eventually disappear, and rainfall would cease. The accumulated weight of ice at the poles would cause the equator to bulge, and, as a result, the earth's rotation would drastically change.
Just a “little” change (in the perspective of the universe) would render the earth unsuitable to support any life. Is this the result of accidental randomness, or purposeful intent?
Also, pain is instinctual, etc. Humans have instincts because they need to survive, but they can do more than those instincts. Humans are intelligent life that came from an intelligent God.
This is from the same referenced website, a different part on natural life: (you need an account to see links)The minimum requirements for physical cellular life are vast in number, information rich, and precise in structure. Natural processes are not known to generate any of the kinds of molecular machines—many of which can manipulate specific, single atoms—that are required to sustain cells. Nor is there any plausible scenario yet imagined whereby the laws of chemistry and physics alone could manufacture the very mechanisms that enable living things to avoid the natural consequences of those laws—decay and diffusion.
The higher the number of specifications required for life, the lower the probability that life could have arisen through random, undirected forces. The actual number of specifications now known is so high that there is no reasonable doubt that life must have been engineered by a perceptive power that exists beyond natural laws. Since natural entities cannot account for life, a supernatural entity must.
as I said before, the chances are minuscule that evolution could have happened.
But the chances are greater that some higher being created everything?
DER HUMPINK
Well, that theory cannot be measured in probability. It's a yes or a no.
For evolution one can estimate the probability of one atom becoming a cell (as said by Mod), one cell becoming another, mutations, growth, etc. It can be measured.
If you go to a church's website, they're going to say god exists. That's just how it is. You go to a creationist website, they're going to preach creationism... :|Originally Posted by nonchalantic
(you need an account to see links) The wonders of PBS~*~*~
You can't take any sort of quote from a CREATIONISM website and post it as "proof for creationism"....... how about you post some papers written by scholars, etc. That's the same thing as trying to prove god by quoting a church's website. Well shit guys, I guess god must exist, the church said so.
And while I'm posting, if god is so powerful, why does he only watch over earth? Why hasn't he made life on mars etc? Why is earth so special? If he wanted, surely he could make mars inhabitable. He could poof down adam and eve to mars, right?
Last edited by moonrash; 02-13-2013 at 01:33 AM.
Yes I am sure people understand your basic statements of "humans are different than animals", "dogs cannot have a debate about evolution", and "our body parts and organs work perfectly together". It is difficult to take this as anything serious.All of my arguments are easily observable by just anybody
I gave and read the article, and writing like that is a case and point as to why this is not evidence. Those pieces read more like a blog writing, and blogs mean nothing because they are opinion pieces. But I will play along anyway, what they are using as evidence of intelligent design is the idea of the Goldilocks planet. This is when a planet is not too far not and too close to a star to provide a suitable environment for the possibility of holding liquid water and thus becomes within a "habitable zone" of that star. Since that is what your God blog was focusing on and you stated "after all these years of research, scientists have not yet uncovered another planet suitable for life" here are some articles written about the scientists who have done their research and have come up with numbers of billions of planets in the habitable zones of stars...and those billions of planets are just in our milky way galaxy. Take a read, it is interesting stuff.This is from (you need an account to see links) there are other articles too, like the miracle of air or water. After all these years of research, scientists have not yet uncovered another planet suitable for life like earth! This shows elements of design.
(you need an account to see links)
(you need an account to see links)
(you need an account to see links)
(you need an account to see links)
moonrash (02-13-2013)
Um, isn't that the point? You link me to websites with evolutionist's point of views, proving evolutionism by quoting evolutionists. I don't see how I can't do the same. And that website provides references, if you even bothered to check the articles and scrolled down the the bottom.
The whole point of this debate is to see the creationist's point of view, is it not?
I don't understand... if your comebacks are going to be "why did God make this decision" and "why doesn't He do that instead". I don't understand how that's a question at all. I can't read God's mind. To answer your last question, though, He most certainly could.
It's been awhile since I've posted here but I thought it would be worthy.
Let's start with creationism and god.
Creationism in itself is flawed. It premises is that for something to exist has to be created by something. Humans are creators, animals are creators and the ultimate creator is 'God' or the omniscient omnipresent and omnipotent being that is present in not only Catholicism but in all religions since the early days of human record.
Because humans and animals create, it made logical sense for our early ancestors to assume that we were also created. Everything seemed perfect to them from the tools in nature they utilised to the food they ate and their apparent advantage over other animals. They had no knowledge of science in the sense they did not really understand things like natural disasters, the universe beyond their 'sky' or the biology inside them.
God was a good answer 10000 years ago, maybe even 2000 years ago and possibly 1000 years ago. However today in 2013 creationism is not the logical answer. It is still an answer for many but it isn't the correct answer just like people settle for the easiest answers in life instead of understanding the complex answer. It's not based on anything else besides blind faith. No evidence and no reasonable grounding besides 'We are so complex that we must be created'.
The major flaw I see with creationism is the premises mentioned before - something creates something and something cannot exist without something triggering its existence. It's a difficult premises to understand but because of this premises creationism is flawed.
This is why.
Assume that you are a creationist and that God created everything in our universe. You can either believe that god was not created and therefore is the 'something' that came from 'nothing' or you can believe that god was created by another being...something bigger than god.
If you believe the first, then its illogical to be a creationist because you are able to accept the fact that something extremely complex (God being possibly the most complex 'being' in the existence of the universe') can occur for nothing. It did not need to be created. Therefore it is possible that us as humans and our environment surrounding also didn't need a creator because compared to god we are relatively simple. If god can just exist 'just cause' and without a creator, why can't humans exist 'just cause'?
If however you believe everything has a creator you must assume that even god has a creator, and that god must also have a creator and so on and so forth. This ultimately does not answer any questions and fundamentally is impossible. You will argue that there may have been a catalyst that triggered the existence of god but what triggered that catalysts? You have the responsibility to always provide proof and evidence for the something that created something. Its illogical to think the universe functions like this.
Now lets go back to our ancestors. If anything they are the creators. Our common ancestor was a mutation. Most likely a mutation that resulted in a slightly large brain, enhanced communication compared to their ape cousins, maybe it was a motor advantage. Whatever it was it was small but relatively common. A gene that became dominant because it gave the animals with this gene a distinct advantage over others. Slowly but surely more genes followed - a gene for communication, a gene for learning, a gene that caused larger prefrontal cortexes... At the same time there would have been genes that hindered evolution but that is the point - animals with these genes were not successful in reproducing because these genes are a disadvantage - just like today where people with genetic disorders often die young before they have a chance to reproduce. The gene dies with the individual.
At the same time, as our ancestor developed more and more advantages they dictated and manipulated the environment around them on a small scale. They hunted the animals that suited them, possibly eliminating slower and weaker animals. The animals around them were also being 'created' in the sense the strongest and fastest animals survived. Particular plants were more abundant because our ancestors picked fruits and spread the seeds of their favourites (unintentionally).
This process was repeated again, and again over millions and millions of years in combination with millions of years of natural changes - heat waves, ice ages, natural forces that also played a role in what animal continued and which animals ultimately were exterminated. The more they bred, the more chances of mutations occurring.
If you want to find out more, then you are going to have to do your own research because nothing that I can do can convince you otherwise. That is just a summary of why I don't thing creationism is logical or applicable.
moonrash (02-13-2013)
I think everyone should watch this, but mostly the creationist side. It doesn't talk down on anything, it simply explains.
Watch and learn
---------- Post added at 02:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 PM ----------
My point is kind of that nothing I say or do will convince you that god doesn't exist in any form that he'd be capable of making ANYTHING.
Oh, and you decided to completely ignore the part where I said
"how about you post some papers written by scholars, etc. That's the same thing as trying to prove god by quoting a church's website. Well shit guys, I guess god must exist, the church said so."
Not posting QUOTES from what might as well be a CHURCH WEBSITE, validating creationism and god?!?
SCHOLARLY JOURNALS AND PAPERS!!!!!! Give me something from harvard, etc!
Also the reason I feel my "theory" is superior, is because yours comes from the bible. A dated text from thousands of years ago that doesn't change. Evolution constantly changes, we constantly learn new things... how can yours be correct still from 1000s of years ago? Sounds a little crazy
And it sounds a little bit like a cop-out for stuff you don't feel like you can explain. So you let god explain it for you. Hmm.
...if humans were created in the image of god then he must've been pretty ugly hueheuhe
Last edited by moonrash; 02-13-2013 at 06:45 PM.
Maki (02-13-2013)
I'm not in the mood to write a lot on this, as I took debate in High School and wound up on the debate team because of my argument on this topic. o.o;
All I can say is, as far as animals not having consciences...
Notice how the dog isn't being scolded, but yet...the dog knows it did something wrong, and obviously feels bad about it, therefore having a conscience?
Am I right?
Posting Permissions
