#1 Edited by thejudgester (37 posts) - - Show Bio

There has always been a heated dispute between the neo-Darwinian synthesis (that is, the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution combined) and God's Creation. Where do you stand? Put down all your arguments here, whether you are a Darwinist or a (young-Earth) biblical creationist. I myself am the latter, but I would like to see what you guys think.

#2 Posted by pooty (11008 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't believe in the Bible or any other religious book version of Creation but I do believe in a Creator and intelligent design. and this will probably be moved to Off Topic because in order to be a battle it has to involve characters not ideas.

#3 Posted by Simon_the_digger (2884 posts) - - Show Bio

Functional Design in Biology class on CV, should be interesting.

#4 Edited by xlab3000 (3185 posts) - - Show Bio

I believe in both of them. what if God used evolution to create man and other animals. I'm just saiyan

#5 Posted by LordOfAllHumans (3978 posts) - - Show Bio

@xlab3000 said:

I believe in both of them. what if God used evolution to create man and other animals. I'm just saiyan

Brilliant!! you beat me to it :)

#6 Edited by laflux (14940 posts) - - Show Bio

Not a battle

@god_spawn

could you move this please?

#7 Edited by dccomicsrule2011 (23779 posts) - - Show Bio

Not a battle,anyway i'll take evolution over creation

Edit: I'm a deist so I do beleive in a creator, so like others said in this thread I beleive in both.

#8 Posted by King Saturn (223969 posts) - - Show Bio

Evolution and Creation can Co Exist on some levels... unless you mean Evolution versus "Insert Religion" Creation Story.

#9 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (17801 posts) - - Show Bio

Evolution.

Creationism is steeped in ignorance and most of its arguments stem from a lack of understanding of evolution.

The OP seems to be mixing things up creationism is a specific set of views.And one does not have to be a creationist to believe in god.Since creationism itself is really,really flawed.You can accept evolution and believe in god.

Maybe the word the OP is looking for is theist.

My self I am an evolutionist and an atheist.

Online
#10 Edited by Tacos_Kickass (844 posts) - - Show Bio

Evolution is fake everyone knows The FSM created the universe and all life.

#11 Posted by WaveMotionCannon (5334 posts) - - Show Bio

Evolution FTW

#12 Edited by ULTRAstarkiller (6092 posts) - - Show Bio

Why do people think Adam and Eve gave birth to the world they only had three kids Cain, Able, and Seth there were other people around too.How do you think Cain found his wife?

#13 Posted by pooty (11008 posts) - - Show Bio

Why do people think Adam and Eve gave birth to the world they only had three kids Cain, Able, and Seth there were other people around too.How do you think Cain found his wife?

They had more then 3 kids. Genesis 5:4

#14 Posted by BiteMe-Fanboy (7701 posts) - - Show Bio

Another one, aye?

#15 Posted by INFINITE_DOOM (265 posts) - - Show Bio

Evolution definitely, intelligently design by a higher power maybe?

#16 Edited by ULTRAstarkiller (6092 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty: It says "the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years and he had begotten sons and daughters" this is talking about Seth read after that it goes on the same pattern.

#17 Posted by pooty (11008 posts) - - Show Bio

@ultrastarkiller: here are a few versions of the scripture:

After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.

New Living Translation (©2007)

After the birth of Seth, Adam lived another 800 years, and he had other sons and daughters.

International Standard Version (©2012)

Adam lived another 800 years, fathering other sons and daughters after he had fathered Seth.

that is Genesis 5:4. that is talking about Adam. then Genesis 5:5 says:

Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

All those scriptures are talking about Adam and the children he had. then it mentions that he died. It is not until verse 6 that it tells us that Seth had a child named Enosh. Then in verse 7 it talks about how long seth lived and when he died. that is the pattern

So Adam and Eve had other children.

#18 Posted by ULTRAstarkiller (6092 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty: Ok, but there were still other people on earth Cain was born before Seth and had a wife before Seth was born. Genesis ch 4 17

#19 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3501 posts) - - Show Bio

I hate you for making this thread. This is going to take up a lot of my time.

#20 Posted by pooty (11008 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty: Ok, but there were still other people on earth Cain was born before Seth and had a wife before Seth was born. Genesis ch 4 17

True. I was just clearing up the part about adam not having other children.

#21 Posted by ULTRAstarkiller (6092 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty: Ya sorry I just asked my dad and he told me the same thing(he was a pastor for a very long time, he's retired now). But some people think Adam and Eve gave birth to everyone but when you prove them wrong they like to get loud and mad. Thats why I don't like talking about religion to everyone.

#22 Posted by pooty (11008 posts) - - Show Bio

@ultrastarkiller: when you prove them wrong they like to get loud and mad. Thats why I don't like talking about religion to everyone.

I understand. I have people that i consider close friends. But if i told them my true feelings about religion, I doubt we would remain friends.

#23 Edited by SC (12892 posts) - - Show Bio

Evolution.

The reason there is heated debate about evolution and creationism and related fields is because of certain deliberate movements without the religious and political spheres of America among other places. My country inflicted Ray Comfort on to the world (sorry) but you actually get criminals who make money out of scamming people into believing evolution is false and they even create buzzwords to help spread misinformation and really? Its a common tactic of people as a way to control and manipulate people by oversimplifying a situation into a good team and a bad team. So as daft as the idea may seem, by making evolution the bad guy, it can help some people paint themselves as the good guy and thus get lots of support from people who buy into that pretty simple concept.

Have a belief in a higher power like god? Thats cool, maybe try be like Francis Collins who is a pretty intelligent believe in god as well as accomplished scientist who knows evolution is real because of the genetic proof alone. Genes are his speciality mind you. Also appreciate small things, like what a theory actually is, and that evolution is both a fact and a theory, and that theories are made up of facts as well and well just embrace learning. You get to do it, most people who have lived ever haven't to the extent as you.

Moderator
#24 Posted by KnightRise (4785 posts) - - Show Bio

Evolutuion.

#25 Posted by Chronus (1115 posts) - - Show Bio

Evolution is a fact; creationism is not.

#26 Posted by YourNeighborhoodComicGeek (20116 posts) - - Show Bio

Evolution all the way.

#27 Posted by StMichalofWilson (3735 posts) - - Show Bio

Meh, I go with both.

#28 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29499 posts) - - Show Bio

Really? We're really doing this thread? Again?

#29 Posted by ThatGuyWithHeadPhones (10874 posts) - - Show Bio

#30 Posted by Joygirl (19277 posts) - - Show Bio

Going with both.

#31 Posted by consolemaster001 (5121 posts) - - Show Bio

Creation.

#32 Posted by BlackReaper (595 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

I don't believe in the Bible or any other religious book version of Creation but I do believe in a Creator and intelligent design. and this will probably be moved to Off Topic because in order to be a battle it has to involve characters not ideas.

Sure, but this subject can usually lead to verbal and physical fights.


@chronus said:

Evolution is a fact; creationism is not.

Not quite yet, but we're getting there. Unfortunately, when we do, someone's bound to "find" it in their religious text. Then shall cometh the "newer testament".

#33 Edited by The Stegman (23744 posts) - - Show Bio

Both, God uses evolution as a tool for biological growth.

#34 Posted by knighthood (1693 posts) - - Show Bio

"Both" as well.

#35 Posted by PrinceAragorn1 (16559 posts) - - Show Bio

@xlab3000 said:

I believe in both of them. what if God used evolution to create man and other animals. I'm just saiyan

Brilliant!! you beat me to it :)

You beat me to saying that :D

Online
#36 Edited by Kal'smahboi (3501 posts) - - Show Bio

Intelligent design removes the possibility of free will. If a god willed which genes would mix with which, then the same god would have to will which organisms got together to reproduce. As far as I can tell, you can't have free will and intelligent design.

#37 Posted by pooty (11008 posts) - - Show Bio

Intelligent design removes the possibility of free will. If a god willed which genes would mix with which, then the same god would have to will which organisms got together to reproduce. As far as I can tell, you can't have free will and intelligent design.

what does gene mixing and reproducing have to do with free will? i'm not seeing the connection. why can't you be designed to have free will?

#38 Edited by Kal'smahboi (3501 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@kal_smahboi said:

Intelligent design removes the possibility of free will. If a god willed which genes would mix with which, then the same god would have to will which organisms got together to reproduce. As far as I can tell, you can't have free will and intelligent design.

what does gene mixing and reproducing have to do with free will? i'm not seeing the connection. why can't you be designed to have free will?

I'm not saying a god couldn't create beings with free will. I'm saying that intelligent design and free will are mutually exclusive; they can't exist together. If a god is steering evolution via the mixing of certain genes, then it has to guide certain organisms toward reproducing together, because the genes are inside them. This would imply that the organisms do not have free will, at least not as far as reproduction is concerned.

Disclaimer: This argument just came to me a couple of hours ago. I'm totally open to discussion, because I'm nowhere near conceited enough to assume my argument is iron-clad.

#39 Edited by pooty (11008 posts) - - Show Bio

@kal_smahboi: My mistake. I thought you were referring to free will as in choices we make. Like should I buy a red car or blue car.

#40 Edited by Kal'smahboi (3501 posts) - - Show Bio
@pooty said:

@kal_smahboi: My mistake. I thought you were referring to free will as in choices we make. Like should I buy a red car or blue car.

No, that's precisely what I was referring to. Except instead of the red or blue car, think in terms of the blond or the brunette.

#41 Posted by pooty (11008 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@kal_smahboi: My mistake. I thought you were referring to free will as in choices we make. Like should I buy a red car or blue car.

No, that's precisely what I was referring to. Except instead of the red or blue car, think in terms of the blond or the brunette.

Oh Ok. Why would being intelligently designed take away my free will in determining whether I choose a blond or brunette?

#42 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3501 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@kal_smahboi said:
@pooty said:

@kal_smahboi: My mistake. I thought you were referring to free will as in choices we make. Like should I buy a red car or blue car.

No, that's precisely what I was referring to. Except instead of the red or blue car, think in terms of the blond or the brunette.

Oh Ok. Why would being intelligently designed take away my free will in determining whether I choose a blond or brunette?

Ok, hear me out. Intelligent design means that god has an active role in determining gene frequencies: which genes rise, which genes fall and which organisms survive to pass on their genes. This means that god has an active role in who has sex with whom in order to pass on genes in order to create modern and future organisms. Our animal ancestors did not randomly encounter, or actively choose, their mates if they absolutely had to encounter each other to create some designed future organism. If you extend that to now, and believe that there is a future to evolution and that we have not stood still, then this same problem exists now; we do not choose our mates, but are chosen for each other to bring a designed plan to fruition.

Therefore, you can't believe in free will and intelligent design.

#43 Edited by deadpoolrules (4683 posts) - - Show Bio

@xlab3000 said:

I believe in both of them. what if God used evolution to create man and other animals. I'm just saiyan

Brilliant!! you beat me to it :)

Goku,is that you?

#44 Edited by pooty (11008 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@kal_smahboi said:
@pooty said:

@kal_smahboi: My mistake. I thought you were referring to free will as in choices we make. Like should I buy a red car or blue car.

No, that's precisely what I was referring to. Except instead of the red or blue car, think in terms of the blond or the brunette.

Oh Ok. Why would being intelligently designed take away my free will in determining whether I choose a blond or brunette?

Ok, hear me out. Intelligent design means that god has an active role in determining gene frequencies: which genes rise, which genes fall and which organisms survive to pass on their genes. This means that god has an active role in who has sex with whom in order to pass on genes in order to create modern and future organisms. Our animal ancestors did not randomly encounter, or actively choose, their mates if they absolutely had to encounter each other to create some designed future organism. If you extend that to now, and believe that there is a future to evolution and that we have not stood still, then this same problem exists now; we do not choose our mates, but are chosen for each other to bring a designed plan to fruition.

Therefore, you can't believe in free will and intelligent design.

First let me say I am not thrashing your argument at all. I trying to understand it. I mean it's a concept that you just thought of a few hours ago so it's new to you and me.

I can see that a Creator made us to reproduce man and woman. A creator wants our human race to continue. I get that. But we can reproduce with a blonde or brunette or a red head". Who and when we reproduce is up to us. That is our free will. In fact we can use free will to never reproduce. It's not like we are forced to reproduce. So i can see intelligent design inhibits certain aspects of free will but not many of them.

#45 Edited by Malevolent1 (1072 posts) - - Show Bio

Gotta go with creationism. Too much in our universe indicates intelligence and order.

Here's a thought: if we happen to notice a watch lying on the ground, I don't think anyone would assume it put itself together. Obviously, it was designed with someone with a measure of intelligence. Yet, that time piece is based on the movement of our earth around the sun. Which is more precise? The watch or the movement of the earth around the sun?

Hmmmm. And, no disrespect to evolutionists...but if evolution is fact why do people still refer to it as the "theory" of evolution? And doesn't the scientific community feel a measure of embarassment? I mean, doesn't establishment of scientific fact have to do with formulating a theory, testing (and retesting in different carefully, controlled environments) and then establishing (or disestablishing) said theories based on the results? Yet no one, in decades of testing has established evolution as fact.

Just curious....

#46 Edited by mrdecepticonleader (17801 posts) - - Show Bio

Gotta go with creationism. Too much in our universe indicates intelligence and order.

Here's a thought: if we happen to notice a watch lying on the ground, I don't think anyone would assume it put itself together. Obviously, it was designed with someone with a measure of intelligence. Yet, that time piece is based on the movement of our earth around the sun. Which is more precise? The watch or the movement of the earth around the sun?

Hmmmm. And, no disrespect to evolutionists...but if evolution is fact why do people still refer to it as the "theory" of evolution? And doesn't the scientific community feel a measure of embarassment? I mean, doesn't establishment of scientific fact have to do with formulating a theory, testing (and retesting in different carefully, controlled environments) and then establishing (or disestablishing) said theories based on the results? Yet no one, in decades of testing has established evolution as fact.

Just curious....

I really cant say it better myself so. Highlighted the bits in bold that may answer your query.

@sc said:

Evolution.

The reason there is heated debate about evolution and creationism and related fields is because of certain deliberate movements without the religious and political spheres of America among other places. My country inflicted Ray Comfort on to the world (sorry) but you actually get criminals who make money out of scamming people into believing evolution is false and they even create buzzwords to help spread misinformation and really? Its a common tactic of people as a way to control and manipulate people by oversimplifying a situation into a good team and a bad team. So as daft as the idea may seem, by making evolution the bad guy, it can help some people paint themselves as the good guy and thus get lots of support from people who buy into that pretty simple concept.

Have a belief in a higher power like god? Thats cool, maybe try be like Francis Collins who is a pretty intelligent believe in god as well as accomplished scientist who knows evolution is real because of the genetic proof alone. Genes are his speciality mind you. Also appreciate small things, like what a theory actually is, and that evolution is both a fact and a theory, and that theories are made up of facts as well and well just embrace learning. You get to do it, most people who have lived ever haven't to the extent as you.

Online
#47 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3501 posts) - - Show Bio

@malevolent1: I going to respond to this in the way I have for years. You have a profound misunderstanding of the definition of the word theory, as it is used in the scientific community. You will never hear the words "proven" or "fact" used by any person qualified to speak about evolution, and if you do, you have permission to slap them. I have no interest in your religious beliefs, but I cannot allow you to spew out that rubbish when it is clear that you haven't the foggiest idea about that which you speak, without rebutting you.

#48 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3501 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@kal_smahboi said:

@pooty said:

@kal_smahboi said:
@pooty said:

@kal_smahboi: My mistake. I thought you were referring to free will as in choices we make. Like should I buy a red car or blue car.

No, that's precisely what I was referring to. Except instead of the red or blue car, think in terms of the blond or the brunette.

Oh Ok. Why would being intelligently designed take away my free will in determining whether I choose a blond or brunette?

Ok, hear me out. Intelligent design means that god has an active role in determining gene frequencies: which genes rise, which genes fall and which organisms survive to pass on their genes. This means that god has an active role in who has sex with whom in order to pass on genes in order to create modern and future organisms. Our animal ancestors did not randomly encounter, or actively choose, their mates if they absolutely had to encounter each other to create some designed future organism. If you extend that to now, and believe that there is a future to evolution and that we have not stood still, then this same problem exists now; we do not choose our mates, but are chosen for each other to bring a designed plan to fruition.

Therefore, you can't believe in free will and intelligent design.

First let me say I am not thrashing your argument at all. I trying to understand it. I mean it's a concept that you just thought of a few hours ago so it's new to you and me.

I can see that a Creator made us to reproduce man and woman. A creator wants our human race to continue. I get that. But we can reproduce with a blonde or brunette or a red head". Who and when we reproduce is up to us. That is our free will. In fact we can use free will to never reproduce. It's not like we are forced to reproduce. So i can see intelligent design inhibits certain aspects of free will but not many of them.

No, you've been great, and I really appreciate having someone to bounce this off of.

My point is that, you, as an "intelligent-designist," you believe in a past and a future of the human race (pre-humans and post-humans), which the theory of evolution supports, but you also believe that a creator designed the plan by which these humans came about. The creator must have willed which beings survived to reproduce, and also which beings reproduced with which other beings in order to bring about the desired next generation. Without some form of control over individual reproduction, a creator could not have steered evolution into his design, or plan. And if the creator has control, any control, then you don't have total control, and therefore, limited free will. Does that make sense?

#49 Posted by SC (12892 posts) - - Show Bio

@malevolent1 said:

Gotta go with creationism. Too much in our universe indicates intelligence and order.

Here's a thought: if we happen to notice a watch lying on the ground, I don't think anyone would assume it put itself together. Obviously, it was designed with someone with a measure of intelligence. Yet, that time piece is based on the movement of our earth around the sun. Which is more precise? The watch or the movement of the earth around the sun?

Hmmmm. And, no disrespect to evolutionists...but if evolution is fact why do people still refer to it as the "theory" of evolution? And doesn't the scientific community feel a measure of embarassment? I mean, doesn't establishment of scientific fact have to do with formulating a theory, testing (and retesting in different carefully, controlled environments) and then establishing (or disestablishing) said theories based on the results? Yet no one, in decades of testing has established evolution as fact.

Just curious....

This isn't a devils advocate position is it? Of it is or not, i'll try explain and offer some food for thought.

When you say something like there is too much, you introduce relative scale, too much means there could be more, too much means there can be less. So how much less intelligence and order would be required for you to no longer believe in creationism? How do you establish how much intelligence and order is required to assert creationism? If you are asserting it now, then presumably you have some idea right? So may I humbly ask what that is?

For your watch example, your inclusion of you and me means we are talking about us humans? Meaning that we know that watches are made by humans, and we know that most watches tend to be made by humans for humans, for our wrists and not to be put on the ground. I have seen a lot of grounds before, none tend to pop up watches, hence I could assume that the watches out of place contrast with its environment probably means that environment wasn't what made it, its foreign to the environment. I also happen to know humans made it so I assume humans put it together. That being said nature and simple life had produced many types of objects that have fooled humans into thinking that humans or intelligence put it together. Many natural patterns, many types of rock and sand formations, weather effects on environments. Man has been fooling more ignorant man for a long time with some examples. What that means is that often with people don't know what created something that looks crafted, they assume man made it.

Also if your example with the watch is trying to somehow undermine evolution by thinking that evolution is the ground throwing up complex objects, then I appeal to you please, that is not what evolution explains what happened. Evolution is not the spontaneous creation of complex creations onto simple environments (ironically thats creationism) but a very gradual and long process of biological adaption and change with environment as a factor. Hence why if I asked you if a watch found another watch on a beach made of watches beside a sea made of watches on a planet made of watches , would that watch assume that that watch just put itself together?

What is more precise humans beings motor mechanics or gravity? How about human perceptions and assumptions or maths and science?

Evolution is a theory and a fact. People still refer to evolution as a theory because scientific theory is the top. It is the TOAA and Living Tribunal and Presence, and Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and Grant Morrison and Chris Claremont of science. Facts? Facts are the Wolverine and Superman and Batman of science. More popular and viewed as maybe better than a theory, but no, the reason why evolution is a theory is because its a predictive model, not only to explain how things were but can be and probably will be. It includes a ton of facts and laws, but facts are just observed truths. They are relatively simple, they offer no predictive or explanatory power. Scientific theories don't upgrade to fact or law, they are at the top, what can happen is a scientific theory can be usurped by a superior and more valid and tested and better theory. No disrespect take, no embarrassment to be had but the scientific community appreciates your consideration. We also also welcome more questions that you may have and criticisms and theories, that you may have for evolution, because learning is fun, evolution is beautiful and if you don't like science... (that last bit is an in-joke and not directed at anyone)

Moderator
#50 Posted by SC (12892 posts) - - Show Bio

Creationism and intelligent design are the Greg Land and Rob Liefeld of science. (sorry needed to thrown that out there)

Moderator