Evolution vs. Creationism

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe in both in Evolution and Creationism.

There are times when religion and science went hand-in-hand to prove some mysteries. They've proven prayer does work and heal.

Science has discovered bones that may have been our ancestors. We are always evolving and changing. Let me put it in layman's terms. I wouldn't be surprised God (or higher power, if you will) started it all with organisms that evolved or mutated to different lifeforms. Along the way, humans and monkeys split. Then, there were cavemen who used pictures and gestures to communicate, then grunts and sounds. The cavemen became what humans look like today, and that point humans developed awareness, basic logic and understanding.

It's a miracle how life evolves and change all the time. That's why I think Creationism is part of Evolution and Evolution is part of Creationism. If one would believe in only Creationism, it won't make sense how we humans came to be. If one believe only in Evolution, it wouldn't make sense because miracles happen all the time like prayer.
 
Raise your hand if you have seen dinosaurs? If you saw them, how did they die off? If you have not seen them, ok do you know anyone else who saw any dinosaurs (not counting rockfish and crocodiles)?

I can tell you of a witness who saw dinosaurs. Try reading Job chapters 40 and 41. It tells of two dinosaurs and even Job was there to see them.

What of profound evidence in the Pulluxy River south of Dallas, TX? A rock showed a trail of human footprints and another trail of dinosaur crossing each other but what was shocking is that the dinosaur stepped on the human footprint!

I do believe that dinosaurs existed only that they existed while humans were around (no not the cavemen). We have evidence of a drawing by native Indian showing indians trying to kill a dinosaur. How did that Indian be so creative drawing a horror show on a wall?

Those are our witnesses and yet rejected by evolutionists who said that it does not fit in their belief.
 
halford said:
Raise your hand if you have seen dinosaurs? If you saw them, how did they die off? If you have not seen them, ok do you know anyone else who saw any dinosaurs (not counting rockfish and crocodiles)?

I can tell you of a witness who saw dinosaurs. Try reading Job chapters 40 and 41. It tells of two dinosaurs and even Job was there to see them.

What of profound evidence in the Pulluxy River south of Dallas, TX? A rock showed a trail of human footprints and another trail of dinosaur crossing each other but what was shocking is that the dinosaur stepped on the human footprint!

I do believe that dinosaurs existed only that they existed while humans were around (no not the cavemen). We have evidence of a drawing by native Indian showing indians trying to kill a dinosaur. How did that Indian be so creative drawing a horror show on a wall?

Those are our witnesses and yet rejected by evolutionists who said that it does not fit in their belief.
Click to expand...

What about dragons? I remember someone mentioning a dragon from the Bible.
 
xentar said:
1: Make something up and spread your beliefs ASAP when man is primitive and without scientific method
2: ???
3: Profit!


Just dawned on me the reality of that joke...religion actually managed to make a profit out of this. A very, very lucrative profit.

I mean if you think about it, no one has heard of the term "starving priest" (as opposed to starving artist) when in the bible, jesus explicitly stated one must give up all of your possessions and riches if they were to enter the kingdom of heaven. The irony.
Click to expand...
you know, i think you're onto something. a missing piece of bible's puzzle - profit?

like you, Paul-Henri, baron d'holbach, was onto something too. he shared a few words of wisdom in the book, System of Nature* [1770] - "If we go back to the beginnings of things, we shall always find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that imagination, rapture and deception embellished them; that weakness worships them; that custom spares them; and that tyranny favors them in order to profit from the blindness of men."

*you can download the book -- two volumes -- for free. the wiki has a few links.

i also found an illustration of how religions were created namely - "a brief history of religion"

cartoon20060222io0.gif
 
Gamer12 said:
you know, i think you're onto something. a missing piece of bible's puzzle - profit?

no the ancient writers did not make any profit at that time of writing. they were against making profit. Whoever tries to blame the creation of religion based on money is trying to thrust modern thinking into the ancient thinking. Annias and Sapphira paid the price for trying to make profit (Acts 8) The Bible is dead against making profit out of religion Jesus was upset the way Jews handled money exchange by making too much profit. so the profit isn't the reason the religion was set up. It is the man-made churches that are making the profits. Many outsiders failed to see that the true church does not make profit and this church suffers discrimination

like you, Paul-Henri, baron d'holbach, was onto something too. he shared a few words of wisdom in the book, System of Nature* [1770] - If we go back to the beginnings of things, we shall always find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that imagination, rapture and deception embellished them; that weakness worships them; that custom spares them; and that tyranny favors them in order to profit from the blindness of men."

*you can download the book -- two volumes -- for free. the wiki has a few links.

i also found an illustration of how religions were created namely - "a brief history of religion"

cartoon20060222io0.gif
Click to expand...

I hope you did not lower your intelligent to agree with this comic
 
Last edited:
Creationists have similar experiences as the evolutionists, the argument becomes futile, as we go in circles. The evolutionist attempts to show beneficial mutations, the creationist claims the alleles always existed, the evolutionist claims mutations aren't important, the creationist tries to understand the process of how a single celled organism mutated into a multi celled organism or how being more complicated could be an advantage to a species to allow it to survive, how chaos can lead to order, and the same old rhetoric we've all seen before.

We hear words like "empirical evidence" which can be direct or indirect observations, or hypothetico-deductive procedures.

We hear scripture quoted, which would require individuals to accept the Bible as truth, and this is not a thread about the validity of the Bible.

It is odd to hear statements "just because you didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen!"

The main issue, that both sides become passionate about is the feeling of "I'm right, You are wrong". That somehow Evolution could disprove God, or that God would never use Evolution. Or

A Creationist will never be able to argue thier perspective effectively to someone who does not believe in God and/or Scripture and/or Religion.
Because it requires Faith. Science is used to explain the natural world. God by definition is supernatural.

I can give links to why I have my doubts in Evolution
Darwinism Refuted.com
Which will then be argued against with
Evolution of Ear Is Noted in Fossil - washingtonpost.com

Will I understand how one organism branched into several different ones, from that one organism some of the mutations lead to plants, while others lead to fish?

If I question how an overly sensitive piece of skin, randomly mutated (that's the issue I have; mutations are random), to progress into an eye, does that mean I am spreading propaganda?

Or that one little bone took tens of millions of years to evolve to become involed in the ear, when logically an organ that is not used normally disappears?

If I wonder, 'why is it when new animals are forced into existance (Example Liger, Mule) these new animals aren't able to reproduce?'
Does that make my questions "Wrong".

My questons were never meant as propaganda. I think it would be awesome to understand how random mutations lead to advancement in our species. It makes things like X-Men plausable (the more natural powers obviously, not total nonsense like controlling the weather.)

To quote from Richard Dawkins' book, if a detective goes to a murder scene and picks up an overwhelming amount of evidences in the aftermath, he doesn't need to have seen it with his own eyes to realize how the murder has happened. - Xentar

An individual with interpret evidence differently. Creationists look at the diversity and complexity of life. The complicated workings of our universe. The typical arguements for the existance of God (The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe's existence must have a suitable cause. The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it. The rational argument: the operation of the universe, according to order and natural law, implies a mind behind it.)
Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God

An Evolutionist can look at the complexity of life and believe that there is a trend that organisms continually move towards complexity through mutations, and survival of the fittest.

Religion is the opium for the masses. Religion is a crutch for the weak minded. Religion was created to control people. Religion was created to make profit?(that's a stretch, since most of those who 'created' it were killed for their beliefs) It gives people hope, faith, purpose. It causes war.

At some point, through this argument between Evolution and Creationism, both sides need to agree that they hold true to a "belief". A belief in Evolution, or a belief in Creationism.
 
Gamer12 said:
once upon a time in the other forum in the net land, i spent countless hours in the front of my computer banging creationist's head into a wall one by one. there was a light at the end of the tunnel, the one thing i've learned is that from crossing swords with them - they don't care about the facts, empirical evidences, hard data and scientific studies. no matter how many times i and other evolutionists tried, they would rather to jump off a cliff or slit their throats than considering to open their minds to other possibilities.

truth be told, i wish i invent the bible in the first place - so they can fall for the cheap gimmicks i can think of like they usually do. it's amazing how the book -- as you pointed out in your old post that it was written by men -- controls what and how they think and feel.

needless to say but i'm in awe of your persistence. humanity gives up on them many, many years ago. i'll try one more time with them but no promise.

oh, every time we [evolutionists and scientists] bring the scientific studies to the table and they unceasingly flip the table and quote the bible to defend their paradoxical beliefs.

if someone here has a tip on how to stop them from flipping the table, i'm all ears.
Click to expand...


ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh true evolutionists never said "fact" they always said "theory". There are many Christian scientists who believe in God and that the evidence are glaring and the diehard evolutionists reject them outright. What about thermadynamics? the Law of Gravity? etc...

Please study carefully what the evoluntiists say before you make determination that those are facts. Big Bang is not a fact... it is even a theory rejected by respectable evolutionists. Monkeys or ape changing into a man is even a theory... there is no fossil to prove hybrid man-ape. The info you got about hybrid man-ape was proved to be a fraud by overly enthusastic evolutionists. he tried to fool people by forming a skeleton or model from jsut one thing... tooth (it was proved to be from a pig!).

Interesting thing is that we can find thousands of fossils of dinosaurs that supposly existed before "caveman". We cannot find a complete or even half of skeleton from a caveman or the Netherdal man. It is not a fact but a theory thrusted down in our throat in 3rd grade in every public schools in US.

Evolution cannot give us answer to questions: why are we here, what are we doing here, and where are we going afterwards? Creationism can.

Herbert Spencer in 1900 announced that there are only five "manifestations of the unknowable" in existence - time, force, action, space and matter. And all else is based on these fundamentals. It was hailed as a great announcement. Now if you open the Bible and you can see the agreement with that announcment witht he Scriptures: Genesis 1:1 = "In the beginning" - time; "God" - force; "created" - action; "the heavens" - space; "and the earth" - matter. Herbert Spencer put it in order without looking in the Bible. The Bible put that in the same order... how did that happen?

Sir Isaac Newton held the idea that light existed before the sun. Many scientists even ridiculed the "old Bible idea that light comes from the sun." BUT the Bible states that the light appeared before the creation of the sun. Had the scientist read the Bible, they would have not ridiculed the Bible but themselvs.

The Bible in Job 40:22 and Proverbs 8:27 shows that the earth is round. Had the ancient scientists and people read these two verses, with faith, they would have not believed that the earth was flat.

Job 26:7 tells of the gravity long before Sir Issac Newton discovered the Law of Gravity.

I will save more for later... got many more... I don't think any evolutionist can swallow more than they can swallow.
 
originally from Dreamslayer:
At some point, through this argument between Evolution and Creationism, both sides need to agree that they hold true to a "belief". A belief in Evolution, or a belief in Creationism.
Click to expand...

I choose creationism over evolutionism based on evidences presented out on earth and in the universe. It is not possible for a single cell to form itself out of nothing with no help. It has been tried and failed a numerous of times.
 
XBGMER said:
xentar, PuyoPiyo, Reba: I read your posts are actual pointless, unreasonables and threadless..

PuyoPiyo: Eastern people wanted to go mix with western civilzation which is white hemisphere more than eastern hemisphere. you knew eastern hemisphere people can't get white babies genes from them.. can Both eastern Indian parent create their own white babies genes with blonde, blue eyes on and on?? can both asian parent create their own white babies genes with blonde, blue eyes on and on?? tell me how did they got white skin on themselves??
Click to expand...

Simple answer is natural selection. If you want to learn more about natural selection, the best way to learn more about is take plant and animal genetic course. I have taken that and biology too.

XBGMER said:
The Black Host Race attains significance by affirming connection with the ONCE UPON-A-TIME mystery of Black creation and White Albinism????

ARENT THOSE EVOLVE FROM BIOLOGICAL GENES??

The Host Race IS NOT the White Race as you have been led to believe. The respective White recessive population is about to lose its biological identity.

Can you explain of what those caused from evolution genes
Click to expand...

"White" albinism is not correct because albinism only explains that it lacks a pigment. A pigment means an essential protein. It happens to show the color white, but you have forgotten. There is a color pink and red too. It does not have these important proteins and amino acids to provide a color or protection. This is genetic and something is defective in the genes. The DNA could not attach a specific amino acid to make it all since it has four important bases;A,G,C,and T.

It is a lot more complex than you will ever understand, but I am trying my best to keep this concept very SIMPLE and easy to understand.

A= adenine
T= Thymine (only found on DNA)
C= Cystisube
G= guanine
U= uracil ( only found on Rna)
A only can hook up with T or U (only found in RNA)
C only can good up with G
therefore it means A attaches with T ( A=T) or ( A=U) [Never U=T]


When they forms, a normal sequence will look like this

A helix with a group of amino acids.

GCCGCCATTATAGC
CGGCGGTAATATCG

look at this above here in red. You can see that the top G matches with the bottom C. This is a normal sequence

DNA Structure

Now, you can understand that a normal helix looks like this.. When there is a defective gene, it means. It could look like this

A= ? C=? or G=?

CGATCGATTAA
GTTAGATACCC


All color in the blue is defective because they CANNOT match the sequence. The DNA will hook up, but at the end of the three codes are broken off.

XBGMER said:
Look pictures below:

mysteryskinke7.jpg

He looks more white like european festures, but He is son of american black father and American white mother
mysteryskin2th8.jpg

He was mixed races, He is son of american black father and American-Europan native mother
Click to expand...

This is different than other pictures because this has nothing to do about a defective gene. This is more about how a pathway works when they started to hook up the sequence. This is more about enzymes and substrates due to how they bind with each other to product something. This is same idea as two dwarf parents. A good example is a t.v. show called Little People, Big World. Two parents produced three normal height kids and a drawf son.
 
Last edited:
xentar said:
You know what, you guys are right. If anything, I've noticed I'm repeating almost everything I say over and over again. (meaning of theory, anyone?)

I was thinking maybe if I worded it differently (even though I'm practically repeating what I said in earlier posts) they would "get" it eventually. Yeah we all know how that went.
Click to expand...

I want to let you know that you have all of my support. I must applause you that you are probably one of the fewest deaf people who are well educated in science.

Sometimes I find it annoying when a person tries to convice me that there is a real god. Especially when mormans are on the mission and stop by at my house to tell me about GOD. No matter how many times I've told them not to visit because they knew I don't believe in god. They were like wow maybe I can convice her to believe. Yeah right!
:roll:
The point is no matter how many times we tried to educate or tell others about things, they are darn stubborn about their own opinions like we do with ours.
 
ok explain this...

Estling the editor of the Skeptical Inquirer printed in Jan of 1995, said, "All things begin with speculation, science not excluded. But if no expirical evidence is eventually forthcoming, or can be forthcoming, all speculation is barren... There is no evidence, so far, that the entire universe, ovservable and unobservable, emerged from a state of absoute Nothingness."

I agree with Estling that there is no evidence that would allow matter or energy simply to "pop into existence" of its own accord. This point has been made by physicist Alan Guth in 1994 - "First of all, I will say that at the purely technical level, inflation itself does not explain how the universe arose from nothing... inflation itself takes a very small universe and produces from it a very big universe. But inflation by itself does not explain where that very small universe came from...."

get this folks!

Spruol addressed this to athiests or agnostic... "deems possible for the world to do-come into being without a cause-is something no judicious philosopher would grand that even God could do. it is as formally and rationally impossible for God to come into being without a cause as it is for wthe world to do so... For somehting to bring itself into being it must have the power of being within itself. It must at least have enough causal power to cause its own bbeing. if it derives its being from some other source, then it clearly would not be either self-existence or self-created. It would be, plainly and simpily, an effect. Of course, the probelm is complicated by the other necessity we've labored so painstakingly to establish: it would have to have the causal power of being before it was. It would have to have the power of being before it had any being with which to exercise that power. (1994).

Science is widly misunderstood even here in this thread. I do understand science. Look it up and seee. Science is based on observation and reporducibility but when pressed for the reproducible, empricial datat that document their claim of a self-created Universe, sceientists and philosophers are at loss to produce those data.

Alan Guth lamented: In the end, i must admit that questions of polasiblity are not logically determinable and depend somewhat on intuition" (1988).

in other words he is saying, "i wish this were true but I could not prove to you if my life depended on it"

Overall the universe cannot create itself out of nothing. Big Bang is a big time fraud and absurd, both philosophically and scientifically.
 
Overall the universe cannot create itself out of nothing. Big Bang is a big time fraud and absurd, both philosophically and scientifically.
Click to expand...

Not really. I do agree with what the skeptic said but the big bang is the most popular theory to explain how it began. Do I believe in big bang theory? Not really. I am not convinced that the big bang theory explains our universe well. Do I believe God created it? Not at all.

I believe that there's a timeless force that we just cannot comprehend. Our comprehension is severely limited than what we are willing to admit.

The Bible fails to explain the beginning of the world. It's inconsistent with our observations.

You cannot prove God even if your life depended on it. Nada. :)
 
halford said:
ok explain this... Science is widly misunderstood even here in this thread. .
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, you know what? I wonder why there are many religions. I can understand why they are so darn confusing because they enjoyed killing each other for not following God's rules. Doesn't this make them even more misundrstood about religions? I've heard of religious killers who murdered someone because they do not agree with one religion. Yet, I'ven't heard of a scientist killed another scientist for the wrong belief.
 
Cane Corso said:
Oh yeah, you know what? I wonder why there are many religions. I can understand why they are so darn confusing because they enjoyed killing each other for not following God's rules. Doesn't this make them even more misundrstood about religions? I've heard of religious killers who murdered someone because they do not agree with one religion. Yet, I'ven't heard of a scientist killed another scientist for the wrong belief.
Click to expand...

And I have heard that they claim that "religion" is a oldest political party in the world eh.
 
Well ofc, religion start after Adam and Eve. Since which is more powerful as those days witnessed is the day of Moses, Egyptian gods, failed, Babylonian gods, fail, Greek gods, fail. Hebrew God, victor after victor. But now in days, like King David said, "why evil people have good life and your people suffers?" God said" they will have a good life for temporary, but my people will recieve great rewards." The only problem is this, many, many people have no idea of who God is and why, and the purpose and His character. Many focus God's behavior like forcing people bow down, He is not the same way as other religion, like Romans, Babylonians , Egyptians. God does not have that kind and also lacking, when some ADers said, God does not respect other religion, that is totally contradiction and does not make any sense. Bec who is God? What is the point of this life?
 
halford, what you're writing is systematically being repeated by creationists who uses the same exact arguments, my point is you're repeating the wrong information. Everything you think you know (and everything you wrote), is the exact opposite of what scientists been teaching.

I have a 3 questions to ask you:

1. What is the definition of "theory" in a scientific context.
2. Did you read all the posts in this thread?
3. Are you familiar with general relativity? Do you understand it? Do you even know its importance when being used with the Big Bang Theory?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top