Debate: Creationism vs Evolution

[Gabbe]

wikipedia is trustable, if you have any information, post it.

there are more intelligent evolutionists than there are creationists, but there are so many dumb creationists that

[-Archmage-]

I have just done some research.

It is openly admitted on many sites about Evolution that Evolution is random.

And that makes sense, because Evolution is random!

Therefore, I have already won, I have crushed the theory of "Random Evolution by Natural Selection".

All that is left before I achieve complete victory is to get you to acknowledge why Evolution is random.

[@kukac@]

wikipedia is trustable

Anyone can edit wikipedia, so I wouldn't call it fully trustable. There are a lot of flaws, for example, in history

[wyvern]

Science supports evolution by saying that mutation is possible, however, from what I have seen there is nothing to support the existence of a creator and technically things don't just appear so a Creator had to be created by something else, the only thing that always has been and always will be is matter

[Gabbe]

wyvern, i think i now what you mean, and it is correct, even if evolution were false lies to the end, a creatior would still not be possible.

[wyvern]

Thank you for the support Gabbe

[Gabbe]

yes, and that is the problem with archs "science" as it is pure imagination or what some would call "science-fiction" right? he is messing around with the logic, trying to make something out of it, like hes making stuff up as he go, eventually, he`ll reach a creator..it can`t be disprooved, however, it isn`t a theory until it can be prooved.

[ElimiNator]

Did you all see these?

Code: [Select]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIeLRD1L9yY&feature=PlayList&p=B89BE864450B3E66&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=18[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr2CP86XVuw&feature=PlayList&p=B89BE864450B3E66&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=19[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwuvYtBNZsk&feature=PlayList&p=B89BE864450B3E66&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=20[/youtube]

[modman]

Modman do you believe that the universe was created by an intelligent being?

Hmmm, you seemed to have asked that in the wrong topic, seeing as your reply is titled " Re: Debate: Creationism vs Evolution".  That would probably fall under "Religious Debates".  But my answer is that I would believe if I saw evidence which is verifiable and unambiguously points to a creator.  Then I would be deist, not even close to a Christian.  See "How to Convert an Atheist".

Gabbe Evolution is just not possible, without intelligence, a Human being could not be created, Evolution is pretty much random, it lacks intelligence.

We call this logical fallacy petitio principii.  Also, your random capitalization is getting annoying.

Anybody who isn't stupid can look at the Human body and realize all the intelligence that's in our design.

You sound like someone who is afraid of disagreement.  Are you a member of the Tea Party?  Anyways, I guess members of Mensa and the National Academy of Sciences must be idiots for disagreeing with you.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

You simply cannot have mutations without intelligence and expect improvements!

If you expect anyone to take you seriously, you're going to need a little more than an exclamation point to lend credence to yourself.

BTW, your math is far off, the chances of a good mutation are minimal, 15% is a lie. How do I know? I read up on mutations, Evolution is just too random!

Ah, the creationist claims to have read materials and thus knows all about evolution.  Then he backs himself with this claim, yet cites no sources.  And no, creationist websites do not count as unbiased.  Try something peer reviewed (good luck finding a paper like this!  Creationists can't get their paper approved by peers because they both know that creationism is a lie).

I have just done some research.  It is openly admitted on many sites about Evolution that Evolution is random.  And that makes sense, because Evolution is random! Therefore, I have already won, I have crushed the theory of "Random Evolution by Natural Selection".  All that is left before I achieve complete victory is to get you to acknowledge why Evolution is random.

Really?  Congratulations, you managed to find a creationist website, and better yet not even say which one!  Additionally, you claim to have special insights into matters which much wiser (and better educated) people than anyone here have considered with differing conclusions.  Yet you bring up none of their insights, only blanket claims.

That's not debate, nor have you typed anything close to rhetoric during this entire period (not sure I want to call it a debate).  So to say that you actually won any debate in which you ignored any rhetoric directed at you is as arrogant as to say that you can beat me in chess just because you can knock over the pieces.

[-Archmage-]

Quote from: -Archmage- on May 05, 2010, 12:45:05
Gabbe Evolution is just not possible, without intelligence, a Human being could not be created, Evolution is pretty much random, it lacks intelligence.

We call this logical fallacy petitio principii.  Also, your random capitalization is getting annoying.

Annoying or not, Evolution is random.

You sound like someone who is afraid of disagreement.  Are you a member of the Tea Party?  Anyways, I guess members of Mensa and the National Academy of Sciences must be idiots for disagreeing with you.

This is the disadvantage of typing.......especially with people who are trying not to understand me.

Quote from: -Archmage- on May 05, 2010, 12:45:05
You simply cannot have mutations without intelligence and expect improvements!

If you expect anyone to take you seriously, you're going to need a little more than an exclamation point to lend credence to yourself.

Modman, only an idiot would think mutations without intelligence could bring about 'intelligent' changes.

Quote from: -Archmage- on May 05, 2010, 12:45:05
BTW, your math is far off, the chances of a good mutation are minimal, 15% is a lie. How do I know? I read up on mutations, evolution is just too random!

Ah, the creationist claims to have read materials and thus knows all about evolution.  Then he backs himself with this claim, yet cites no sources.

Wikipedia, a site that's bent toward evolution, but says otherwise.

And no, creationist websites do not count as unbiased.  Try something peer reviewed (good luck finding a paper like this!  Creationists can't get their paper approved by peers because they both know that creationism is a lie).

Typical of evolutionists.


You should look at the videos Eliminator posted.

[wyvern]

Archmage, I still haven't heard a convincing or logical reply to this argument :

Science supports evolution by saying that mutation is possible, however, from what I have seen there is nothing to support the existence of a creator and technically, and realistically things don't just appear so a Creator had to be created by something else, the only thing that always has been and always will be is matter and energy

Guess it unhinges your hopeless arguments.

[modman]

Annoying or not, Evolution is random.

Maybe I need to be more explicit.  You have habitually claimed that evolution is random, yet you have not demonstrated this.  In fact you cannot demonstrate it because it is false.  "Assuming the initial point" is the English translation of petitio principii.

You sound like someone who is afraid of disagreement.  Are you a member of the Tea Party?  Anyways, I guess members of Mensa and the National Academy of Sciences must be idiots for disagreeing with you.

This is the disadvantage of typing.......especially with people who are trying not to understand me.

No, that is the disadvantage of bad writing (and writing one line responses to paragraphs).  Good writing conveys exactly the message it attempts; there can be no ambiguity.  Even still, I understand too well what you are trying to say, only because I understand the nature of creationists.  No amount of writing I can do can convince you that you are wrong, because you are already indoctrinated.  Indoctrination, by the way, is the more serious sin that the Catholics have committed.  It is their dogma, and indeed that of all other religions, that children must be indoctrinated while defenseless, before their brains are fully developed enough to tell truth from fiction.  One need not look any further than Santa Claus stories to see how true this really is.

Modman, only an idiot would think mutations without intelligence could bring about 'intelligent' changes.

No, they are not "intelligent" changes any more than trial and error is a process of understanding.  Again, we can "design" all sorts of mechanical gadgets using trial and error.  This is how bacteria are able to resist drugs.  Many bacteria will be "tried" in the antibiotic solution, and most will die.  But the bacteria are not all identical, and so some may survive.  These are able to reproduce in the solution, and so scientists or nature can conceivably "design" a drug-resistant bacteria without any knowledge of the DNA structure, using no intelligence whatsoever.

Typical of evolutionists.

Yup, we tend not to take in "blind faith" that you tell the truth, and in a debate, no one will.  It would be better for you to recognize that sooner than later.

Did you all see these?

Unfortunately, yes.  And this isn't the first time you posted Mr. Hovind as the best representative of creationism.  The man believes that it is impossible to turn lower elements into higher elements.  He also claims to have a science degree and to have taught high school science for 15 years.

Anyone who believes that "chemical evolution" is impossible, please explain how the sun continues to radiate energy, and how thermonuclear (hydrogen) bombs work.

To be fair, he believes that it is impossible to fuse past iron.  In actuality, it is possible but doing so is a process which requires more energy than it gives off.

[-Archmage-]

Quote from: -Archmage-
Annoying or not, Evolution is random.
Maybe I need to be more explicit.  You have habitually claimed that evolution is random, yet you have not demonstrated this.  In fact you cannot demonstrate it because it is false.

What I mean by random, doesn't really have a word that I know of.......so I say random, because it's the closest term.

Quote from: -Archmage-
Modman, only an idiot would think mutations without intelligence could bring about 'intelligent' changes.

No, they are not "intelligent" changes any more than trial and error is a process of understanding.  Again, we can "design" all sorts of mechanical gadgets using trial and error.  This is how bacteria are able to resist drugs.  Many bacteria will be "tried" in the antibiotic solution, and most will die.  But the bacteria are not all identical, and so some may survive.  These are able to reproduce in the solution, and so scientists or nature can conceivably "design" a drug-resistant bacteria without any knowledge of the DNA structure, using no intelligence whatsoever.

Yes, we design a lot of things, using intelligent trial and error, not unintelligent trial and error.
As for your antibiotics example, that's not evolution, that's simply some bacteria not being affected by some antibiotics, which will reproduce and make more bacteria unaffected by that specific antibiotic.

Archmage, I still haven't heard a convincing or logical reply to this argument :

Science supports evolution by saying that mutation is possible, however, from what I have seen there is nothing to support the existence of a creator and technically, and realistically things don't just appear so a Creator had to be created by something else, the only thing that always has been and always will be is matter and energy

Guess it unhinges your hopeless arguments.

Mutations are possible, but they're almost all harmful!

"however, from what I have seen there is nothing to support the existence of a creator"
Exactly, you haven't seen it yet.

"and technically, and realistically things don't just appear so a Creator had to be created by something else"
Matter can't just appear, so matter had to either be created, or just appear. Besides, if you think about it, something had to be there in the beginning, because you can't have something out of nothing. And the extremely fine tuning of the universes physical laws would say that a Creator made the matter.

"the only thing that always has been and always will be is matter and energy"

What a completely ridiculous claim. You can claim with no proof that lifeless matter is just there and always has been, but we can't claim that a Creator exists(and maybe always has existed) even though we see signs of a Creators existence everywhere. And you're the one that said: "technically, and realistically things don't just appear".

[Gabbe]

The poll should let you vote for the others, not yourself, as all will probably vote for themselves...I voted for modman and that clarify why he got 2 and arch got one and wyvern one...

Arch, when you are to find information about evolution, creationist sites are not the way to look for information. Creationists sites are most likely only there to promote religious beliefs. So if you want to find information you`ll have to find it on evolution sites, they are the only trustable sites that can possibly offer you information. And one site does not help. Let me navigate you:

http://atheist-experience.com/
http://atheist-community.org/

But if you really have the need to get your answers clear and get the facts pulled up in your face, email those guys: tv@atheist-community.org

[@kukac@]

Annoying or not, Evolution is random.

Warum?

[Gabbe]

kukac... would you stop to be a damned idiot please?

[wyvern]

Exactly, you haven't seen it yet. Roll Eyes

And I probably never will.

Matter has to exist always because without anything available it is impossible to create anything. You can't build a car without the necessary parts can you, same with a creator, if he exists which I doubt he can't create things out of nothing but he could create new things out of the material available and even change the material, but the material has to be there and it must be available, humans can also alter materials, slightly.

[-Archmage-]

Wyvern, you can't tell the Creator what he can and cannot create.

Matter has to exist always because without anything available it is impossible to create anything. You can't build a car without the necessary parts can you, same with a creator, if he exists which I doubt Roll Eyes Roll Eyes he can't create things out of nothing but he could create new things out of the material available and even change the material, but the material has to be there and it must be available, humans can also alter materials, slightly.

And........the matter came from where?


Gabbe, I checked out those sites, there seems to be no science there..........
Creationism sites are in fact very reliable, much more organised too.

[Gabbe]

Since elemental transformation is possible

Here is my theory, a matter, in a singularity got unstable and then exploded, this was the BigBang (that can also be misunderstoo..)
The matter then transformed into what we have today.

Here is another one, pulses happen.
What if the universe come and go in pulses, we know that the black holes suck up matter in a extreme singularity, so the universe may "fade" within these holes, then something in the middle explodes again and a new universe is created.

Both of these theories are both more sustained than your theory about a creator, it is proovable that singularities, matter, pulses, black holes exist, it is not proovable about a creator because we cannot proove that something "omnipotent" exist, your theory is not sustained, and before any of your arguments can go further you must proove the creator, if we accept that a creator is maybe existant, then you only need a good imagination to come up with evidence for everything, but neither of us has accepted a creator as existant. You must proove him.

PROOVE

PROOVE

Show up evidence, explain, basically

PROOVE

It maybe a word you are unaware of, but a theory has to be sutained by

PROOF

And

PROOF

is obseravble, your creator cannot be seen, felt, tasted nor can we hear him/it/her, so what you need to bring up is

PROOF

something that can be either observed by our senses, but most creationists aren`t sane so why do i bother?...

Creationism sites are in fact very reliable, much more organised too. Tongue

NO F***ing way?

Point us to some?

http://www.creationism.org/

The most obivious web url in the world...
Yeah, it was that about organized...

This is a quote from the site:'

if we believe in creation, we believe that everything came from nothing by the will of an omnipotent

So you still belive that everything came from nothing, interesting...

[wyvern]

Matter can change but not instantly materialize, and the timespan in the Universe is infinity so things do could have been at the beggining, I do agree with Gabbe on his theory though as I find it quite logical

[-Archmage-]

You must prove that matter just exists, that is a very stupid claim.

My belief isn't exactly set, but I do think that a Creator, may have created the Big Bang, he may have put the stuff there to start the Big Bang.

But you cannot just claim that matter and all the laws of physics are just there.


http://creation.com/
http://creationmuseum.org/

So you still belive that everything came from nothing, interesting... No Opinion No Opinion No Opinion

You're the one who believe everything came from nothing not me.

Matter can change but not instantly materialize

You're assuming that God is as limited as a Human.

[Gabbe]

You're the one who believe everything came from nothing not me. Roll Eyes

if we believe in creation, we believe that everything came from nothing by the will of an omnipotent

But you cannot just claim that matter and all the laws of physics are just there. Roll Eyes

As long as you claim

if we believe in creation, we believe that everything came from nothing by the will of an omnipotent

We can.

My belief isn't exactly set, but I do think that a Creator, may have created the Big Bang, he may have put the stuff there to start the Big Bang.

So this

if we believe in creation, we believe that everything came from nothing by the will of an omnipotent

Is correct then.

You're assuming that God is as limited as a Human. Roll Eyes

God is omnipotent, god cannot be prooven, god doesn`t exist.

Creation.org

Humans are very different from animals, especially in the ability to use language and logic. [/quote from the site]

Humans are very similar to animals in a variety of ways, im sure i could find a lot, but i won`t since im not in the mood to find some right now.

the large difference in genetic information content between apes and humans.

Yes, i know, 99% share DNA is a huge difference...

Im not very educated about apemen, so i`l continue with somethign else.
The greatest hoax on earth....

let me show you the greatest hoax on earth:  

Arch, you gotta agree with me that this was just lies to the end right?

lets get to the other creationist website...

As one example he demonstrated the probability of the chance arrangement of amino acids into biologically useful proteins as required by evolution.

What they mention later on is that this experiment was under the probably earth atmhosphere at the time life began, and this is under evolution, a common creationists mistake, ABIOGENESIS, remember? thats how life began. ah and yes, what if life were carried here? from a place were the athmosphere was good enough to make this almost a "must happen" process? then the chances are completely in our favour right? This is a site for mislead creationists, and quoting the entire site would take longer than a LIFETIME...

[wyvern]

God just doesn't exist, so he's not as limited as humans

[Gabbe]

thats correct, but arch seems to have it stuck up in his mind that he/she/it does.

[John.d.h]

@Gabbe: Could you knock it off with the signature already?  It's a tremendous pain in the ass.  Kthxbai.