Are you a creationist or and evolutionist

I'm both. Evolution isn't sufficient enough to explain the origin of life, IMO, and I don't even think that's the purpose of it to begin with.

Life has worked for millions of years on this planet. I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that it isn't perfect now. Obivously, it's working how it's suppose to or there would be no life. It doesn't seak perfection in how humans perceive it. It's really that simple. 

EMOEVOLUTION

I'm both. Evolution isn't sufficient enough to explain the origin of life, IMO, and I don't even think that's the purpose of it to begin with.

Eman5805

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]

Life has worked for millions of years on this planet. I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that it isn't perfect now. Obivously, it's working how it's suppose to or there would be no life. It doesn't seak perfection in how humans perceive it. It's really that simple.

DeeJayInphinity

The transfer of energy and the momentum of life is direction it's heading in(seaking). We can't conclude that it life has or has not reached it's ultimate form all ready. Because we simply don't know. I believe it has. Foxhound believes that the purpose of evolution is for life to head toward perfection. That's the only real difference here is that I believe evolution is that perfection of life.

Like you said life "It just is." But it is being pushed in a specific direction caused by the environment. I shouldn't have personified it so heavily.

I

The transfer of energy and the momentum of life is direction it's heading in(seaking). We can't conclude that it life has or has not reached it's ultimate form all ready. Because we simply don't know. I believe it has. Foxhound believes that the purpose of evolution is for life to head toward perfection. That's the only real difference here is that I believe evolution is that perfection of life.

Like you said life "It just is." But it is being pushed in a specific direction caused by the environment. I shouldn't have personified it so heavily.

I

 

EMOEVOLUTION

Anyone who knows anything about biology would accept Evolution.

For people who insist on being ignorant and ignoring the evidence...that's their problem. In fact, it's better for me, less competition for finding a science related job. 

[QUOTE="Eman5805"]

I'm both. Evolution isn't sufficient enough to explain the origin of life, IMO, and I don't even think that's the purpose of it to begin with.

Funky_Llama

gtbhyvew - *after hitting face off keyboard*

The big bang being insuffient to explaining gravity is the main cause of some of the problems with it. Ask a physicist. So its kind of a bad example. While we're on the topic of physics, someone mentioned that matter couldn't be destroyed or changed. An old guy named Albert came up with a famous equation: E=mc squared: that says Matter can turned into energy, and energy to Matter. Thats all matter is, trapped energy. They are both the same thing but in different forms (theoretically) and can change.

But the origin of life isn't important to the theory of evolution (to all you folks, a theory is the leading explanation in a field; it has the most evidence. Science is built not on absolute fact, but temporaly approximations. You have the theory of evolution, and the hypothesis of creationism).

It is entirely possible that life emerged without the influence of an outside source. That it formed as a result of billions of years of juggling the biological chemicals until a tiny protein membrane formed and started to replicate itself. Is anyone going to reject and deny that as a possibility?

Anyone who knows anything about biology would accept Evolution.

 

For people who insist on being ignorant and ignoring the evidence...that's their problem. In fact, it's better for me, less competition for finding a science related job.

the_one34

Definitely. There isn't a single person on Earth with basic biology knowledge who completely rejects evolution. I mean, come on, we actually observed speciation. The theory as a whole isn't necessarily 100% right, but evolution happens, period.

[QUOTE="Eman5805"]

I'm both. Evolution isn't sufficient enough to explain the origin of life, IMO, and I don't even think that's the purpose of it to begin with.

Funky_Llama

You make it seem as if I didn't just say the same thing, man.

They aren't mutually exclusive categories you know. Not to mention that evolution is a viable scientific theory with tangible evidence that supports it. Creationism is basically a caviot for religion.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]They aren't mutually exclusive categories you know. Not to mention that evolution is a viable scientific theory with tangible evidence that supports it. Creationism is basically a caviot for religion.Funky_Llama

They were not random events and entropy is not a problem since pockets of decreasing entropy can form.  Probabilities are meaningless here. Throw a dice in the air and calculate the probabilities of its landing site. You will realize that the probability of it landing at a given site are unbelievably low, yet it will land somewhere. Vacuum fluctuations disagree with you. That is non-applicable anyway since the law would not apply to the big bang, of which we know very little about. The law only applies to the current Universe where we know of no process that can create or destroy energy to the point were it would mess with experimentation, unless you're studying vacuum fluctuations of course. Then you would have to take them into account.  Where did god come from? He's supposed to be infinite. Ever thought of applying that to nature?
Anyway.. I know that evolution happened so.. "evolutionist" is not a real term.
P.S: What the hell is wrong with gamespot? It always removes my first quote.DeeJayInphinity

As for entropy, lets say we take the whole universe as a closed system.With universal gravitation, all point masses are connected in some way with each other.With our solar system, everything is a perfect satellite with sun. Almost every galaxy comes up with the same pattern.This must be some perfect form of randomness. Civil engineers dont take a bucket of beams and dump them on a constuction location hoping a building is formed. There has to be a plan.

How are probabilities meaningless? How about taking 1,000 dices, throwing them up in the air, and calculating each coordinate they will land on an infinite plane with the exact number each will land on. This is similar to evoution. 

Likewise with the arguement I keep hearing as to where God came from, I'm just going to refute and say where did the origins  of matter come from?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Eman5805"]

I'm both. Evolution isn't sufficient enough to explain the origin of life, IMO, and I don't even think that's the purpose of it to begin with.

Eman5805

You make it seem as if I didn't just say the same thing, man.

Civil engineers dont take a bucket of beams and dump them on a constuction location hoping a building is formed. SupraGT

How are probabilities meaningless? How about taking 1,000 dices, throwing them up in the air, and calculating each coordinate they will land on an infinite plane with the exact number each will land on. This is similar to evoution.SupraGT

Likewise with the arguement I keep hearing as to where God came from, I'm just going to refute and say where did the origins of matter come from?

SupraGT

Likewise with the arguement I keep hearing as to where God came from, I'm just going to refute and say where did the origins of matter come from?

SupraGT

The explanation for Matter (and Energy, and well everything) is in the big bang theory, or its other varients (the big bounce: The universe is on a cycle of birth and rebirth; it becomes unstable a condenses into a single point before exploding into a new Universe and the process begins a new) or the (possible, but not very. Yet) tech of Mass fabrication. Theres two possible answers. Where did god come again?

Were you arguing against things not having a purpose or reason in your post?

Thanks if you answer.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]They aren't mutually exclusive categories you know. Not to mention that evolution is a viable scientific theory with tangible evidence that supports it. Creationism is basically a caviot for religion.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Yes they are. Creationism =/= theistic evolution.Funky_Llama

Theistic evolution is for people who are too scared to disprove creationism for fear they might burn in hell for believing in something that makes more sense.

Evolution is a fact.stevenk4k5

Evolution can be considered knowledge, but not a fact. Nothings a fact. If you drop a ball do you really know it will hit the ground? Like really know? That sort of thing makes the word "fact" meaningless.

Excuse me? I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Not all solar systems come up similar to ours, not all galaxies exhibit the same patterns that our galaxy exhibits, and our solar system is not perfect. I don't see how you can consider it as such. We're only afew billion years away from complete destruction.  Nobody said they do, and it isn't even analogous to evolutionary theory. That is not similar to evolution.. and I don't see how this refutes my argument. :?  That didn't answer the question. :?
I don't think you can understand what you're trying to argue... :?DeeJayInphinity

you dont understand what im arguing. The universe is a system of particles like atomic or chemical structures in which everything is bonded. I know solar systems arent similar to ours, but they follow the same rules of universal gravitation. Whatever their structure is the same rules apply like ours. I know systems collapse, but that opens up a whole new arguement to something else. That engineering analogy is isn't it? With the sheer randomness. No matter how many times you dump and container of beams, you will never build a perfect structure. Evolution is just wrapped around tons and tons of theories which have a lot of holes in them.

About the dice, you said that they would land somewhere right? The universe can expand into clusters of whatever element it wants right? I said that they are tossed and each group of 4 or 5 dice comes up with a series of, lets say, important numbers that mean something. This is the randomness of evolution. How can you come to a mathematical conclusion without some form of probability due to randomness? It doesnt make any sense.

[QUOTE="Eman5805"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"] He didn't say 'theistic evolution'. He said, 'evolutionist'. He didn't mention any kind of religious interpretations from the perspectiv eof science.Funky_Llama

Theistic evolution is for people who are too scared to disprove creationism for fear they might burn in hell for believing in something that makes more sense.

Atheistic evolution is for people too arrogant to believe in something greater than themselves for fear of lessening their own inflated sense of self.

I don't actually think that, but the feeling you probably just got mirrors mine as I was reading what you said. Heh, atheistic evolution...probably seems like an oxymoron to some people, I imagine.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Eman5805"]The point is, theistic evolution isn't a form of creationism. Evolution and creationism are incompatible.Eman5805

Theistic evolution is for people who are too scared to disprove creationism for fear they might burn in hell for believing in something that makes more sense.

Atheistic evolution is for people too arrogant to believe in something greater than themselves for fear of lessening their own inflated sense of self.

I don't actually think that, but the feeling you probably just got mirrors mine as I was reading what you said. Heh, atheistic evolution...probably seems like an oxymoron to some people, I imagine.

how can there even still be debate on this???comp_atkins

You really need to ask?

I'm going to go with Dogbert and say evolution is bullcrap. He had it all figured out.

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"] Excuse me? I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Not all solar systems come up similar to ours, not all galaxies exhibit the same patterns that our galaxy exhibits, and our solar system is not perfect. I don't see how you can consider it as such. We're only afew billion years away from complete destruction.  Nobody said they do, and it isn't even analogous to evolutionary theory. That is not similar to evolution.. and I don't see how this refutes my argument. :?  That didn't answer the question. :?
I don't think you can understand what you're trying to argue... :?SupraGT

you dont understand what im arguing. The universe is a system of particles like atomic or chemical structures in which everything is bonded. I know solar systems arent similar to ours, but they follow the same rules of universal gravitation. Whatever their structure is the same rules apply like ours. I know systems collapse, but that opens up a whole new arguement to something else. That engineering analogy is isn't it? With the sheer randomness. No matter how many times you dump and container of beams, you will never build a perfect structure. Evolution is just wrapped around tons and tons of theories which have a lot of holes in them.

About the dice, you said that they would land somewhere right? The universe can expand into clusters of whatever element it wants right? I said that they are tossed and each group of 4 or 5 dice comes up with a series of, lets say, important numbers that mean something. This is the randomness of evolution. How can you come to a mathematical conclusion without some form of probability due to randomness? It doesnt make any sense.

[QUOTE="SupraGT"]

Likewise with the arguement I keep hearing as to where God came from, I'm just going to refute and say where did the origins of matter come from?

redwolf22

The explanation for Matter (and Energy, and well everything) is in the big bang theory, or its other varients (the big bounce: The universe is on a cycle of birth and rebirth; it becomes unstable a condenses into a single point before exploding into a new Universe and the process begins a new) or the (possible, but not very. Yet) tech of Mass fabrication. Theres two possible answers. Where did god come again?

Were you arguing against things not having a purpose or reason in your post?

Thanks if you answer.

I was arguing for thing that have purpose and reason. Yet with all these theories, the same conclusion arises, mass had to come from some sorce.

how can there even still be debate on this???comp_atkins

That's a good philosophy for life, just believe everything you are told without questioning any of it...

Let me see, a scientific theory with mounds of evidence and the central backbone to biology OR a tale of creation written by bronze age man.

I'll take Evolution.

1. Ok you're telling me that the universe has rules? That's.. wonderful.
2. The beams analogy would again not apply because there is no system to sort the beams. (Where did beams come from?) Evolution has such a system, it is not just dumping atoms and hoping they develop into a person.
3. Again, evolution does not rely entirely on randomness. The only randomness is in genetic mutations, and they are only a small part of evolution. DeeJayInphinity

 So you are saying the universe doesnt have rules and evolution is not all randomness. That's a contradiction. And you said that there needs to be a system that sorts the beams. :?

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]how can there even still be debate on this???mindstorm

That's a good philosophy for life, just believe everything you are told without questioning any of it...

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"] 1. Ok you're telling me that the universe has rules? That's.. wonderful.
2. The beams analogy would again not apply because there is no system to sort the beams. (Where did beams come from?) Evolution has such a system, it is not just dumping atoms and hoping they develop into a person.
3. Again, evolution does not rely entirely on randomness. The only randomness is in genetic mutations, and they are only a small part of evolution. SupraGT

 So you are saying the universe doesnt have rules and evolution is not all randomness. That's a contradiction. And you said that there needs to be a system that sorts the beams. :?

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]how can there even still be debate on this???Funky_Llama

That's a good philosophy for life, just believe everything you are told without questioning any of it...

Who said I never questioned what I believe?  I did not come to believe Creationism to be true by simple rash thinking.  I myself was an evolutionist until about 3 years ago.

  I myself was an evolutionist until about 3 years ago.

mindstorm

So you fell and hit your head?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]

 

That's a good philosophy for life, just believe everything you are told without questioning any of it...

mindstorm

Who said I never questioned what I believe?  I did not come to believe Creationism to be true by simple rash thinking.  I myself was an evolutionist until about 3 years ago.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]how can there even still be debate on this???mindstorm

That's a good philosophy for life, just believe everything you are told without questioning any of it...

well we should debate gravity vs. god holding everything down then..   that would make as much sense.

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"] 1. Ok you're telling me that the universe has rules? That's.. wonderful.
2. The beams analogy would again not apply because there is no system to sort the beams. (Where did beams come from?) Evolution has such a system, it is not just dumping atoms and hoping they develop into a person.
3. Again, evolution does not rely entirely on randomness. The only randomness is in genetic mutations, and they are only a small part of evolution. SupraGT

 So you are saying the universe doesnt have rules and evolution is not all randomness. That's a contradiction. And you said that there needs to be a system that sorts the beams. :?

[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Delicious irony. >_>Funky_Llama

Who said I never questioned what I believe?  I did not come to believe Creationism to be true by simple rash thinking.  I myself was an evolutionist until about 3 years ago.

It was a gradual process and I do not remember all the specifics.  At one time I was an evolutionist and questioned the existance of God.  Gradually I leaned more and more towards God becoming a theistic-evolutionist.  I'm now a Creationist.  This was after hearing many lectures and reading books.  I'm deal more with philosophy than science so I can't argue their cases well for you but I saw that they had a more reasonable argument. 

I'm not saying evolution can't be true.  I simply do not believe it is as concrete of a theory as many portray.  Without question I believe God created.  Whether he used evolution or not, I doubt.  I do believe the earth to be young (though not 6,000 years old, more like 20,000-10,000 years old) though I could also be wrong about that.

I do not claim to know something to be true unless I'm completely knowledgable on the subject.  That is the case with evolution.  I see the case for either side and simply believe the argument against evolution to be stronger.  You can believe what you want to about it, I don't really care (which is why I don't argue about it much). 

The existance of God, however, I believe to be unquestionable and will argue the case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ until the end of my life.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]how can there even still be debate on this???comp_atkins

That's a good philosophy for life, just believe everything you are told without questioning any of it...

well we should debate gravity vs. god holding everything down then..   that would make as much sense.

I see no verses there... Can God not make gravity (and therefore defy it if he wish)?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]

 

Who said I never questioned what I believe?  I did not come to believe Creationism to be true by simple rash thinking.  I myself was an evolutionist until about 3 years ago.

mindstorm

It was a gradual process and I do not remember all the specifics.  At one time I was an evolutionist and questioned the existance of God.  Gradually I leaned more and more towards God becoming a theistic-evolutionist.  I'm now a Creationist.  This was after hearing many lectures and reading books.  I'm deal more with philosophy than science so I can't argue their cases well for you but I saw that they had a more reasonable argument. 

I'm not saying evolution can't be true.  I simply do not believe it is as concrete of a theory as many portray.  Without question I believe God created.  Whether he used evolution or not, I doubt.  I do believe the earth to be young (though not 6,000 years old, more like 20,000-10,000 years old) though I could also be wrong about that.

I do not claim to know something to be true unless I'm completely knowledgable on the subject.  That is the case with evolution.  I see the case for either side and simply believe the argument against evolution to be stronger.  You can believe what you want to about it, I don't really care (which is why I don't argue about it much). 

The existance of God, however, I believe to be unquestionable and will argue the case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ until the end of my life.

I'm sorry, but your ignorance of science is not proof of creationism. 

No offense. 

It was a gradual process and I do not remember all the specifics.  At one time I was an evolutionist and questioned the existance of God.  Gradually I leaned more and more towards God becoming a theistic-evolutionist.  I'm now a Creationist.  This was after hearing many lectures and reading books.  I'm deal more with philosophy than science so I can't argue their cases well for you but I saw that they had a more reasonable argument. 

I'm not saying evolution can't be true.  I simply do not believe it is as concrete of a theory as many portray.  Without question I believe God created.  Whether he used evolution or not, I doubt.  I do believe the earth to be young (though not 6,000 years old, more like 20,000-10,000 years old) though I could also be wrong about that.

I do not claim to know something to be true unless I'm completely knowledgable on the subject.  That is the case with evolution.  I see the case for either side and simply believe the argument against evolution to be stronger.  You can believe what you want to about it, I don't really care (which is why I don't argue about it much). 

The existance of God, however, I believe to be unquestionable and will argue the case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ until the end of my life.

 

mindstorm

And the world can't possibly be that old... if it was, the nearest galaxy to us would have completely tore our galaxy apart (Maybe that's just for people who believe in the 6,000 year old Earth, though, not sure about the years you conjectured.) 

[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Humouring you for no reason, then... why do you believe creationism?the_one34

It was a gradual process and I do not remember all the specifics.  At one time I was an evolutionist and questioned the existance of God.  Gradually I leaned more and more towards God becoming a theistic-evolutionist.  I'm now a Creationist.  This was after hearing many lectures and reading books.  I'm deal more with philosophy than science so I can't argue their cases well for you but I saw that they had a more reasonable argument. 

I'm not saying evolution can't be true.  I simply do not believe it is as concrete of a theory as many portray.  Without question I believe God created.  Whether he used evolution or not, I doubt.  I do believe the earth to be young (though not 6,000 years old, more like 20,000-10,000 years old) though I could also be wrong about that.

I do not claim to know something to be true unless I'm completely knowledgable on the subject.  That is the case with evolution.  I see the case for either side and simply believe the argument against evolution to be stronger.  You can believe what you want to about it, I don't really care (which is why I don't argue about it much). 

The existance of God, however, I believe to be unquestionable and will argue the case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ until the end of my life.

I'm sorry, but your ignorance of science is not proof of creationism. 

Did I say it was?... I merely stated my opinion.  I'm not trying to convert you all away from evolution... converting you to follow Jesus is a different story entirely.

Likewise with the arguement I keep hearing as to where God came from, I'm just going to refute and say where did the origins of matter come from?

SupraGT

Where did matter ultimately come from? We don't know, but this is not a refutation. See, the practice of science is identifying what we don't know, and then trying to find out. The practice of religion is identifying those same gaps in knowledge, and declaring that God(s) reside in those gaps. In this moment, you see the knowledge gap that is the origin of matter, and see the face of God. A thousand years ago, you may have seen the gap that is the origin of thunder and lightning, and seen the face of Thor, and Zeus two thousand years before that. And you would have been mistaken.

[QUOTE="the_one34"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]

 

It was a gradual process and I do not remember all the specifics.  At one time I was an evolutionist and questioned the existance of God.  Gradually I leaned more and more towards God becoming a theistic-evolutionist.  I'm now a Creationist.  This was after hearing many lectures and reading books.  I'm deal more with philosophy than science so I can't argue their cases well for you but I saw that they had a more reasonable argument. 

I'm not saying evolution can't be true.  I simply do not believe it is as concrete of a theory as many portray.  Without question I believe God created.  Whether he used evolution or not, I doubt.  I do believe the earth to be young (though not 6,000 years old, more like 20,000-10,000 years old) though I could also be wrong about that.

I do not claim to know something to be true unless I'm completely knowledgable on the subject.  That is the case with evolution.  I see the case for either side and simply believe the argument against evolution to be stronger.  You can believe what you want to about it, I don't really care (which is why I don't argue about it much). 

The existance of God, however, I believe to be unquestionable and will argue the case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ until the end of my life.

 

mindstorm

I'm sorry, but your ignorance of science is not proof of creationism. 

Did I say it was?... I merely stated my opinion.  I'm not trying to convert you all away from evolution...

Convert me from Evolution? Do you have any idea how bad that sounds? 

That's like saying you're going to "convert" from "believing" that we're made of cells. Cells are just a theory after all! 

The existance of God, however, I believe to be unquestionable and will argue the case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ until the end of my life.

mindstorm

If you had been born a thousand years ago in the Amazon Basin, you would have grown, lived, and died without any ability to learn the "good word." And would be currently burning in hell for not excepting Jesus as your personal savior through a pure accident of birth and geography. That's good policy.

Convert me from Evolution? Do you have any idea how bad that sounds?

That's like saying you're going to "convert" from "believing" that we're made of cells. After all, cells are just a theory after all!

the_one34

Christianity knows nothing of cells. I'm sure if the Bible was written today it'd say something scientific.

Anyway you are missing the point entirely. The modern context of a belief system doesn't mean you have to believe in a buch of myths (that's what they are its impossible to argue they are base on what anybody would call a myth). Its just a way of seeing the world and helping you deal with the strife of life. Religion gives your life a structure and discipline to follow, this is a very good thing for people who simply don't have time to lay about the house all day and ponder "why" "what" "who" and F-ing "how" it all works.

It ain't perfct, its wrong, infact. But its a good silly game to follow while science sorts itself out and deals with the important issues like stem cell research, the LHC and leaves the family home to the crazy kooks who believe Jesus rode a dinosaur to work every day.