A Debate of Evolutionism vs. Creationism

Luxormaniac

Obi suggested, sort of, that we make a thread here to discuss the conflicting points of view of how Man got here, what he should do, and where we are going, if anywhere. The Evolutionists are expected to overrun us Creationists, because they have "proof" and we can only say "have faith." But as we Creationists know, they'll see. They'll all see.

Anyway, let's "create" some intelligent debate that will "evolve" into a frenzied mass of opinions. Actually, let's keep it intelligent and calm.
Or else I'll get this thread locked, at my own request.

Thank you and I hope we can promote a valid and useful debate.
 
I could place faith in somebody that makes me believe there not a murderer, for example, but if there's proof that says otherwise....

Well what am I supposed to think?
 
There really is no debate. This has been done before, and the evolution has always overwhelmingly "won". The general scientific consensus is that natural selection is the theory that fits best so far, and creationism is unscientific, self-consistent and intellectually dishonest. Nearly all of the arguments against evolution have been disproven. I don't see what's to discuss, really, because a layman's debate isn't going anywhere soon.
 
I don't think there are very many creationists here at all, even among the Christians. They have updated themselves; it is time you do the same. There is no debate. By the way, "where man is going" and "what man should do" have absolutely no relevance to creationism and evolution. That is an entirely different discussion.
 
I agree with everyone here but I know some people that are so anti-evolution they get so flustered over the subject when I try to discuss it in a manner such as this
 
Evolution - an incredibly well documented process - versus Creationism, which does even make any predictions? Shall we create a debate over whether or not I'm Napoleon next?
 
Throughout the ages, gods have been produced to explain natural phenomena. As these phenomena accumulated explanations, the respective god became non-existant. Why do you think Ancient Greek ideals are dead now? We know now that there is no higher being toting a carriage from behind his chariot. So tell me why it should be expected that of the hundreds or more gods created over our thousands of years of existence that have been tossed aside with reasoning that this one is legitimate. I need not even discuss the evidence supporting Evolutionism; discussing the faults of Creationalism is enough to make the point.

@Luxormaniac, we'll see? We'll see what? I don't understand what there is to see. Is a god going to present itself and tell us what it did? If that's the case why then has there been no interference. Your responses probably falls along the lines of, "God works in mysterious ways." That's bullshit. We refer to "God" to fill in the blanks. As long as you recognize that your deity is in fact just a concept you can accept the truth.
 
Evolution has more evidence than creation, therefore evolution is the superior theory. This ignores other theories, and keep in mind evolution still has some pretty major holes, as it is still just a theory, not a law.

Just keep in mind that as humans we can't really prove a damned thing in relation to the existence of divine beings one way or the other. Arguing about religious matters is ridiculous and pointless, faith defines what we believe and accept. You only believe in evolution because of your faith in the evidence, hell for all we know satan just put the dinosaur bones there to trick us into sin.

Note that I'm not arguing that Satan created fossils, just stating the simple fact that for all we know that's why they're here.
 
Being the lazy ass I am, I'm just going to quote other people instead of writing my own rebuttals.

as it is still just a theory, not a law.
Click to expand...

jamespicone said:
You can't do better than a theory. What's a 'law', then? It's a simple mathematical relationship. That's not in the same general class as a theory, because it isn't an explanation. Laws say what happens - a theory says why it happens.
Click to expand...

You only believe in evolution because of your faith in the evidence, hell for all we know satan just put the dinosaur bones there to trick us into sin.
Click to expand...

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1584941&postcount=75

Read his response to Mr_Goodbar.
 
This "debate" is stupid because evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, an argument over beliefs goes no where, since logic is irrelevant.
 
I'm against the term "Evolutionism" because it implies an opinion system. The proper term is "science" or "the theory of evolution".

Luduan said:
I don't think there are very many creationists here at all, even among the Christians. They have updated themselves; it is time you do the same. There is no debate.
Click to expand...

You're basically using the same argument creationists were making a few years ago. Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy that goes against the premise of science itself. No matter how many people believe in something, it can still be wrong.

Kietharr said:
This ignores other theories, and keep in mind evolution still has some pretty major holes, as it is still just a theory, not a law.
Click to expand...

Name one hole, and I'll attempt to explain it.

Just keep in mind that as humans we can't really prove a damned thing in relation to the existence of divine beings one way or the other.
Click to expand...

That's not true. I am 100% certain that the god of Christianity is non-existent. However, this is another topic for another thread. If you want to talk about proof as it relates to divine existence, you'll have to make a different thread for that.
 
I recently prepared a musical theater piece for my upcoming theater-writing class in which Adam and Eve walked with the dinosaurs (who were their friends), and then evolved so they could fit into caves so that when the asteroid came they wouldn't be on fire like the dinosaurs. Seriously.
 
Obi said:
That's not true. I am 100% certain that the god of Christianity is non-existent. However, this is another topic for another thread. If you want to talk about proof as it relates to divine existence, you'll have to make a different thread for that.
Click to expand...
Being 100% certain that particular god does not exist is just as foolish as being 100% certain that it does exist.

There is no definitive proof that the god of Christianity exists or does not exist so the best you can do is make a reasonable assumption based on the evidence available, 100% certainty either way is pure folly.
 
That depends.

From the perspective of a scientist, I can say that I am 100% sure that the god of Christianity doesn't exist. From the perspective of a philosopher or logician, I would have to say that it is unprovable either way.
 
Being 100% certain that particular god does not exist is just as foolish as being 100% certain that it does exist.
Click to expand...

...and by the same measure, we can never be 100% certain that there isn't an invisible blue jigglypuff floating beside everyone's head. So it would foolish to deny invisible blue jiggypuffs as well.
 
why should it matter which perspective you take,if something can not be definitively proven you should not be 100% certain that it is true, you can assume the most likely result if one possibility is overwhelmingly more likely than the others but with definitive proof 100% certainty is foolish

tea_and_blues said:
...and by the same measure, we can never be 100% certain that there isn't an invisible blue jigglypuff floating beside everyone's head. So it would foolish to deny invisible blue jiggypuffs as well.
Click to expand...
If you mean invisible as existing naturally in every way except they cannot be seen then the is certainly a way to prove that they do not exist, however if you mean invisible as in impossible to be observed in any way, then it would be foolish to deny with 100% certainty that they do not exist, however it would not be foolish to deny that they exist because it is overwhelmingly more likely that they do not exist although you cannot be 100% certain
 
Because that's nothing but pure logic, and pure logic is dumb. That's why humanity invented science, a new epistemology for discovering truth about the universe that doesn't get caught up in idiot discussions like "does induction really exist" and instead assumes that if it fits the model, the model probably has merit.
 
People risk setting up a false a dichotomy, latios315. It's not a question of 'Christian God or not Christian God', the odds for and against the Christian God are not 50/50. It is a question of 'Christian god, or any other possible metaphysical scheme (all inaccessible in any normal sense), or just the natural world that we know and observe.'

The likelihood that any specific god or metaphysical scheme anyone names actually exists is beyond miniscule. Statistically, the likelihood on any particular god/gods existing is far closer to 0.000000000001% than 50%. It's worth bearing in mind.

I'm quite comfortable with people saying they are 100% percent certain that a specific god does not exist. It's a pretty safe call, and I read such statements as shorthand for 'I'm 99.999999999%' certain.'
 
tea_and_blues said:
People risk setting up a false a dichotomy, latios315. It's not a question of 'Christian God or not Christian God', the odds for and against the Christian God are not 50/50. It is a question of 'Christian god or any other possible metaphysical scheme, all inaccessible in any normal sense, or just the natural world that we know and observe.'

The likelihood that any specific god or metaphysical scheme anyone names actually exists is beyond miniscule. Statistically, the likelihood on any particular god/gods existing is far closer to 0.000000000001% than 50%. It's worth bearing in mind.
Click to expand...
I understand that and also understand that it is perfectly logical to assume that they do not exist, however without definitive poof you cannot be 100% certain like obi said he was
 
You can be certain. Obi was using 3 significant digits, and rounded to insure that he was not incorrect. He is not 100.000000% sure.
 
billymills said:
You can be certain. Obi was using 3 significant digits, and rounded to insure that he was not incorrect. He is not 100.000000% sure.
Click to expand...
Again, that's only if you're stuck with using pure logic. Some people have hopped on this new bandwagon called "science" and can say they are 100% sure. They might turn out to be wrong, but being 100% sure is a subjective matter and not an objective one so that's okay.
 
billymills said:
You can be certain. Obi was using 3 significant digits, and rounded to insure that he was not incorrect. He is not 100.000000% sure.
Click to expand...
If that is the case then I misunderstood the notation, but when I hear someone say I am 100% certain I usually assume that they mean 100.0000000000000000% certain

Surgo said:
Again, that's only if you're stuck with using pure logic. Some people have hopped on this new bandwagon called "science" and can say they are 100% sure. They might turn out to be wrong, but being 100% sure is a subjective matter and not an objective one so that's okay.
Click to expand...
\
I think you're confusing being 100% sure and making an assumption, scientists make assumptions if something is highly likely to be true however this should not equate to 100% certainty
 
science_vs_creationism.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top