Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

A place to talk about more serious topics such as politics, society and current events.
Forum rules
Please read the discussion section rules before posting in here. By posting in this section, you acknowledge to have read and understood them, and agree to abide by them at all times.

Of course, the global forum rules apply here too.

NOTE: posts in this section are not counted towards your total.
Kronos
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 4280
Joined: 28 May 2003, 02:00
Location: Azeroth
Contact:

Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

Post by Kronos »

OK guys and girls, have you's learned to debate yet?
I would really like to try this in an official debate, and not contaminate other threads with this.

This can also serve as a learning curve for Debate virgins/n00bs to learn the tricks of the trade.

I think that this is becoming a good and well documented topic of late.
With This months star letter, etc.

But, here's the catch. This has to remain a proper debate.
Please note that debating is NOT fighting, or attacing each other's POVs, but rather stating FACTS, WITH SOURCES.
The opposition side must then give counter arguments and facts, ALSO with sources.

I'm including sourses as a requirement, since no one here is an undisputed master of either "Creation Science" or Evolution.

RULES:
1. Give clear, understandable arguments. You can't win a debate by
confusing your opposition
2. NO FIGHTING OR ATTACKING EACH OTHER.
3. No Name calling. Neither each other nor each other's sources.
That includes me not being allowed to call Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) a
crackpot. (But be aware that I have counter arguments ready for
everything that he has said :)
4. If anyone starts to fight, there are different actions I will take.
a) If 1 person starts it, his or her fighting posts will be DELETED.
b) If I miss a few posts and a flame war starts, the thread will be locked untill everyone has cooled down.
c) If someone is found continuously breaking these rules, he/she will be banned from this thread by way of ALL their future posts being deleted from the thread.
5. Stick to the topic of Evolution and Creation


OK, so here we go:

@Cap, you stated in "The (Mainly) Christian Thread" that there are many things Kent Hovind has said to show that some of the so-called evedences for Evolutionary Theory is a bunch of lies.
Please elaborate. ie. Name a few of these things.

@Kitt-e-Kat
We ARE still evolving. Remember that evolution doesn't just happen overnight. It takes millions and billions of years.
We (The Genus "Homo") have only been around for 1.8 million years. And if we have evolved from the species Homo Erectus to What we are today in about 400 000 Years, isn't it reasonable to assume that it would take a considderable amount of time to get to the next stage of evolution, whatever it may be?

Sources:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/TroyHolder.shtml
Last edited by Kronos on 11 Aug 2005, 15:36, edited 1 time in total.
Image
jee
Registered User
Posts: 19336
Joined: 03 Jun 2003, 02:00
Location: a hole so deep...

Post by jee »

Kronons, I will help moderate this thread for you. I believe in neither the debating points, so I will be a good objective judge, and I understand how the delete button works. *g*
"Integrity" and "integer" both contain a Latin root meaning "whole; complete." The root sense, then, is that people may be said to be acting with integrity when their beliefs, words, and actions have a sense of unity or wholeness.
Anakha56
Forum Administrator
Posts: 22136
Joined: 14 Jun 2004, 02:00
Processor: Ryzen 1700K
Motherboard: Asus X370
Graphics card: Asus 1060 Strix
Memory: 16GB RAM
Location: Where Google says

Post by Anakha56 »

oh i will get to this thread once i have some time but i am definitly going to be posting in here.

one other rule i think should be taken under consideration is that no flaming of another's religion shall take place. you may use the bible as your reference point but keep in mind as with the evolution theory it does have hole's in it.
JUSTICE, n A commodity which is a more or less adulterated condition the State sells to the citizen as a reward for his allegiance, taxes and personal service.
jee
Registered User
Posts: 19336
Joined: 03 Jun 2003, 02:00
Location: a hole so deep...

Post by jee »

I think one also have to clearly delineate especially creationists. I assume that only believing in the creation theory from a faith point in one god will be what most people want to discuss and that deism might be as sacrilegious as evolution?
"Integrity" and "integer" both contain a Latin root meaning "whole; complete." The root sense, then, is that people may be said to be acting with integrity when their beliefs, words, and actions have a sense of unity or wholeness.
Kher-za
Registered User
Posts: 6500
Joined: 03 Feb 2004, 02:00
Location: Counting Miles On The Road To Perdition
Contact:

Post by Kher-za »

i believe in the possibility that just maybe there are other powers in the universe that helped us to get where we are right now.

why?

because this is a boring universe and what else is there to do.

what if we are soulless husk merely reacting on instincts to our surroundings.

hee hee, i'm staying away from this thread after i press the 'submit' button.
Moses
Registered User
Posts: 2545
Joined: 21 Jul 2004, 02:00
Location: Location:
Contact:

Post by Moses »

One of the essential ingredients for evolution to take place is an external "survivabilty" bias towards one trait over another. However humans have created such a complicated society that these biases hardly exist. A genetic trait which causes impaired intelligence in an animal will quickly be lost because the animal will simply be too stupid to survive and reproduce. However, in our society we have ellaborate systems to help those with genetic, hereditary impairments to survive and forever continue spreading the defect.
Kronos
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 4280
Joined: 28 May 2003, 02:00
Location: Azeroth
Contact:

Post by Kronos »

Kher-za wrote:i believe in the possibility that just maybe there are other powers in the universe that helped us to get where we are right now.

why?

because this is a boring universe and what else is there to do.

what if we are soulless husk merely reacting on instincts to our surroundings.

hee hee, i'm staying away from this thread after i press the 'submit' button.
Thanks for the example of what NOT to post Kher. :roll:

This thread will have nothing to do with wheather or not their are supreme deities, or about the meaning of life, etc.
Image
Kronos
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 4280
Joined: 28 May 2003, 02:00
Location: Azeroth
Contact:

Post by Kronos »

Moses wrote:One of the essential ingredients for evolution to take place is an external "survivabilty" bias towards one trait over another. However humans have created such a complicated society that these biases hardly exist. A genetic trait which causes impaired intelligence in an animal will quickly be lost because the animal will simply be too stupid to survive and reproduce. However, in our society we have ellaborate systems to help those with genetic, hereditary impairments to survive and forever continue spreading the defect.
Good point Moses!

Most other animals live on a "survival of the fittest" basis. If a baby is born with defects, eg. it can't walk, then, when the herd moves on, the baby is left behind. Humans on the other hand, being as moral as we are, will continue caring for that impaired child, even if it means putting different kinds of strain on ourselves, so those weaknesses will forever stay with us.

@Jee, Who is this Kronons whom you refer to? :lol: :lol:
Image
Moses
Registered User
Posts: 2545
Joined: 21 Jul 2004, 02:00
Location: Location:
Contact:

Post by Moses »

That's why I wish copulation required a great deal of skill.
Kronos
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 4280
Joined: 28 May 2003, 02:00
Location: Azeroth
Contact:

Post by Kronos »

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Image
jee
Registered User
Posts: 19336
Joined: 03 Jun 2003, 02:00
Location: a hole so deep...

Post by jee »

Kronos wrote: This thread will have nothing to do with wheather or not their are supreme deities, or about the meaning of life, etc.
I disagree with you Kronos. The very foundations of the creationists' theories (yes there are more than one and you even get those who are evolutionary creationists) lie in the fact that the universe/earht/humanity was created, either ex nihilo, out of nothing, or by creating order from chaos. And within the field there are further arguments fo the One God, or for various other deities that formed part of the process.

It can be said that science can prove many facts, such as the dating (and genetic evidence) that the homo sapience have been around for 150 00 years, and have evolved from homo erectus. I want to throw out a question that I have not anser for - who created homo erectus? Can one say that humanity does not only stem from homo erectus, but is combination of other factors as well? I will just mention the whole Egyptology theory here, but will not elaborate, as i need to find sources for you first.

edit.. perhaps it reminds me of huggles Kronos :D
@ Moses - copulation does need great skill and practice *g*
"Integrity" and "integer" both contain a Latin root meaning "whole; complete." The root sense, then, is that people may be said to be acting with integrity when their beliefs, words, and actions have a sense of unity or wholeness.
Sojourn
Registered User
Posts: 5649
Joined: 02 Sep 2004, 02:00
Location: Still looking...

Post by Sojourn »

I am God. Well, thats what my last gf said after sex. So there.

S
Moses
Registered User
Posts: 2545
Joined: 21 Jul 2004, 02:00
Location: Location:
Contact:

Post by Moses »

I disagree with you Kronos. The very foundations of the creationists' theories (yes there are more than one and you even get those who are evolutionary creationists) lie in the fact that the universe/earh/humanity was created, either ex nihilo, out of nothing, or by creating order from chaos. And within the field there are further arguments fo the One God, or for various other deities that formed part of the process.
Agreed. EXCEPT, creationists don't simply propose their theory as a theory of creation, they actively try and disprove evolution to put forward their argument. So a creationist vs non-zealot debate is really two sides, one defending evolution, and one trying to prove it is rubbish; a debate which should have nothing to do with religion.[/quote]
Moses
Registered User
Posts: 2545
Joined: 21 Jul 2004, 02:00
Location: Location:
Contact:

Post by Moses »

@ Moses - copulation does need great skill and practice *g*


I deliberately used the word "copulation", and not 'love-making'.
Y0da
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 5865
Joined: 19 Mar 2004, 02:00
Location: In a cave, In a galaxy far far away.

Post by Y0da »

Why not both? Who says that God didn't use evolution as a means of creation? Does 'Creation' really have to be a static process instead of an ongoing one?
Just when I got the hang of life they changed the rules.
Moses
Registered User
Posts: 2545
Joined: 21 Jul 2004, 02:00
Location: Location:
Contact:

Post by Moses »

Y0da wrote:Why not both? Who says that God didn't use evolution as a means of creation? Does 'Creation' really have to be a static process instead of an ongoing one?
Perhaps, Y0da, but the theory of 'creationism' strictly prohibits non literal interpretation of the bible.
Y0da
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 5865
Joined: 19 Mar 2004, 02:00
Location: In a cave, In a galaxy far far away.

Post by Y0da »

But it's still just another theory. The bottom line is that no-one alive today was there when it happened so whatever we say is still just a theory. I suppose that is where faith comes in. We need to 'believe' in our theories because there is no tangeble proof. And that goes for both sides.
Just when I got the hang of life they changed the rules.
jee
Registered User
Posts: 19336
Joined: 03 Jun 2003, 02:00
Location: a hole so deep...

Post by jee »

We will leave the copulation v love-making debate for another thread as it is as important as the current debate, and need time on its own.
Moses wrote:
Y0da wrote:Why not both? Who says that God didn't use evolution as a means of creation? Does 'Creation' really have to be a static process instead of an ongoing one?
Perhaps, Y0da, but the theory of 'creationism' strictly prohibits non literal interpretation of the bible.
Moses, please give me more on this theory of yours. What do you base it on? Do you believe that all creationistic theories and myths are based on the bible? Do you have sources to quote?
"Integrity" and "integer" both contain a Latin root meaning "whole; complete." The root sense, then, is that people may be said to be acting with integrity when their beliefs, words, and actions have a sense of unity or wholeness.
Moses
Registered User
Posts: 2545
Joined: 21 Jul 2004, 02:00
Location: Location:
Contact:

Post by Moses »

But it's still just another theory. The bottom line is that no-one alive today was there when it happened so whatever we say is still just a theory. I suppose that is where faith comes in. We need to 'believe' in our theories because there is no tangeble proof. And that goes for both sides.
We could turn this into an infinitely recurring Godëlian meta-argument, but I'd rather not.

Good bye.
Last edited by Moses on 11 Aug 2005, 17:32, edited 1 time in total.
jee
Registered User
Posts: 19336
Joined: 03 Jun 2003, 02:00
Location: a hole so deep...

Post by jee »

I'm disappointed in you Moses. A debate means looking for answers or disproving them. Not running away the moment things don't go your way ;)
"Integrity" and "integer" both contain a Latin root meaning "whole; complete." The root sense, then, is that people may be said to be acting with integrity when their beliefs, words, and actions have a sense of unity or wholeness.
Moses
Registered User
Posts: 2545
Joined: 21 Jul 2004, 02:00
Location: Location:
Contact:

Post by Moses »

Moses, please give me more on this theory of yours. What do you base it on? Do you believe that all creationistic theories and myths are based on the bible? Do you have sources to quote?
Damn, I want to go home and eat.

I'm not too sure what you mean by this, but "creationist" is not a general term used to describe someone who believes the world was created, it is a very specific (although it has several variations) term used to describe someone who directly opposes evolution* in favour of intelligent-design-theory.


*There is branch that believes that evolution was god's way of creation, but their idealogy is very different to that of the 'creationists' and can be hardly classified as one.

I don't believe in quoting sources, what makes me as a source any less reputable than 'blogger-joe' over on some other webpage. The only thing worth quoting is a source AND the CREDENTIALS of the sources author.
jee
Registered User
Posts: 19336
Joined: 03 Jun 2003, 02:00
Location: a hole so deep...

Post by jee »

LOl go off home and get some sustenance... I will stay out of this debate, as I said before, the way you guys look at it its homo erectus v the bible, and I believe both are not correct :) - You have rather left out the Muslim belief amongst others.

I also agree with you on sources - but! there are sources that you can use that are authoritative enough!
"Integrity" and "integer" both contain a Latin root meaning "whole; complete." The root sense, then, is that people may be said to be acting with integrity when their beliefs, words, and actions have a sense of unity or wholeness.
Leigh
Registered User
Posts: 1358
Joined: 03 Apr 2004, 02:00
Location: constantly globetrotting

Post by Leigh »

I think this is a terrible idea for a thread. Why? Because it's pointless. It's pointless because with a subject like this, people tend to debate according to their beliefs, not facts. Sometimes, beliefs totally defy facts, but are so much a part of you, that you will not change those beliefs. Because of this, all that happens is that people waste energy locking horns, without actually proving anything.

Your time would be better spent on more constructive conversation.

Of course this is in my most humble of opinions ;)
human slave in an insect nation
ryanrich
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8465
Joined: 07 Jun 2003, 02:00
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Post by ryanrich »

Agreed

It's either gonna end up a flame war, or a 15 page long thread consisting of worthless banter...

Like somebody mentioned earlier in this thread, there's no proof for either argument, so good luck arguing with opinions, we all know where that leads... You guessed it! 15 page long threads consisting of worthless banter. :lol:
Zell
Permanently Banned
Posts: 6270
Joined: 14 Mar 2005, 02:00

Post by Zell »

Y0da wrote:Why not both? Who says that God didn't use evolution as a means of creation? Does 'Creation' really have to be a static process instead of an ongoing one?
I totally agree with you there Yoda.
The bible states "7 days". But we all know that the bible isn't meant to be taken 100% literally, more like stories with morals that we can learn from. Like a guide to how to live our lives in this earth.

But I believe that those 7 "days" are actually 7 "periods" of evolution.
BIG EDIT: Who knows if when Moses (the ancient one :lol: ) recieved the bible, if the word "day" in Hebrew wasn't meant to be period? Meanings in different languages can get warped, or over-simplified as may have happened with the word "day".
Just like the word "Shalom" in Hebrew means peace/hello/goodbye. In 3000 years, the word could easily lose one of the three meanings. As the Jews spoke Aramaic in the times of the temples, so they may have forgotten about some extra meanings in the words of their ancient language.

The first period was with the big bang.
"God created heaven and earth" ---> Duhh, with the big bang baby!!!
Humans may have come from monkeys... or birdies :lol:
That could be the last (7th) period of evolution. I mean, not much has changed since the days of Adam. Noah was only 10 generations of people later than Adam, so we know that the earth is relatively the same.

I reckon that the theory of Evolution does not disprove the Bible (original and new testaments) and the Bible does NOT disprove Evolutionism.


People tend to say "Evolutionism is blasphemy".
Well, the pope wanted to kill Newton for his beliefs in physics back in the day, so go figure.
The bible does not disprove evolutionism, thus I say one can be uber-religious and yet believe that we evolved from monkeys.

I so wish I could debate on this thread like I used to on other forums, but time is limited and I probably won't be back online till next week. So I hope what I said is relevant enough.

Zell

EDIT: To ryanrich and co. The point of this thread is to TRY see if we can have a mature debate in this forum. By saying "this is pointless" kinda says no. The point of this thread is to NOT be like all other religion threads, and rather be a proper debate thread where some interesting points can be made, even if it dies after 2 pages.
Post Reply