Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

[QBM]

Why cant both theories of evolution and creationism be combined? What if our universe was created by a higher being but with the ingredients for us to evolve to be our own unique society? how would that fit in to it all?

that's what i've been trying to say for a while already! Try and compromise to allow both theories to be true

hey guys, here's a little thought i had. i'm not pulling religion or anything into this but i found it quite interesting.

I'm not a Bible Fundi but i remember something being said about the Jews when they had Christ crucified. Someone said that their future generations would suffer for this. Does World War II ring a bell?

* once again i got ahead of myself, i know this isn't the place but i thought that i'd post this here because it refers to the bible, hence creation and so it would be relevent to this thread. *

"forgive them for they know not what they are do"

Anyways who are you quoting as stating that.

Too somehow justify the suffering of the Jews (they were not the only ones) in WW2 is somewhat......how shoud I say it .....Hitleresque?

Anyway don't be to quick to combine the theories out of convenience.

Also Jesus was first and foremost a Jew. He was the "saviour" of the "chosen people". Thank Paul for saving Rip.

[Y0da]

Well here's an interesting argument in favour of evolution (within species). Have a look in your kitchen. See them roaches? How many times have you noticed that your current pesticide seems to have no affect on them anymore? It is because they develop a resistance against the poison and eventually becomes immune. So they evolve to ensure the future of the species. Evedently, roaches have been around since the beginning of the world and have an uncanning knack of adapting to their environment.

[rustypup]

A question.. in reading on this issue, several of the authors mentioned the "mutation" of the HIV, SIV and AIDS virusses. Will that be evolution?

quite... mutation happens at the cellular level all the time... mostly harmless, sometimes beneficial and also not so beneficial... ie cancer.

This mutation is also why we are still having to combat the common cold, why the influenza virus is once again climbing the charts as a killer and why malaria strains are becoming more difficult to treat... every time we present each strain with a life threating drug we are actively encouraging the evolution of each, effectively enforcing "survival of the fittest"... to our detriment...

Also, HIV is proving extremely difficult to combat because of the rate at which it mutates.. keying an anti-body at a single generation is pointless, 'cause by the time you have sufficient quantities, the virus has moved on....

[QBM]

A question.. in reading on this issue, several of the authors mentioned the "mutation" of the HIV, SIV and AIDS virusses. Will that be evolution?

quite... mutation happens at the cellular level all the time... mostly harmless, sometimes beneficial and also not so beneficial... ie cancer.

This mutation is also why we are still having to combat the common cold, why the influenza virus is once again climbing the charts as a killer and why malaria strains are becoming more difficult to treat... every time we present each strain with a life threating drug we are actively encouraging the evolution of each, effectively enforcing "survival of the fittest"... to our detriment...

Also, HIV is proving extremely difficult to combat because of the rate at which it mutates.. keying an anti-body at a single generation is pointless, 'cause by the time you have sufficient quantities, the virus has moved on....

agreed....

just a note on influenza treatment though.......they may have found a way to "cure" influenza by "attacking" shared protiens.

Who know though .....this could lead to another superflu. Evolution is a *****.

[RuadRauFlessa]

It seems to me that you ppl think inside the box @ the moment. Allow me to change all that.

Evolution -> to evolve {change as in to improve}. What in life does not evolve. Your understanding on a certain subjects evolves on a daily basis. {Sometimes hourly depending on who you look in the face at the moment but that is a totally diffirent story}. In any case, then we could say that evolution not only pertains to organic matter that changes tructure over time but also electrical patterns which constitutes to you being able to comprehend something. Such is the evolution of computers as well. We then have to take a shocking look at how the diffirent things has evolved. Computer hardware become faster. You tend to comprehend things faster. Virusses tend to kill faster. The diffirence is that when you die your ab ility to comprehend something is lost to the rest of the world unless you were able to pass that knowledge/wisdome on to others. This is why I feel that the human race as is hasn't evolved for some time. {I think that my point of evolution and wether it exists has been answered/made clear}. The way in which the human race evolves is by evolvving that around it. Part of our adaptability is to be able to change our environment to suit us and not us to suit the environment. To me that is as much evolution as any.

The virus thing, yes that would constitute to evolution as the virus is reacting to the chemicals being thrown at it and becomes stronger, better and more efficient at coping with it. It also has a job and it also has to adapt in its own way in order to be able to do that job. Our job is to live, procreate and generally consume. Its job is to keep our numbers under control so that we do not completely take over.

Thinking diffirently already. I certainly hope so.

[wizardofid]

I tried to make a neutral stand on this whole topic but was very unsuccessful. So I’m going to try again and maybe make a better stand on what I believe. I’m not going to show facts or post any links. I might however refer to things I’ve read which in my personal opinion seem logic, which at any time you can correct me disapprove or add.

So let me start at the beginning.

The big bang theory

I don’t find this to hard to believe, however till this is proven wrong I will believe in its logic. To some people this seems very hard to grasp one should read the theory from the beginning to understand where this all comes from. People who are still in the dark about what this theory is all about in short the theory believes that the universe was started by the explosion of a singularity (a single particle) or matter another version believes it was a huge rock that exploded and expanded to become the universe as we know it today. However both believe that in the explosion new matter was created the “basic elements” have a look at your table of elements note however this is no way near complete as it’s very possible for other elements to exist some where else in this universe.

The theory states further that the universe is still expanding but it’s on the slow down in other words is losing its expansive power. Now some thing that’s seems very logic if you know your laws of relativity is that the universe will one day stop expanding and finally collapse back into the former state of being a singularity. In other words it means the end of the universe ,but by that time we on earth might be long time dead if the sun doesn’t do it for us which could be possibly be tied in with the book of revelations.

I don’t know if any one understands what I’m trying to explain but good luck.
I just wanted to show it’s very possible that the bible can support creation not prove but support for it.

[QBM]

I tried to make a neutral stand on this whole topic but was very unsuccessful. So I’m going to try again and maybe make a better stand on what I believe. I’m not going to show facts or post any links. I might however refer to things I’ve read which in my personal opinion seem logic, which at any time you can correct me disapprove or add.

So let me start at the beginning.

The big bang theory

I don’t find this to hard to believe, however till this is proven wrong I will believe in its logic. To some people this seems very hard to grasp one should read the theory from the beginning to understand where this all comes from. People who are still in the dark about what this theory is all about in short the theory believes that the universe was started by the explosion of a singularity (a single particle) or matter another version believes it was a huge rock that exploded and expanded to become the universe as we know it today. However both believe that in the explosion new matter was created the “basic elements” have a look at your table of elements note however this is no way near complete as it’s very possible for other elements to exist some where else in this universe.

The theory states further that the universe is still expanding but it’s on the slow down in other words is losing its expansive power. Now some thing that’s seems very logic if you know your laws of relativity is that the universe will one day stop expanding and finally collapse back into the former state of being a singularity. In other words it means the end of the universe ,but by that time we on earth might be long time dead if the sun doesn’t do it for us which could be possibly be tied in with the book of revelations.

I don’t know if any one understands what I’m trying to explain but good luck.
I just wanted to show it’s very possible that the bible can support creation not prove but support for it.

You are behind the times (by a few decades). Look up strings, branes, and quantum vacuums.

[wizardofid]

You are behind the times (by a few decades). Look up strings, branes, and quantum vacuums.

Care to explain?

[QBM]

You are behind the times (by a few decades). Look up strings, branes, and quantum vacuums.

Care to explain?

I would but I am currently intoxicated;), and as such would likely become philosophical, which is why I said look it up.

[wizardofid]

You are behind the times (by a few decades). Look up strings, branes, and quantum vacuums.

Care to explain?

I would but I am currently intoxicated;), and as such would likely become philosophical, which is why I said look it up.

What I was trying to explain was merely the basics of what the theory is/was and that it can support some thing which not very logical.

[rustypup]

<rubs his hands together...>

The big bang theory

I don’t find this to hard to believe, however till this is proven wrong I will believe in its logic. To some people this seems very hard to grasp one should read the theory from the beginning to understand where this all comes from. People who are still in the dark about what this theory is all about in short the theory believes that the universe was started by the explosion of a singularity (a single particle) or matter another version believes it was a huge rock that exploded and expanded to become the universe as we know it today. However both believe that in the explosion new matter was created the “basic elements” have a look at your table of elements note however this is no way near complete as it’s very possible for other elements to exist some where else in this universe.

The Big Bang still has problems and has been in trouble for some while now as:
1) The universal expansion is in fact *accelrating* the further out you go, (based on observations of red shift on outlying galaxies, etc..). If the bang is done and dusted, where is this additional energy coming from?
2) In any explosion the fragements move in straight lines, not circles, so why does everything insist on spinning?
3) If energy cannot be created or destroyed, where did the energy for the Big Bang come from... ?

The theory states further that the universe is still expanding but it’s on the slow down in other words is losing its expansive power. Now some thing that’s seems very logic if you know your laws of relativity is that the universe will one day stop expanding and finally collapse back into the former state of being a singularity. In other words it means the end of the universe ,but by that time we on earth might be long time dead if the sun doesn’t do it for us which could be possibly be tied in with the book of revelations.

Can you proviode evidence of this slow down? The number of problems facing the theory seem to grow incrementally..

One theory which comes close to explaining most of this is continuous creation.. with a universe being "birthed" through a black hole, essentially "inheriting" the phycsical characteristics of its parent. Such a universe would exhibit all the evidence of an explosion, (ala Big Bang), with all the characteristics of a "puddle" , where matter would conform to something approaching fluid dynamics, spinning in circles, clumping in some places and not others, where the "edge" would expand at an increasing rate as the "puddle" spreads, space is curved, etc, etc, etc...

(hey... I can simplify... creatively... )

[QBM]

You are behind the times (by a few decades). Look up strings, branes, and quantum vacuums.

Care to explain?

I would but I am currently intoxicated;), and as such would likely become philosophical, which is why I said look it up.

What I was trying to explain was merely the basics of what the theory is/was and that it can support some thing which not very logical.

I understand however the "creationist" only want the big bang to be the theory it was 40 years ago.................


and imo it is very logical.

[QBM]

<rubs his hands together...>

The big bang theory

I don’t find this to hard to believe, however till this is proven wrong I will believe in its logic. To some people this seems very hard to grasp one should read the theory from the beginning to understand where this all comes from. People who are still in the dark about what this theory is all about in short the theory believes that the universe was started by the explosion of a singularity (a single particle) or matter another version believes it was a huge rock that exploded and expanded to become the universe as we know it today. However both believe that in the explosion new matter was created the “basic elements” have a look at your table of elements note however this is no way near complete as it’s very possible for other elements to exist some where else in this universe.

The Big Bang still has problems and has been in trouble for some while now as:
1) The universal expansion is in fact *accelrating* the further out you go, (based on observations of red shift on outlying galaxies, etc..). If the bang is done and dusted, where is this additional energy coming from?
2) In any explosion the fragements move in straight lines, not circles, so why does everything insist on spinning?
3) If energy cannot be created or destroyed, where did the energy for the Big Bang come from... ?

The theory states further that the universe is still expanding but it’s on the slow down in other words is losing its expansive power. Now some thing that’s seems very logic if you know your laws of relativity is that the universe will one day stop expanding and finally collapse back into the former state of being a singularity. In other words it means the end of the universe ,but by that time we on earth might be long time dead if the sun doesn’t do it for us which could be possibly be tied in with the book of revelations.

Can you proviode evidence of this slow down? The number of problems facing the theory seem to grow incrementally..

One theory which comes close to explaining most of this is continuous creation.. with a universe being "birthed" through a black hole, essentially "inheriting" the phycsical characteristics of its parent. Such a universe would exhibit all the evidence of an explosion, (ala Big Bang), with all the characteristics of a "puddle" , where matter would conform to something approaching fluid dynamics, spinning in circles, clumping in some places and not others, where the "edge" would expand at an increasing rate as the "puddle" spreads, space is curved, etc, etc, etc...

(hey... I can simplify... creatively... )

Wow.....finally somebody with some sense.....who I partly disagree with however(<---trolling).

Oh well, leaves something for tomorrow.

[Solarstone]

Okay, so the big bang theory does sound pretty acurate (spelling sucks), but where did this huge rock, or whatever, come from? Some of you would probably say God put it there, but then again, where did God come from?

[wizardofid]

You are behind the times (by a few decades). Look up strings, branes, and quantum vacuums.

Care to explain?

I would but I am currently intoxicated;), and as such would likely become philosophical, which is why I said look it up.

What I was trying to explain was merely the basics of what the theory is/was and that it can support some thing which not very logical.

I understand however the "creationist" only want the big bang to be the theory it was 40 years ago.................


and imo it is very logical.

And I was refering to the bible which at times doesn't seem logical

rustypup
Give me some time it's very busy at work right now and I would like to send you a reply but my hands are tied

[RuadRauFlessa]

Okay, so the big bang theory does sound pretty acurate (spelling sucks), but where did this huge rock, or whatever, come from? Some of you would probably say God put it there, but then again, where did God come from?

Good Question.

[QBM]

Okay, so the big bang theory does sound pretty acurate (spelling sucks), but where did this huge rock, or whatever, come from? Some of you would probably say God put it there, but then again, where did God come from?

Good Question.

There is no big rock.

"Nothing" (quantum vacuum) wants to become something to become "stable". After enough energy is allowed to build up you get a "big bang" which only later if the right components exist form matter and what we see now.

This or either we collide with another "nothing" and the energy produced results in a "big bang".

[QBM]

You are behind the times (by a few decades). Look up strings, branes, and quantum vacuums.

Care to explain?

I would but I am currently intoxicated;), and as such would likely become philosophical, which is why I said look it up.

What I was trying to explain was merely the basics of what the theory is/was and that it can support some thing which not very logical.

I understand however the "creationist" only want the big bang to be the theory it was 40 years ago.................


and imo it is very logical.

And I was refering to the bible which at times doesn't seem logical

None of this as of yet supports the Bible in its literal translation....ID? Possibly. Bible? No.

[wizardofid]

<rubs his hands together...>

The big bang theory

I don’t find this to hard to believe, however till this is proven wrong I will believe in its logic. To some people this seems very hard to grasp one should read the theory from the beginning to understand where this all comes from. People who are still in the dark about what this theory is all about in short the theory believes that the universe was started by the explosion of a singularity (a single particle) or matter another version believes it was a huge rock that exploded and expanded to become the universe as we know it today. However both believe that in the explosion new matter was created the “basic elements” have a look at your table of elements note however this is no way near complete as it’s very possible for other elements to exist some where else in this universe.

The Big Bang still has problems and has been in trouble for some while now as:
1) The universal expansion is in fact *accelrating* the further out you go, (based on observations of red shift on outlying galaxies, etc..). If the bang is done and dusted, where is this additional energy coming from?
2) In any explosion the fragements move in straight lines, not circles, so why does everything insist on spinning?
3) If energy cannot be created or destroyed, where did the energy for the Big Bang come from... ?

The theory states further that the universe is still expanding but it’s on the slow down in other words is losing its expansive power. Now some thing that’s seems very logic if you know your laws of relativity is that the universe will one day stop expanding and finally collapse back into the former state of being a singularity. In other words it means the end of the universe ,but by that time we on earth might be long time dead if the sun doesn’t do it for us which could be possibly be tied in with the book of revelations.

Can you proviode evidence of this slow down? The number of problems facing the theory seem to grow incrementally..

One theory which comes close to explaining most of this is continuous creation.. with a universe being "birthed" through a black hole, essentially "inheriting" the phycsical characteristics of its parent. Such a universe would exhibit all the evidence of an explosion, (ala Big Bang), with all the characteristics of a "puddle" , where matter would conform to something approaching fluid dynamics, spinning in circles, clumping in some places and not others, where the "edge" would expand at an increasing rate as the "puddle" spreads, space is curved, etc, etc, etc...

(hey... I can simplify... creatively... )

You just proved to me you know very little and just stated random facts to make it look important. But it isn’t really.
Just to state again the universe was not created out of a black hole but out of a singularity when the universe collapses that will be a black hole……Do you even know how a black hole works I know off hand you would need to do an engine search to be able to tell me? Now that’s funny

What do understand when it comes to the “red shift” and “blue shift” without doing an engine search? Oh and there is some thing called a blue shift which you happen to leave out??? I wonder why
I will be willing to explain to you in layman terms but that might take a while since your dumb enough to believe that an explosion would move in straight lines in vacuum with little to none gravity.

If energy cannot be created or destroyed, where did the energy for the Big Bang come from...?Um once again your dumb enough once again to use physics that apply to earth and a few other places. You really need to go and read the laws of relativity. I refer you to the matter of one so called black hole. One of the very basics laws state that every Positive would mathematically have a equal negative doesn’t mean it’s true but it’s possible a good example would be matter = anti-matter and yes there is something like anti-matter some thing you didn’t know as well I guess.

I just notice something your nothing with out your little search bar. Sorry to be so rude.

(hey….I can call you dumb……creatively… )

[RuadRauFlessa]

Okay, so the big bang theory does sound pretty acurate (spelling sucks), but where did this huge rock, or whatever, come from? Some of you would probably say God put it there, but then again, where did God come from?

Good Question.

There is no big rock.

"Nothing" (quantum vacuum) wants to become something to become "stable". After enough energy is allowed to build up you get a "big bang" which only later if the right components exist form matter and what we see now.

This or either we collide with another "nothing" and the energy produced results in a "big bang".

I was referring to the latter question of where did God come from. LOL :

[QBM]

Okay, so the big bang theory does sound pretty acurate (spelling sucks), but where did this huge rock, or whatever, come from? Some of you would probably say God put it there, but then again, where did God come from?

Good Question.

There is no big rock.

"Nothing" (quantum vacuum) wants to become something to become "stable". After enough energy is allowed to build up you get a "big bang" which only later if the right components exist form matter and what we see now.

This or either we collide with another "nothing" and the energy produced results in a "big bang".

I was referring to the latter question of where did God come from. LOL :

He can be a product of the universe, a product of many universes, be a product of nothing or the what we perceive as nothing, or a product of another universe, etc........

Anyway you don't just jump to final question...............

[RuadRauFlessa]

But you need to know the answer befor you can think of the question (Hithhikers Guide 101)

[QBM]

But you need to know the answer befor you can think of the question (Hithhikers Guide 101)

42 bla, blah, blah.....and there are more fundamental questions.

I can answer many big questions without being able to answer the small ones.

[RuadRauFlessa]

yeah and I didn't ask what the answer to life the universe and everything else is but where God came from. Which is a, sccording to most, a verry fundamental question. As you so elegantly put it.

[QBM]

<rubs his hands together...>

The big bang theory

I don’t find this to hard to believe, however till this is proven wrong I will believe in its logic. To some people this seems very hard to grasp one should read the theory from the beginning to understand where this all comes from. People who are still in the dark about what this theory is all about in short the theory believes that the universe was started by the explosion of a singularity (a single particle) or matter another version believes it was a huge rock that exploded and expanded to become the universe as we know it today. However both believe that in the explosion new matter was created the “basic elements” have a look at your table of elements note however this is no way near complete as it’s very possible for other elements to exist some where else in this universe.

The Big Bang still has problems and has been in trouble for some while now as:
1) The universal expansion is in fact *accelrating* the further out you go, (based on observations of red shift on outlying galaxies, etc..). If the bang is done and dusted, where is this additional energy coming from?
2) In any explosion the fragements move in straight lines, not circles, so why does everything insist on spinning?
3) If energy cannot be created or destroyed, where did the energy for the Big Bang come from... ?

The theory states further that the universe is still expanding but it’s on the slow down in other words is losing its expansive power. Now some thing that’s seems very logic if you know your laws of relativity is that the universe will one day stop expanding and finally collapse back into the former state of being a singularity. In other words it means the end of the universe ,but by that time we on earth might be long time dead if the sun doesn’t do it for us which could be possibly be tied in with the book of revelations.

Can you proviode evidence of this slow down? The number of problems facing the theory seem to grow incrementally..

One theory which comes close to explaining most of this is continuous creation.. with a universe being "birthed" through a black hole, essentially "inheriting" the phycsical characteristics of its parent. Such a universe would exhibit all the evidence of an explosion, (ala Big Bang), with all the characteristics of a "puddle" , where matter would conform to something approaching fluid dynamics, spinning in circles, clumping in some places and not others, where the "edge" would expand at an increasing rate as the "puddle" spreads, space is curved, etc, etc, etc...

(hey... I can simplify... creatively... )

You just proved to me you know very little and just stated random facts to make it look important. But it isn’t really.
Just to state again the universe was not created out of a black hole but out of a singularity when the universe collapses that will be a black hole……Do you even know how a black hole works I know off hand you would need to do an engine search to be able to tell me? Now that’s funny

What do understand when it comes to the “red shift” and “blue shift” without doing an engine search? Oh and there is some thing called a blue shift which you happen to leave out??? I wonder why
I will be willing to explain to you in layman terms but that might take a while since your dumb enough to believe that an explosion would move in straight lines in vacuum with little to none gravity.

If energy cannot be created or destroyed, where did the energy for the Big Bang come from...?Um once again your dumb enough once again to use physics that apply to earth and a few other places. You really need to go and read the laws of relativity. I refer you to the matter of one so called black hole. One of the very basics laws state that every Positive would mathematically have a equal negative doesn’t mean it’s true but it’s possible a good example would be matter = anti-matter and yes there is something like anti-matter some thing you didn’t know as well I guess.

I just notice something your nothing with out your little search bar. Sorry to be so rude.

(hey….I can call you dumb……creatively… )

Wow you would think you created the universe or something.

First the universe will not collapse. It will decay. Spare me the conservation of mass and energy arguement unless you really want to get into it.

Yes there is antimatter and the only reason you exist is because of a slight imbalance so lets not make to much of it.

Where did the energy come from? Collision of "nothings"? Vacuum fluctuations over a seemingly infinite period?

Relativity does not exist before planck time.