Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

jee · Post by **jee** » 12 Aug 2005, 22:13

What must be remembered is that the Hebrew do not use sentences in the sequential order that English does. Words also are not always translated to mean the same thing. Just to quote an example of the word "create" (ברא) as God did with the world in the scriptures that Moses quoted : some sources believe that a better translation would be "fatten" or "filled" as what is fattened is filled up. Another translate the word as bara’ that can mean “bringing into existence something new, something that did not exist before.”

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/7_p3_lesson1.html
http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichmen ... 0129.shtml

And for those who like to play with words and languages, two sources.
Do notice how the verbs added to the root of some words add gender and that the verbs for the root “land” is feminine as well as the verb used for the spirit that floated on the waters.

Prime · Post by **Prime** » 12 Aug 2005, 22:44

im not so sure about the second source but i take the bible as literal so its not going to change my stand point.

rustypup · Post by **rustypup** » 12 Aug 2005, 22:58

da_ripper wrote:
rustypup wrote:Too many crackpots haven't gotten this point which has resulted in a large number of horrific genocides...

I read that again and still don't get the next bit...

da_ripper wrote:Rusty that is absuolute heresy.

"i'm not debating this" -> see kronos's instruction above -

da_ripper wrote:Have You read the Bible

a while back... it still presents me with problems...

da_ripper wrote:people who misinterpret the bible comit genocides. You cannot generalise and iply that people who interpret the bible literally and believe it is the absolute truth commit genocides. and BTW if they interpeted the bible literally in the first place they would know murder is a sin and any form of hatred is murder. :onfire:

again.... read my post . At no point do I lay blame for all genocides exclusively on all bible readers ... stated quite clearly is the word "crackpot"... ie a person of unsound judgment.... this was not a slight against anyones beliefs, bible reader or not.

My post to nifty was meant to point out two things.

First, taking the wording in Genesis as being gospel and using it to disprove a contesting theory or belief is not the best approach when the book in question is as open to interpretation as any other.. that's it... the genocide reference was merely used to underscore the point, (burning alive at the stake to "purify" a lost soul, the whole inquisition thing, etc... all done whith the interests of the Lord in mind... or so it was presented).

Second, the approach I take when arguing for creationist theory is to attack the opposing team's weak points.... the "prove life exists in your theory" approach means exactly that. Creationists have the Soul. Evolutionists don't.... so they will have a terrible time providing evidence that life actually exists and isn't some dream.... or vanish in a puff of logic, (seeing as how we've started quoting the Guide.... )

da_ripper wrote:Rusty i find you post blatantly insulting.

sorry if you read it that way... it was never intended to be.

@kronos - sorry... it was meant to be a gentle hint to nifty to actually debate and not state....

MrBean · Post by **MrBean** » 12 Aug 2005, 23:31

a Question: How many of you have read Michael Drosnin's Bible Code?

Just a intro to a nice debate I want to start here with you guys and gals.

For the record - I believe I am Christian, but, I have some weird thoughts. It will become clearer over the next few days.

Thats why the question about Bible Code. Only answer if you have actually read the book, no speculation.

Kronos, bear with me, please

Prime · Post by **Prime** » 12 Aug 2005, 23:46

rustypup wrote:
da_ripper wrote:
rustypup wrote:Too many crackpots haven't gotten this point which has resulted in a large number of horrific genocides...
I read that again and still don't get the next bit...

da_ripper wrote:Rusty that is absuolute heresy.
"i'm not debating this" -> see kronos's instruction above -

da_ripper wrote:Have You read the Bible
a while back... it still presents me with problems...

have you read the whole things or bits and peices. PM me

da_ripper wrote:people who misinterpret the bible comit genocides. You cannot generalise and iply that people who interpret the bible literally and believe it is the absolute truth commit genocides. and BTW if they interpeted the bible literally in the first place they would know murder is a sin and any form of hatred is murder. :onfire:
again.... read my post . At no point do I lay blame for all genocides exclusively on all bible readers ... stated quite clearly is the word "crackpot"... ie a person of unsound judgment.... this was not a slight against anyones beliefs, bible reader or not.

My post to nifty was meant to point out two things.

First, taking the wording in Genesis as being gospel and using it to disprove a contesting theory or belief is not the best approach when the book in question is as open to interpretation as any other.. that's it... the genocide reference was merely used to underscore the point, (burning alive at the stake to "purify" a lost soul, the whole inquisition thing, etc... all done whith the interests of the Lord in mind... or so it was presented).

Second, the approach I take when arguing for creationist theory is to attack the opposing team's weak points.... the "prove life exists in your theory" approach means exactly that. Creationists have the Soul. Evolutionists don't.... so they will have a terrible time providing evidence that life actually exists and isn't some dream.... or vanish in a puff of logic, (seeing as how we've started quoting the Guide.... )

i see we've all been reading the hitch hikers guide

da_ripper wrote:Rusty i find you post blatantly insulting.
sorry if you read it that way... it was never intended to be.

its ok i just dont like being compared to a despot and didnt like the sugestion of a genralisation

@kronos - sorry... it was meant to be a gentle hint to nifty to actually debate and not state....

marvin said "i think you should no im feeling depressed"

wizardofid · Post by **wizardofid** » 13 Aug 2005, 12:39

wizardofid wrote:It's quite simple really.At the end of the day who can really say that they can find major faults in any of the big known theories, you can't why it's very simple where is the prove of it all.

We see the stars, the sun, the moon and many other things that most ppl will never get to understand or see we have Egypt on the one hand and we have say the sun on the other hand.

We know that they both there, we know they are very old.So why does the need come about to the debate some thing that you and I will never understand will never be able to prove, it will always be a theory there is no straight anwser to the solution

It's NOT something which should be debated.People are much to narrow minded when it comes to this topic.What makes you so sure there is a God what makes you so sure there is stars in the sky.Believe yes brothers and sisters it would bring me to this word believe.

Isn't believe nothing more than a story made up by some one many and many years ago.Face the facts your believe is not your own never has been your believe is based on what some one else believes and that believe has been passed on for many years.

What makes your believe more correct or for that matter any believe correct.

And this brings me to this point which is very important and should be read over and over and over.

Every believe has a begining every believe has a end in theory that is.There is facts about each begining and about each end all which is logical in each believe.

But no begining and no end in any believe can be proven with hard evidence, Some might say isn't the sun or the bible ect the prove that my believe is true.

No nothing makes your believe true because of things like the earth the bible the sun.

To make your believe true it would need a begining that can be proved and to this day there is no prove to any begining.

Every thing you believe is based on 3rd party encounters, how do you justify it, simple you can't it can't be proven.

So your believe is based on theory and thats all it will ever be. A theory with enough bogus information to be able to turn it into a believe.

Why is that no one attack this post is because no one read it or did no one understand it I would like to know just for the fun of it??

Bio-Hazard · Post by **Bio-Hazard** » 13 Aug 2005, 12:46

Here's an easy example to consider to help explain and PROVE evolution.

Imagine if you will a rabbit farm high on a mountain. The farmer buys a thousand rabbits, some have longer fur and some have shorter fur. The length of the fur on the rabbits is determined by their genetic makeup. Some have genes for long fur, some for shorter. Now, this farm is in an area that gets extremely cold for most of the year. The rabbits survival depends upon having enough fur to keep them warm. Those with short fur will freeze to death and die (our fictional farmer doesn't have much business sense).

Because of the situation these unfortunate creatures are in, they are subject to natural selection. There is a selection pressure for longer fur. More baby rabbits are born than can possibly survive in the environment. This is an important part of the process. Their genetic makeup is a determining factor in their survival. Rabbits that die of cold will not pass on their short-fur genes to their offspring (as they won't have any), whereas rabbits with long fur will be more resistant to the cold and therefore much more likely to reproduce, passing on their genes for long fur.

Over many generations, the farm will consist almost entirely of long-fur rabbits. The frequency of genes for short fur has decreased, and the frequency of genes for long fur has increased. Far fewer short-haired rabbits, and eventually none at all, will be born - their genes will have been lost from the gene-pool.

Some rabbits may have developed genetic mutations which further increase the length of their fur. These mutations will clearly give those rabbits an advantage in their environment, and those beneficial mutations will spread through the gene pool of the population. Mutations that are detrimental to the survival rate will clearly be lost quickly, as those unfortunate rabbits will have a reduced chance of surviving long enough to mate. In this way, useful mutations stay on in the population. It's a positive feedback loop - this is the second important thing to remember.

These rabbits have evolved. It's really that simple.

The change from mixed-fur rabbits to long-fur rabbits (in this example) is often referred to as micro-evolution - a minor change within a species. Larger changes are known as macro-evolution, and take far longer to occur, but the process involved is exactly the same - genes changing over time. It is a cumulative process - the minor changes build up over many generations into major changes. Given time, the descendants of these rabbits could become an entirely novel species of rabbit, and eventually a creature that can no longer be called a rabbit.

The above example also proves Darwins theory on survival of the fittest (just as a point of interest)

Now, I want to see someone counter-debate THAT!!!

QBM · Post by **QBM** » 13 Aug 2005, 12:49

wizardofid wrote:
wizardofid wrote:It's quite simple really.At the end of the day who can really say that they can find major faults in any of the big known theories, you can't why it's very simple where is the prove of it all.

We see the stars, the sun, the moon and many other things that most ppl will never get to understand or see we have Egypt on the one hand and we have say the sun on the other hand.

We know that they both there, we know they are very old.So why does the need come about to the debate some thing that you and I will never understand will never be able to prove, it will always be a theory there is no straight anwser to the solution

It's NOT something which should be debated.People are much to narrow minded when it comes to this topic.What makes you so sure there is a God what makes you so sure there is stars in the sky.Believe yes brothers and sisters it would bring me to this word believe.

Isn't believe nothing more than a story made up by some one many and many years ago.Face the facts your believe is not your own never has been your believe is based on what some one else believes and that believe has been passed on for many years.

What makes your believe more correct or for that matter any believe correct.

And this brings me to this point which is very important and should be read over and over and over.

Every believe has a begining every believe has a end in theory that is.There is facts about each begining and about each end all which is logical in each believe.

But no begining and no end in any believe can be proven with hard evidence, Some might say isn't the sun or the bible ect the prove that my believe is true.

No nothing makes your believe true because of things like the earth the bible the sun.

To make your believe true it would need a begining that can be proved and to this day there is no prove to any begining.

Every thing you believe is based on 3rd party encounters, how do you justify it, simple you can't it can't be proven.

So your believe is based on theory and thats all it will ever be. A theory with enough bogus information to be able to turn it into a believe.
Why is that no one attack this post is because no one read it or did no one understand it I would like to know just for the fun of it??

honestly?
I read it but was afraid the response "this is mindless hippie bullsh!t with a side of wannabe enlightenment" might get me banned.

glad a few humans in the past didn't think this way.

QBM · Post by **QBM** » 13 Aug 2005, 13:01

Bio-Hazard wrote:Here's an easy example to consider to help explain and PROVE evolution.

Now, I want to see someone counter-debate THAT!!!

There isn't a logical counter-debate as this is testable.

Luckily my creationist theory does not deny such obvious facts.

wizardofid · Post by **wizardofid** » 13 Aug 2005, 13:02

QBM thats what I like about you.Very straight forward.

Well what I really wanted to say was.Guys lets not talk about $hit we don't understand or QBM might shoot us for our stupidity.

QBM · Post by **QBM** » 13 Aug 2005, 13:17

wizardofid wrote:QBM thats what I like about you.Very straight forward.

Well what I really wanted to say was.Guys lets not talk about $hit we don't understand or QBM might shoot us for our stupidity.

sssshhhhhh.......don't say the sun is the center of the universe.....the Pope might get mad.

wizardofid · Post by **wizardofid** » 13 Aug 2005, 13:23

QBM wrote:
wizardofid wrote:QBM thats what I like about you.Very straight forward.

Well what I really wanted to say was.Guys lets not talk about $hit we don't understand or QBM might shoot us for our stupidity.
sssshhhhhh.......don't say the sun is the center of the universe.....the Pope might get mad.

Um er The pope no the name doesn't ring a bell is the pope short for "crackhead on LSD"

jee · Post by **jee** » 13 Aug 2005, 17:41

wizardofid wrote: Well what I really wanted to say was.Guys lets not talk about $hit we don't understand or QBM might shoot us for our stupidity.

Its not QBM you need to worry about, Whizz... now get back to the point

wizardofid · Post by **wizardofid** » 13 Aug 2005, 17:53

jee wrote:
wizardofid wrote: Well what I really wanted to say was.Guys lets not talk about $hit we don't understand or QBM might shoot us for our stupidity.
Its not QBM you need to worry about, Whizz... now get back to the point

Um who should I be worried about??

Back on the topic

I really don't think we should be talking about this.
A We know way too little to make a reasonable argument.

B Who really cares

C History like this is not going to repeat it self trust me on this one so it's no use "discussing" it because we not going to get any where.

Just a quick suggestion don't quote other websites for it's their own believe surrounding this.

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 13 Aug 2005, 17:56

Have any of you guys heard what they may soon be teaching in American schools?

It's called Intelligent Design Theory

The theory of Intelligent design (ID) claims that life and living things show signs of having been designed by an intelligent agent.

Intelligent design is not creationism per se. It holds that higher forms of life are so complex they must have been created by an unspecified higher power.
This is kind of a middle ground between creationists and evolutionists. Makes alot of sense in some ways, leaves more questions unanswered in others.

Nuke · Post by **Nuke** » 13 Aug 2005, 18:01

I'm not going to give an opinion, but an interesting book to read is 'Die groot gedagte' by Gideon Joubert. It have been a while since I read it.

Ps I dont believe everything he says like some people believe in Kent hogen videos, Im only saying the guy have some interesting thoughts.

capanno · Post by **capanno** » 13 Aug 2005, 18:55

Kent Hogen lol...

OK Ive been gone the past 2 days. After reading the first 3 pages, I just skipped to this one. Its the same old pointless posts. I have many myself. Ive learned alot in the past year and a half here. it might not have been pretty all the time, but thanx for all the arguments and fights. It was fun!

I have mixed feelings about weather this is a pointless thread or not. It might be pointless cause it never ends, and no-one wins. It always works that way. On the other hand, Its always fun to debate and argue. So I will jump in and participate, even if I get called stuff, it doesnt matter. I still enjoy talking about the topic. I think those who debate just cause they are angry, disagree and are out to get others and to call ppl names *gasp* should NOT participate.

______________________

Kronos you asked me what evidence the theory has that is false. Well, here's some on the top of my head.

The Nabraska man (so-called missing link), was constructed by using one tooth! This guy picked up a tooth and said it looked like its halfway between an ape and a humans tooth. So he built the guy, and his wife. (umm, he has a big imagination.) It turned out later that the tooth came from a pig.

The charts that shows human, dog and a few other species's embrios through the development stages being the same, was prooven wrong over 100 years ago. The proffesor who made up the charts alterred the pictures so they looked the same. Drawing human embrios with gills. He was charged with fraud and found guilty.

The horse evolution was made up after they realised that they lack evidence to support the theory. The order of the animals is so messed up, with features in the feet dissapearing in one and apearing 'millions' of years later in the next animal. Some of the animals that are supposed to be extinct were rediscovered years later. The way the horse evolution is supposed to be in real life, the way it is in the fossil record, is non-existent. Displays had to be shut down cause people complained. In real life, the order exists only 60%, if I remember correctly, and its scattered over the earth. Its actually more complete in reverse order! Proven wrong over 100 years ago.

Google it if you dont believe me. Sorry I dont have much time this weekend, I will posts references if you want me to.

All if the above is still used today in books as evidence.

Either there is a huge gap in communication between book-writers and 'scientists', or their just plain lieing!

Post by **Anakha56** » 15 Aug 2005, 10:59

Intresting Site

i am doing some research into this, have never really looked into it before more of a religion debater

, and i came across that page and i thought some people might find it intresting.

edit. moses very intresting find on the bible part of it all. i am enjoying this thread it very intresting so far.

Post by **Kronos** » 15 Aug 2005, 11:16

wizardofid wrote:
wizardofid wrote:It's quite simple really.At the end of the day who can really say that they can find major faults in any of the big known theories, you can't why it's very simple where is the prove of it all.

We see the stars, the sun, the moon and many other things that most ppl will never get to understand or see we have Egypt on the one hand and we have say the sun on the other hand.

We know that they both there, we know they are very old.So why does the need come about to the debate some thing that you and I will never understand will never be able to prove, it will always be a theory there is no straight anwser to the solution

It's NOT something which should be debated.People are much to narrow minded when it comes to this topic.What makes you so sure there is a God what makes you so sure there is stars in the sky.Believe yes brothers and sisters it would bring me to this word believe.

Isn't believe nothing more than a story made up by some one many and many years ago.Face the facts your believe is not your own never has been your believe is based on what some one else believes and that believe has been passed on for many years.

What makes your believe more correct or for that matter any believe correct.

And this brings me to this point which is very important and should be read over and over and over.

Every believe has a begining every believe has a end in theory that is.There is facts about each begining and about each end all which is logical in each believe.

But no begining and no end in any believe can be proven with hard evidence, Some might say isn't the sun or the bible ect the prove that my believe is true.

No nothing makes your believe true because of things like the earth the bible the sun.

To make your believe true it would need a begining that can be proved and to this day there is no prove to any begining.

Every thing you believe is based on 3rd party encounters, how do you justify it, simple you can't it can't be proven.

So your believe is based on theory and thats all it will ever be. A theory with enough bogus information to be able to turn it into a believe.
Why is that no one attack this post is because no one read it or did no one understand it I would like to know just for the fun of it??

I actually did read it, but then I concluded that you must have been smoking crack when you wrote it.

(Either that, or all the punctuation keys on your keyboard are broken)

Firstly, if you Believe in something, it is called your belief. (with an 'f' at the end to make it dutchman proof

Secondly, It's very easy to find faults in the major Theories.
Here's One:
The earth as described in Creation:
Flat.
Centre of the universe.
The sun circling the earth.
The moon Giving Light (It just reflects the Sun's Light).
The stars put into the sky.
But most of all the Firmament that held all the water up high above the earth.

General, Std. 5 Science easily disproves these myths, yet many YEC still believe it.

You then go on again babling about how this debate is not a good idea (blah blah blah)

Then u continue on to a lot of confusing talk (and Grammer) about belief.

One more thing I'd like to mention:
My beliefs ARE in fact my own.
Christianity was forced on me by my family, but I've broken away from that, and now base everything on Scientific proof.
Yes, this means that I don't flat out believe in Evolution, or theoretical Quantum Physics, but I do in fact believe that these Theories hold the answers once they are fully explained and proven.

@Biohazard: That could also either mean that the rabbits of the 2 species mated and the long hair Gene is simply stronger, hence more long hair Rabbits, or that the short fur rabbits did in fact Freeze and die.

Then, TADA!!! Wiz comes back and AGAIN, reiterates that we shouldn't be talking about this because we (read He) don't know enough.

[Jules]Wiz, Say that again, come on. I dare you. I double dare you MF. Say that one more goddamn time!!![/Jules]

qwiksilva666 · Post by **qwiksilva666** » 15 Aug 2005, 11:17

nifty wrote:Nope you're right - u dont get animals with 5 legs...speaking of which when was the last time you saw an evolution (an evolution being something changing for the good) not a mutation...u do get mutations, but these are harmful or a hinderance. It almost seems that if we go on the evolutionist theory we have to assume that evolution has stopped...i havent seen any occuring...have u? Has anyone in the last 6000 years? We get smarter, bigger, stronger, but thats growing...not evolving. Evolution either is happening or it never has.

I AM HUNGRY!!!!!!!!!!!! Only 2 hours to lunch!

sorry this is so far bk, but havent bn her for a few days.

anyway...A nifty...i dont think that a change in evolution can be spotted in a 6000 year period as it is a very lengthy process..so they say...but in the last 500 000 years there has bn changes according to excavations and other things....
so i dont think any one human or even 50 generations can witness a form evolving as it takes so long....

capanno · Post by **capanno** » 15 Aug 2005, 11:29

kronos please give more detail on your posts about the problems with creation.

Dakes · Post by **Dakes** » 15 Aug 2005, 12:05

EDITED BY KRONOS:
I came so close to losing my temper when I read your post, but fortunately I've learnt some self control.

Don't say I didn't warn you. Unless you actually didn't read a single post in this thread before posting this.

This has absolutely no bearing AT ALL on anything regarding evolution or Creation!!!

As I said in the first post. STICK TO THE SUBJECT!

We don't want to hear why you're religious.
Nor any stories about atheists becoming Christians because of some person who said a couple of words, and then suddenly they are irrevocably converted.

This is NOT a religion thread, so please don't preach here.

Sojourn · Post by **Sojourn** » 15 Aug 2005, 12:07

Harvard joins this discussion

Post by **Kronos** » 15 Aug 2005, 13:20

Capanno_Del_Kimakigami wrote:Kent Hogen lol...
...blah blah blah

______________________

Kronos you asked me what evidence the theory has that is false. Well, here's some on the top of my head.

Firstly, the correct phrase would be it's 'off' the top of your head.

Capanno_Del_Kimakigami wrote: The Nabraska man (so-called missing link), was constructed by using one tooth! This guy picked up a tooth and said it looked like its halfway between an ape and a humans tooth. So he built the guy, and his wife. (umm, he has a big imagination.) It turned out later that the tooth came from a pig.

This is a popular Creationist argument.
"This guy" was Harold Cook, who picked up the tooth and sent it to Henry Fairfield Osborne, a Paliantologist. He claimed it to be of a primate, and quickly created a new species for it. But not many other Scientists backed this idea, and even Osborne himself tried not to make any extravigant claims about the species.
The Illustration that was created was done for a popular british magazine, not for a scientific journal, and was not meant to be acurate. It was based on another, fully intact, fossil. The Illustrator noted that an animal CANNOT be reconstructed from a tooth.
The argument goes on that when they discovered the mistake, it was not publicised to hide the error. But in fact it reached the front page of "The New York Times", and was also in many Reputable Scientific Journals.

Nebraska Man cannot be considered an embarrassment to science. The scientists involved were mistaken, and somewhat incautious, but not incompetent or dishonest. The whole episode was actually an excellent example of the scientific process working at its best. Given a problematic identification, scientists investigated further, found data which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them (a marked contrast to the creationist approach).

The whole thing here, here

Capanno_Del_Kimakigami wrote: The charts that shows human, dog and a few other species's embrios through the development stages being the same, was prooven wrong over 100 years ago. The proffesor who made up the charts alterred the pictures so they looked the same. Drawing human embrios with gills. He was charged with fraud and found guilty.

And yet another.
This time Ernst Haeckel. A 19th Century German Biologist
It's not as bad as you claim though. No one was ever charged with fraud nor found guilty, although his peers realized that he had altered the images to make them more alike, and made him admit it.
The problem has been fixed in many, if not most texts, thanks to the wonder of modern microphotography.

What Haeckel was trying to bring to light is the similarities in the development between embryos of different species. And to show that all embryos have similar Stages of development.

1. Like the fact that ALL embrios form a yolk sack, although mammals don't store yolk, but get everything they need through the placenta. Why then would the yolk sack even form? (And no, the yolk sack does not become the placenta)
2. Another oddity is the fact that fish embryos form buds for hind limbs, but as the embryo grows further these are reabsorbed (they don't form into fins). Why would they form in the first place?

Etc. etc.

here
and here

Capanno_Del_Kimakigami wrote: The horse evolution was made up after they realised that they lack evidence to support the theory. The order of the animals is so messed up, with features in the feet dissapearing in one and apearing 'millions' of years later in the next animal. Some of the animals that are supposed to be extinct were rediscovered years later. The way the horse evolution is supposed to be in real life, the way it is in the fossil record, is non-existent. Displays had to be shut down cause people complained. In real life, the order exists only 60%, if I remember correctly, and its scattered over the earth. Its actually more complete in reverse order! Proven wrong over 100 years ago.

I don't know much about the horse evolution theory, but I surely will soon enough. Let me do some research...

Capanno_Del_Kimakigami wrote: Google it if you dont believe me. Sorry I dont have much time this weekend, I will posts references if you want me to.

All if the above is still used today in books as evidence.

Either there is a huge gap in communication between book-writers and 'scientists', or their just plain lieing!

As i've pointed out. Not all of the above are still used in books as you claim.

Sojourn · Post by **Sojourn** » 15 Aug 2005, 15:05

This whole thread is a minefield of misquotes, untruths, speculations, cross referrals, bias and general opinionated gangreen.

Take my advice before you hurt yourself - take a small leap backwards and stick to overclocking, upgrades and modding...

edit - ...and advising anyone to"google" for proof just confirms your reliability, or rather the lack thereof...

S