Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

[ryanrich]

Very well, go ahead... Just saying after many many years of seeing debate after debate about religion versus evolution, I've yet to see anything new. Ya see one of these threads ya seen em all...

[Prime]

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 ) 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
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.

Zell some might consider what you have just said heresy.

who sez we should not take the bible literally. there is more evidence that jesus walked the earth than there is evidence for the existence of julius Ceasar. -Source Video : message from the memory banks

but we are not here to debate religion.

now firstly would my sources count if they were from videos and books.

i will have to borrow them from my chaplain at school.

sigh.

otherwise i think it was a good idea to start this thread as i dont want a flame war on the christian thread.

and i garuntee that this will end in flames.

[Leigh]

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.

Time and time again, the people on this forum have shown that they are incapable of proper debate. So this thread is pointless on this forum. As ryanrich said, it will end up as 15 pages of pointless banter.

As I said before, many of the people who post in threads like this simply cannot seperate their beliefs from their opinions. Frankly I don't understand peoples necessity to constantly debate stuff like this anyway - it doesn't change how YOU feel, so why bother? I don't care what other people believe, because it doesn't affect what I believe. For this reason, I really couldn't be arsed to debate stuff like this.

I really just feel that threads like this fracture the forum somewhat because they cause so much unnecessary tension. I am not pointing any fingers but there are already a couple of posts in this thread that totally defy the supposed point of it in the first place.

And with that, I am bowing out of this thread.

[Prime]

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.

Time and time again, the people on this forum have shown that they are incapable of proper debate. So this thread is pointless on this forum. As ryanrich said, it will end up as 15 pages of pointless banter.

As I said before, many of the people who post in threads like this simply cannot seperate their beliefs from their opinions. Frankly I don't understand peoples necessity to constantly debate stuff like this anyway - it doesn't change how YOU feel, so why bother? I don't care what other people believe, because it doesn't affect what I believe. For this reason, I really couldn't be arsed to debate stuff like this.

I really just feel that threads like this fracture the forum somewhat because they cause so much unnecessary tension. I am not pointing any fingers but there are already a couple of posts in this thread that totally defy the supposed point of it in the first place.

And with that, I am bowing out of this thread.

Leigh i agree that some people on this forum (including myself) cant always debate properly but i think that even though this thread mite not alter anyones beliefs it is intersting and some people mite learn something from it.

Besdie you and ryanrich have just sidetracked the thread again and now i am contributing to that sidetracking.

[wizardofid]

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 or egypt.

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.

[Kitt-E-Kat]

I did some reading up last night on this whole topic - because although I feel strongly about my stand on the Evolution Theory, I wanted to substantiate that stand as much as possible.

I did not exactly find the answers I was looking for - what I did find was ALL just based on opinion and theory (this we can all agree on). And taking all this into account, and the fact that I'm not a scholar, I offer the following facts that I dredged up along with my humble opinions.

1.) Charles Darwin's theory = "survival of the fittest."
Darwin died unsure of his own theory. Two of his fellow researchers, Haeckel and Huxley, fought to promote the Darwinian theory into public acceptance.

2.) In order to believe in the thoery of Evolution you have to believe that the processes of evolution are totally random and accidental. The theory of evolution claims that inorganic chemical compounds came together by chance and as a result of randomly occurring natural phenomena, they formed first the building blocks of life and ultimately life.

3.) Scientific discoveries also definitely refute the evolutionist claims that "life emerged as a result of pure coincidences and natural phenomena." This is because there are extraordinarily complex examples of design in life. Even the cell of a living being is a great wonder of design that totally annuls the concept of "coincidence".

4.) Scientific evidence (especially the fossil record and comparative anatomy) point to the contrary; there is not single evidence on earth that an evolutionary process took place on the earth. The fossil record clearly indicate that different living species did not appear on earth through evolving from one another by fine gradations, but that on the contrary, distinct living species appeared on earth suddenly fully formed and without any preceding ancestors similar to them. Neither birds sprung from reptiles, nor fish transformed into land-dwelling animals. Even the most renowned evolutionists had to accept this fact and confess that this provides an evidence for Creation. Evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki confesses as follows: "A major problem in proving the theory (evolution theory) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations

In my opinion: all the facts and evidence in the world would not satisfy "theorists" whether they are looking at this topic and another. It was only after the 15th Century that all these theories were developed and spread though word of mouth etc.

Isn't it quite possible that since it is in human nature to question everything that one poor chap spent an afternoon, when he had nothing to do, day dreaming and ended up questioning his faith in God, his belief in the Bible and its contents and instead of being satisfied with believing that God is just that powerful (which can be a scary thought) created an alternative to the Creation story.

[jee]

now firstly would my sources count if they were from videos and books.

i will have to borrow them from my chaplain at school.

sigh.

otherwise i think it was a good idea to start this thread as i dont want a flame war on the christian thread.

and i garuntee that this will end in flames.

rippper hunni, books are great sources! far more so than most online references.

This will NOT end in flames. Any zealots can go argue in the other two threads - this one will be kept for real debatet - yes, people have proved that they have difficulties in stating facts, specially when it comes to faith. But there are so many real questions out there - this should not be seen as "I-am-bashing-your-theory" but rather "I-don't- believe-this- find-me-some-proof".

Some interesting stuff from Zell and the Kitten...

[Kher-za]

i lied a bit earlier, i'm back now.

Referring to what kitty said at #4 about there being a large gap in evolution, I was thinking along the same lines. Perhaps there was a something else that created life on this planet, from then on life has simply been evolving. this should please both those who believe in creation and evolution.

Even now evolution is in progress.

Trees were taken from Europe to South America a few hundred years ago. As you know there are many species of flies in South America. When this plant was introduced there were no flies that would eat its fruit. However they recently discovered a fly that only eats from this plant. The fly does not exist in Europe so the question arises, where did it come from?
I believe the answer is that it had to evolve from other species to adapt to its new environment.

[rustypup]

(point by point debate...)

In order to believe in the thoery of Evolution you have to believe that the processes of evolution are totally random and accidental. The theory of evolution claims that inorganic chemical compounds came together by chance and as a result of randomly occurring natural phenomena, they formed first the building blocks of life and ultimately life.

The complexity involved is not to be mistaken as proof against the theory.... Remember that we are also required to believe in the existence of a supreme being who, for completely ultruistic reasons, created everything in evidence... (@moses, can you see how the two sides share the same problems?).

Scientific discoveries also definitely refute the evolutionist claims that "life emerged as a result of pure coincidences and natural phenomena." This is because there are extraordinarily complex examples of design in life. Even the cell of a living being is a great wonder of design that totally annuls the concept of "coincidence".

I'd love to see some of these "discoveries".... coincidence requires random events culminating in an unlikely outcome... the only way to disprove it is to prove intention. If you can't prove intention, then it remains unproved and therefore coincidental... until such time as the supreme Overlord of Cheese parts the clouds and says in a clear voice, "Ok. Jokes over. It was me all along..."

The cell presents another mystery which is problematic for the creationist. The power plants producing all that wonderful ATP used by the cell are mitochondria, (sp?). The odd thing is that these mitochondria, so essential to the cell's, and logically therefore our own, existence are not in fact behaving as an integral part of the cell. They present all the hallmarks of a seperate entity within each cell up to and including maintaining their very own DNA. IIRC, this DNA has been used to succesfully trace certain inter-special relations and provides firm evidence of graduations of mutation, ie... evolution. Now, the evolutionist would understand that this is the very likley outcome of an extended symbiotic relationship. Mitochondria are very sensitive to oxygen. Our cell provides nutrients and protection, the mitochondria provide energy... everyone's happy.

(For those interested, First link in the search , but this is something I learned about roughly 7 years ago. For some reason, this is not mentioned in school??? Also, ask jee about A Brief History of Everything, (I think), by Bill Bryson(?)... not the definitive source on this topic but makes it accessible to a wider audience.)

The one piece of the puzzle which still evades any form of sane answer is why cells die. There is no reason at the moment other than that they decide/want to.... 8O

The fossil record clearly indicate that different living species did not appear on earth through evolving from one another by fine gradations, but that on the contrary, distinct living species appeared on earth suddenly fully formed and without any preceding ancestors similar to them. Neither birds sprung from reptiles, nor fish transformed into land-dwelling animals. Even the most renowned evolutionists had to accept this fact and confess that this provides an evidence for Creation. Evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki confesses as follows: "A major problem in proving the theory (evolution theory) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations

Hmmm.... the conditions required to produce a usable fossil is so stringent as to gaurantee an extremely sparse fossil record... it is entirely possible, in the timeline being discussed, that generation after generation failed to fall into a tar pit or get buried in mud, etc.. this is not evidence that evolution doesn't occur. It is evidence that a fossil record is not the be all and end all source of knowledge.

The very limited variations in skeletal design evidenced in the current species population is a strong indicator that we share a common ancestoral bond.

Also, I am surprised that this has yet to be mentioned because it is as likely as any other. The possibilty that our planet was seeded with life intentionally would also result in this evident commonality. Think about it. Space travel's big issue is speed. Go too fast and you are asking to be scraped off the wall. But what if you were to send smaller craft manned only with jelly containing the genetic code required to populate a new world.... jelly can't be phased by turning to jelly. Once landed, infect the local population, give it a few million years and PRESTO. A new colony... ?

This infection could provide beneficial assistance to the infected populace , (resistance to disease, faster healing, more efficient energy use, etc...). Survival of the fittest?........

[nifty]

boy evolution/creation is such a heated debate every time. I look at it liek this:

If you do believe in evolution u believe that things happened pretty randomly and u pretty much are an athiest as u dont want to credit a Creator with His work.

*careful Nifty... - jee*

If you believe in creation - there not much randomness as there is a common Creator who created all things. IE: I believe we didnt evolve from monkeys, what i do believe is that God was the designer of all things and if He wanted to make monkeys similar to us then thats up to him. I mean really think about it: all animals have eyes. even insects have eyes. Fish too...hmmm seems if things were truely random surely everything (or at least not the majority of things) wouldnt have eyes. And we all seem to have hearts too, muscles, nerves, brains...Seems if it were purely random there wouldnt be a lot of similarity. However there is - which points to one thing: A common Designer.

I am a programmer - when i read peoples code - they have a style, a specific way they write things that u can just see theres a pattern in the way they do things. When i look at Creation - i see a pattern, its not a random thing - someone up there is the supreme engineer and designed it all.

[QBM]

boy evolution/creation is such a heated debate every time. I look at it liek this:

If you do believe in evolution u believe that things happened pretty randomly and u pretty much are an athiest as u dont want to credit a Creator with His work.

If you believe in creation - there not much randomness as there is a common Creator who created all things. IE: I believe we didnt evolve from monkeys, what i do believe is that God was the designer of all things and if He wanted to make monkeys similar to us then thats up to him. I mean really think about it: all animals have eyes. even insects have eyes. Fish too...hmmm seems if things were truely random surely everything (or at least not the majority of things) wouldnt have eyes. And we all seem to have hearts too, muscles, nerves, brains...Seems if it were purely random there wouldnt be a lot of similarity. However there is - which points to one thing: A common Designer.

I am a programmer - when i read peoples code - they have a style, a specific way they write things that u can just see theres a pattern in the way they do things. When i look at Creation - i see a pattern, its not a random thing - someone up there is the supreme engineer and designed it all.

This is a heated debate? 8O

Also the majority of things don't have eyes.

[qwiksilva666]

Voltaire wrote: "if there were no God, it would be neccerssary for man to invent him"

hehe...im a firm believer in evolution....but one thing that im neutral on (ie: i dont know wot to think of it) is how the actual universe began....

i believe that everything on this planet has grown/evolved from something....but the whole universe itself cant evolve...so how did IT come to be here?

i know some people will say the "big bang" others will say God made it......but are there any other theories about the "beggining"?

[QBM]

Voltaire wrote: "if there were no God, it would be neccerssary for man to invent him"

hehe...im a firm believer in evolution....but one thing that im neutral on (ie: i dont know wot to think of it) is how the actual universe began....

i believe that everything on this planet has grown/evolved from something....but the whole universe itself cant evolve...so how did IT come to be here?

i know some people will say the "big bang" others will say God made it......but are there any other theories about the "beggining"?

There are quite a few really good scientific theories on the origin of the universe itself.

[qwiksilva666]

If you believe in creation - there not much randomness as there is a common Creator who created all things. IE: I believe we didnt evolve from monkeys, what i do believe is that God was the designer of all things and if He wanted to make monkeys similar to us then thats up to him. I mean really think about it: all animals have eyes. even insects have eyes. Fish too...hmmm seems if things were truely random surely everything (or at least not the majority of things) wouldnt have eyes. And we all seem to have hearts too, muscles, nerves, brains...Seems if it were purely random there wouldnt be a lot of similarity. However there is - which points to one thing: A common Designer.

common designer? .......creatures and othere things have evolved to take on their most efficient form.....ie: buck are not predators..thats why they have eyes on the side of their heads to have a wider vision wen scouting for danger....predators have eyes in front like us...sort of..and for reasons that apply to better hunting.
but anyway wot im trying to say is that it might not be a "common designer" but just the most efficient form.....you dont get animals with 3 or 5 legs now do you?...

[nifty]

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!

[Kronos]

Don't you just hate it when you start a thread, go away, and when you come back you've missed a few pages of it? 8O

And then people hijack your thread and change the subject!

I almost lost my faith in this thread (no pun intended), before I read the last few posts on page 3.

People, please. This thread is here to stay. The people who want to post in it will, and the rest don't need to.
We don't need an argument about whether this is a good thing to do or not, nor do we want people explaining why they are religious or not.

As I stipulated in the first Post. This is here to debate the topic of evolution AND creation.
And NOTE: This does not mean Evolution VS Creation, since the two are not necessarily Mutually exclusive.

One of my primary goals with this thread is to share information on both subjects. Since many people continuously attack each other on things they don't really understand.
Eg. some members always argue that life cannot come from a rock, so evolution is false, yet they don't understand fully what evolution actually means, and what processes it entails.

Vital Information:
In order to get this on the right track, let me start firstly by defining both Creationism and Evolutionism.

Creationism
Creationism or creation theology encompasses the belief that humans, the Earth, and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity.

Evolution
In biology, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species.


Now, to explain these definitions. Just in case they are not clear enough.

Creationism
For this debate we will consider mainly Abrahamic or Christian Creationism, which regards the Christian God as the creator of everything.
If you argue for Young Earth Creation (and therefore against Evolution):
You need to consider the facts given from the Christian Bible, and research done to prove what was written, since you believe in the LITTERAL enterpretation of it.
If you argue for Old Earth Creation:
You need to specify whether or not you support Evolution, since many OECs believe that God used Evolution as a tool over millions of years.
You therefore don't believe in the litteral interpretation of the Christian Bible.


Evolution
Biological Evolution deals with the changes in living organisms over time.
Note that nothing is said about how life came to be in the first place, nor how the universe began. Evolution simply does not deal with this. It is the change in organisms and ONLY that.
Evolution Theory states simply that Living Organisms Change Over time to adapt to their environment, and living conditions.
Eg. Preditors evolved over millions of years to have their eyes in the front of their face so that they can judge the distance to their prey.


Next, let me respond to some of the other posts:

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?

Exactly

Perhaps, Y0da, but the theory of 'creationism' strictly prohibits non literal interpretation of the bible.

Nope. You're thinking of Fundimentalism, or Fundimentalist Creationism. This is only applicable to YEC.

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

Then why is she your last gf and not the current?

Most of Page 2 is "worthless banter" as ryanrich said. But mainly because of peeps arguing that the thread is a waste of time.

One post though, Moses: Check the definitions and explinations of Creationism above just to clear it up.

1.) Charles Darwin's theory = "survival of the fittest."
Darwin died unsure of his own theory. Two of his fellow researchers, Haeckel and Huxley, fought to promote the Darwinian theory into public acceptance.

Fair enough. Although, I don't really understand how this has much bearing on the validity of the ToE. Just because Darwin was UNSURE, only means he couldn't YET explain all the implications, and that maybe his theory was just not completely postulated at that time.

2.) In order to believe in the thoery of Evolution you have to believe that the processes of evolution are totally random and accidental. The theory of evolution claims that inorganic chemical compounds came together by chance and as a result of randomly occurring natural phenomena, they formed first the building blocks of life and ultimately life.

No. Firstly, as per the definition and explination of Evolution: The ToE has NOTHING to do with how life as a whole came to be.
BUT, just to clear up some of your confusion on this point: There's not so much Randomness as you think. These natural phenomena of which you speak (I assume you mean the Chemical Reactions), occur all the time, even today. Now, I'm not saying that life is forming from inanimate materials all the time though. Remember that the conditions on earth were much different a few million years ago. Lots of free elementals floating around. The earth was pretty hot and turbulent, so there is much greater chance of Elements combining into more complex molecules.
But as I said, this has no bearing on Evolution as such.

3.) Scientific discoveries also definitely refute the evolutionist claims that "life emerged as a result of pure coincidences and natural phenomena." This is because there are extraordinarily complex examples of design in life. Even the cell of a living being is a great wonder of design that totally annuls the concept of "coincidence".

Again, this is not Evolution.
But again, I will humour us and just give a note on this "Design".
Have you considered that in whatever way a Living Cell forms, it may just be the most efficient form for it? If we go back to the basic building blocks of everything, Chemical Elements, They do not just react to form new compounds and molecules out of pure coincidence, but rather to increase their energetic Stability. Chemicals combine because they are more stable and require less energy when compound.
Eg. O2. Oxygen cannot naturally exist as monatomic Oxygen atoms. Oxygen Absolutely NEEDS to be bound to something to have a stable electron structure, even if it is another Oxygen atom as Diatomic O2, or even Ozone (O3) when there is enough abundant energy, like that from the UV radiation in the upper atmosphere.
Therefore, there is not so much design nor coincidence attached to it, but rather necessity.
Oops. Going off the subject here aren't we

4.) Scientific evidence (especially the fossil record and comparative anatomy) point to the contrary; there is not single evidence on earth that an evolutionary process took place on the earth. The fossil record clearly indicate that different living species did not appear on earth through evolving from one another by fine gradations, but that on the contrary, distinct living species appeared on earth suddenly fully formed and without any preceding ancestors similar to them. Neither birds sprung from reptiles, nor fish transformed into land-dwelling animals. Even the most renowned evolutionists had to accept this fact and confess that this provides an evidence for Creation. Evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki confesses as follows: "A major problem in proving the theory (evolution theory) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations

As for this point, I'll need your references before I can comment on it, since I need to validate and compare this to other sources.
Especially the point on renowned Evolutionists having to accept this as evidence for Creation.

Oh no, Wait a minute! Did you get that from http://www.jamiat.org.za ?
It would seem so from your direct quote of that article.
I made the rule that there will be no name calling here, but I don't find the author of that article a reliable source on Evolution.

Here's Why:
The article was written by Harun Yahya, an Islamic Fundamentalist.
He gives no references as to where the info comes from, but the main problem is this: He has no understanding of what Evolution is.(as described above)
He totally misunderstands Evolution and Darwinism.
He believes that Evolution has got to do with where life comes from and tries to imply that some scientific evidence is proof against Evolution. Again without actually giving sources of this so-called Scientific Evidence.
He also wrote an article entitled "Scientists Confirm Signs of Allah", which I have not bothered to read, but will trudge through it just in case I missed something.

@Nifty, You're making unjustified claims. It all seems like you're oppinion, and not cold hard facts.
For Instance, as I mentioned above, there doesn't need to be so much randomness. Plus, Most importantly, you don't have to be an atiest to believe in evolution! Many Christians are Old Earth Creationists, who believe that God used Evolution to create us. There are also many Atheists and Agnostics that believe that Evolution is bull.

@your last post, nifty:
Did I mention it in this post yet? Evolution takes millions of years, no one would've noticed any Evolution (other than Micro) over the last 6000 years. And bear in mind that Science has only been documented for a few hundred years.

I'm a programmer too, but I write code.
Are you saying that God is a programmer?

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://www.jamiat.org.za
http://www.eblaforum.org/library/science/intevo01.html
http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/earthorigin.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

[rustypup]

but are there any other theories about the "beggining"?

my personal favourite is without doubt the continuous creation theory.

We've all heard about The Big Bang. Manages to explain the evident dispersion and sounds excitingly romantic, (for some reason mankind enjoys a really good fireworks show... ).

Has trouble explaining all the fiddly* bits, (how planets actually formed if matter was rushing away from itself, why does everything insist on spinning all the time, why space is curved, etc, etc...).

Continuous creation manages to answer or account for virtually all the fiddly* bits, while at the same time adding insight into black holes.....

*read "glaringly suspect holes in the theory that psuedo science managed to ignore for quite a long time actually"...

<edit: been typing with my opposable toes again...>

[nifty]

Hmmm - i find it very interesting that some Christians believe in evolution...if you go read Genesis, it states that God created man on the 6th day. It does not say: God created an ape on day 6 and it continued to evolve for the next 50 000 000 years.

I'll be honest - i havent researched this as much as some of the others for sure, but if i had no opinion at all and you tried to convince me of either evolution (ie: i evolved from an ape which evolved from this and that and the next thing for the past 5 billion years) or creation (that there is a higher Being who created everything - taking into account that we cannot replicate his work ie: breathe life into something) i'd believe creation in a snap.

[Jonboy]

Oooh, please can I give my two cents worth. I would have loved to have joined this debate earlier, but I've been in the lab.
One of my university courses is third year genetics and developmental biology, and as such, I've been hammered on all sides with evolutionary theories. Now, you may find this weird of a scientist, but I'm a christian and thus believe in creation.
BUT
I agree with many aspects of evolutionary theories, and I believe that a combination of both theories may fill in the gaps inherent within the respective theories. You see, some aspects of evolution don't tie up. We learnt of a theory that stated that hominids (the monkeys) originated in Africa and spread throughout the world. There was however, a huge body of water (an ocean as such) in their way, and yet these creatures which were a bit less mentally inclined than apes, managed to construct a raft and cross this lake thingy. That's the only solution they can think of. I dunno hey?
You see, evolution under the theory that complex metabolism and prokaryotic organisms which came the apes even got their resources from sugars in space. But what they cannot explain is where space began?
I've also read some interesting articles that fitted the evolution of man into the six days of creation. I dunno how true this is, but it was interesting nontheless.Anyway, got a tut now, speak to you guys on Monday.

[rustypup]

Hmmm - i find it very interesting that some Christians believe in evolution...if you go read Genesis, it states that God created man on the 6th day. It does not say: God created an ape on day 6 and it continued to evolve for the next 50 000 000 years.

<sigh of note>
this is not a flame, but be wary of taking anything written down as being absolute holy writ. Trust me, the Bible is not the fountain of truth you presume it to be. this cannot be stated enough. Too many crackpots haven't gotten this point which has resulted in a large number of horrific genocides... one sample of many links where this is discussed in further detail, (it's a big subject, and even more hotly debated than evolution in some circles). believe me when I say that the Bible you read today has been creatively edited in order to ensure that it meets with certain criteria... and it will continue to evolve, (hah!), as faith evolves...

I'll be honest - i havent researched this as much as some of the others for sure, but if i had no opinion at all and you tried to convince me of either evolution (ie: i evolved from an ape which evolved from this and that and the next thing for the past 5 billion years) or creation (that there is a higher Being who created everything - taking into account that we cannot replicate his work ie: breathe life into something) i'd believe creation in a snap.

aaah... research is indeed a painful thing... no! hang about ! no it isn't!

perhaps a better approach here would have been to request that some nefarious evolutionist please provide evidence of this thing called life. Break me down into my constituent molecules and you would be hard pressed to point to any piece thereof saying "...and thus I disprove your outmoded and essentially silly argument that I am a monkeys uncle..."...

[Kronos]

Rusty and nifty. You're not debating!

@rusty, Sigh all you want, but you cannot make anyone see things your way by claiming that their beliefs are false.
Stick to giving facts and evidences for what you claim, and leave it to the opposition to post counter claims, likewise with facts and evidences.

@Nifty, Fair enough. That makes you a Fundimentalist Creationist.
But just because that is how you see things doesn't mean that ALL christians must agree with you. Trust me, there are a truckload of Evolution supporting Christians (Enter Jonboy
Also, Your reply to what you would believe is already biased because you DO in fact have an oppinion. Plus, I'm NOT trying to convince you, that is impossible, only you can convince yourself if you have enough facts to prove unconditionally that evolution is true. Again, without a few million years to run such an experiment it is also impossible to do that.

[Edit]Unless ofcourse you leave it to a race of Hyper intelligent, pandimentional Beings! [/Edit]

@Jonboy, Interesting POV. Did they actually say it like that in the text? or was it just the professor (i'm refferring to the monkeys sailing the 7 seas)?
And the sugars in space? Please, can we have sources?

One more note on sources: Books are also relavant sources, just give us the title, author, and if possible an ISBN number. That way, we can all verify your info.
Also, if you saw something on Discovery or National Geographic, and it's still fresh in your mind, but you need a reference, all their stuff should be on their websites too.

[Prime]

Hmmm - i find it very interesting that some Christians believe in evolution...if you go read Genesis, it states that God created man on the 6th day. It does not say: God created an ape on day 6 and it continued to evolve for the next 50 000 000 years.

<sigh of note>
this is not a flame, but be wary of taking anything written down as being absolute holy writ. Trust me, the Bible is not the fountain of truth you presume it to be. this cannot be stated enough. Too many crackpots haven't gotten this point which has resulted in a large number of horrific genocides... one sample of many links where this is discussed in further detail, (it's a big subject, and even more hotly debated than evolution in some circles). believe me when I say that the Bible you read today has been creatively edited in order to ensure that it meets with certain criteria... and it will continue to evolve, (hah!), as faith evolves...

I'll be honest - i havent researched this as much as some of the others for sure, but if i had no opinion at all and you tried to convince me of either evolution (ie: i evolved from an ape which evolved from this and that and the next thing for the past 5 billion years) or creation (that there is a higher Being who created everything - taking into account that we cannot replicate his work ie: breathe life into something) i'd believe creation in a snap.

aaah... research is indeed a painful thing... no! hang about ! no it isn't!

perhaps a better approach here would have been to request that some nefarious evolutionist please provide evidence of this thing called life. Break me down into my constituent molecules and you would be hard pressed to point to any piece thereof saying "...and thus I disprove your outmoded and essentially silly argument that I am a monkeys uncle..."...

Rusty that is absuolute heresy. Have You read the Bible. 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: Rusty i find you post blatantly insulting.

if you want evidence that the bible is correct and has not been altered as such then watch "message from the memory banks" it a video and quite old but if you look you will find it.

And to those of you who have read the bill bryson book. i must warn you of errors.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/culture/reading/1008a/

[Prime]

[quote="Kronos"]

[Edit]Unless ofcourse you leave it to a race of Hyper intelligent, pandimentional Beings! [/Edit] < someones been reading "the Guide"

[Moses]

Hmmm - i find it very interesting that some Christians believe in evolution...if you go read Genesis, it states that God created man on the 6th day. It does not say: God created an ape on day 6 and it continued to evolve for the next 50 000 000 years.

Hmmm....

IN GENESIS are two contradictory stories of creation. In Genesis 1:20 & 21, "every living creature" is brought forth from the waters, including every winged fowl." But in 2:19 God brings forth "every beast of the field and every fowl of the air" from dry ground.
In Genesis 1:2, earth comes into existence on the first day, completely underwater. Only by the 3rd day were waters of the deep collected, and dry land formed. But in Genesis 2:4, 5, & 6, earth on the first day was dry land, unwatered.
The first story has trees made on the 3rd day and man formed 3 days later (1:12-13 and 26-31). In the second version man was made before trees (2:7, 9). If chapter 1 is true, then fowls were created before man. If chapter 2 is true, then they were created after man.
Version one teaches man was created after all beasts. The second is clear, Adam was created before beasts. (1:25,27 versus 2:7,19).
In version one, man and woman are created simultaneously (1:27) while in version two (2:7,20-22), man and woman are separate acts of creation.

Not a very reputable source, I must admit, but that's why I don't believe the bible is the word of a god.

[Prime]

Hmmm - i find it very interesting that some Christians believe in evolution...if you go read Genesis, it states that God created man on the 6th day. It does not say: God created an ape on day 6 and it continued to evolve for the next 50 000 000 years.

Hmmm....

IN GENESIS are two contradictory stories of creation. In Genesis 1:20 & 21, "every living creature" is brought forth from the waters, including every winged fowl." But in 2:19 God brings forth "every beast of the field and every fowl of the air" from dry ground.
In Genesis 1:2, earth comes into existence on the first day, completely underwater. Only by the 3rd day were waters of the deep collected, and dry land formed. But in Genesis 2:4, 5, & 6, earth on the first day was dry land, unwatered.
The first story has trees made on the 3rd day and man formed 3 days later (1:12-13 and 26-31). In the second version man was made before trees (2:7, 9). If chapter 1 is true, then fowls were created before man. If chapter 2 is true, then they were created after man.
Version one teaches man was created after all beasts. The second is clear, Adam was created before beasts. (1:25,27 versus 2:7,19).
In version one, man and woman are created simultaneously (1:27) while in version two (2:7,20-22), man and woman are separate acts of creation.

Not a very reputable source, I must admit, but that's why I don't believe the bible is the word of a god.

WHat?? thats not how my bible recounts genesis. let me get back to you on that. i think thats gross misinterpretation