|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:03 am
As it says in the topic, do you think we evolved from primates or do you think we were bred from the original couple created by God, Adam and Eve.
Personally, I believe in creationism. Now, im not going to bash evolution or anything like that, Im just sayin that God was the one who put us on this planet. Sure, primates have abilities that are strikingly similar to ours, but they are rather unique animals. We came from Adam and Eve and a loooooooooooooooooooong life of their descendants
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:55 pm
I believe that there is no need to draw a line between the two. God created Earth and all the things in it over a period of time- first the Earth itself, then the creatures on it- plants, then reptiles, birds, mammals, and finally humans. This corresponds with the fossil record, and who knows- God could have used evolution to help things along. God is supposed to act in the little things- and what could be smaller than tiny changes in a cell? Adam and Eve were, of course, the first humans. There's no need for anyone to pick fights over which one is right, science or the Bible, when the two agree!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 9:22 am
Well I believe in the Bible's story but I have to admit the evidence of evolution is quite abundant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 9:42 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:49 am
you know something? that makes absolute sense! Sure God, started the beginning, but what you said makes me feel that evolution could be true and that God was just guiding things along as he watched
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:44 pm
There's a few things that need to be cleared up before I actually will get into making my arguments (I'll probably do that tomorrow).
Point one, the OP is working with a false dichotomy. Biblical creationism is only one of many types of creationism there is, and it's not even the majority type.
Point two, we're not evolved 'from' primates - we are primates. Evolution is a branching tree pattern, which consequently creates a nested hierarchy. Try this pattern for yourselves, it's a mathematical consequence of such patterns to always form such hierarchies. As a result, when a new branch is formed via speciation, it is still part of each of its parent branches. Therefore it's never really a case of evolution from as it is a case of evolution into a new form of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:22 pm
On to cover the actual topic, in the many Creationism v. Evolutionary Theory debates I have had, so far to date no one has ever put forth any empirical evidence for creationism, however evidence supporting evolutionary theory is quite abundant. Examples include but are not limited to:
Dual nested hierarchy of life
Observed occurrences of speciation
Observed morphological changes by evolution
Observed biochemical changes by evolution
The fossil record
Hundreds of transitional and intermediary fossils
Accurate predictions of evolutionary theory
Structure of Human Chromosome 2
Common interspecies ERV insertions
The digital nature of DNA
The mutability of DNA
Psuedogenes
Glutamic Acid codons in closely related species
just to name a few.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:30 pm
Eternal Vengefulness There's a few things that need to be cleared up before I actually will get into making my arguments (I'll probably do that tomorrow). Point one, the OP is working with a false dichotomy. Biblical creationism is only one of many types of creationism there is, and it's not even the majority type. Point two, we're not evolved 'from' primates - we are primates. Evolution is a branching tree pattern, which consequently creates a nested hierarchy. Try this pattern for yourselves, it's a mathematical consequence of such patterns to always form such hierarchies. As a result, when a new branch is formed via speciation, it is still part of each of its parent branches. Therefore it's never really a case of evolution from as it is a case of evolution into a new form of. what's a dichotomy? anyway, i thought i'd just throw this debate out there, so if i've got anything wrong, im sorry. im not really good at debates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:50 pm
ZenWolf65 Eternal Vengefulness There's a few things that need to be cleared up before I actually will get into making my arguments (I'll probably do that tomorrow). Point one, the OP is working with a false dichotomy. Biblical creationism is only one of many types of creationism there is, and it's not even the majority type. Point two, we're not evolved 'from' primates - we are primates. Evolution is a branching tree pattern, which consequently creates a nested hierarchy. Try this pattern for yourselves, it's a mathematical consequence of such patterns to always form such hierarchies. As a result, when a new branch is formed via speciation, it is still part of each of its parent branches. Therefore it's never really a case of evolution from as it is a case of evolution into a new form of. what's a dichotomy? anyway, i thought i'd just throw this debate out there, so if i've got anything wrong, im sorry. im not really good at debates A dichotomy is a choice between 2 options, often as a dilemma. A false dichotomy is when a choice is created between 2 options when the reality of the situation may very well be more than 2 options. For example: dichotomy - theist or atheist (either you do believe in god(s) or you do not). false dichotomy - christian or atheist (you can believe a god exists without being christian - such as muslim).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:52 pm
Eternal Vengefulness ZenWolf65 Eternal Vengefulness There's a few things that need to be cleared up before I actually will get into making my arguments (I'll probably do that tomorrow). Point one, the OP is working with a false dichotomy. Biblical creationism is only one of many types of creationism there is, and it's not even the majority type. Point two, we're not evolved 'from' primates - we are primates. Evolution is a branching tree pattern, which consequently creates a nested hierarchy. Try this pattern for yourselves, it's a mathematical consequence of such patterns to always form such hierarchies. As a result, when a new branch is formed via speciation, it is still part of each of its parent branches. Therefore it's never really a case of evolution from as it is a case of evolution into a new form of. what's a dichotomy? anyway, i thought i'd just throw this debate out there, so if i've got anything wrong, im sorry. im not really good at debates A dichotomy is a choice between 2 options, often as a dilemma. A false dichotomy is when a choice is created between 2 options when the reality of the situation may very well be more than 2 options. For example: dichotomy - theist or atheist (either you do believe in god(s) or you do not). false dichotomy - christian or atheist (you can believe a god exists without being christian - such as muslim). thanx for telling me that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 10:41 pm
As several others have stated, I don't think it's a choice between one or the other. I see enough evidence for evolution to believe that it does exist, but that's not to say there isn't a guiding hand from a higher power. I don't know if that's the case, obviously, and I have yet to see any evidence that it is, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 5:41 pm
Zorlock Darksoul As several others have stated, I don't think it's a choice between one or the other. I see enough evidence for evolution to believe that it does exist, but that's not to say there isn't a guiding hand from a higher power. I don't know if that's the case, obviously, and I have yet to see any evidence that it is, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. The universe and everything in it was sneezed into existence by the Great Green Arkleseizure and will be wiped back out of existence at the coming of the Great White Handkerchief. There's no evidence to support that idea, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, right? wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:54 pm
Eternal Vengefulness Zorlock Darksoul As several others have stated, I don't think it's a choice between one or the other. I see enough evidence for evolution to believe that it does exist, but that's not to say there isn't a guiding hand from a higher power. I don't know if that's the case, obviously, and I have yet to see any evidence that it is, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. The universe and everything in it was sneezed into existence by the Great Green Arkleseizure and will be wiped back out of existence at the coming of the Great White Handkerchief. There's no evidence to support that idea, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, right? wink There ya go. Now stick that theory in a book and wait for several thousand years so people can form a religion based upon it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:13 am
Zorlock Darksoul Eternal Vengefulness Zorlock Darksoul As several others have stated, I don't think it's a choice between one or the other. I see enough evidence for evolution to believe that it does exist, but that's not to say there isn't a guiding hand from a higher power. I don't know if that's the case, obviously, and I have yet to see any evidence that it is, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. The universe and everything in it was sneezed into existence by the Great Green Arkleseizure and will be wiped back out of existence at the coming of the Great White Handkerchief. There's no evidence to support that idea, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, right? wink There ya go. Now stick that theory in a book and wait for several thousand years so people can form a religion based upon it. It already is, it's the religion of the Jatravartids on the planet Viltvodle VI. the point being, if you're not going to base your view of reality on evidence, any nonsense can be asserted as fact. It's through the available empirical evidence that we can determine which beliefs are actually justifiable from those that are not. So far as it stands, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, while the evidence for creationism is non-existent. Take this very thread for example, so far no one has presented any evidence whatsoever to support creationism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:48 pm
would the fact that people have seen miracles that could provide a basis for the fact that God exists? Like say, the children of Fatima.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
