Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Creationism or Evolution?

688 replies to this topic
Seachmall
  • Seachmall

    Irish Motherfucker.

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2007

#31

Posted 08 April 2009 - 11:13 AM Edited by Seachmall, 08 April 2009 - 11:15 AM.

QUOTE (K^2 @ Apr 8 2009, 01:28)
Nobody says they are equal. I've been trying to prove that they are things from completely different categories. How do you get equal from that?

Sorry, I'm not sure where that came from. Misinterpretation I guess.
QUOTE
What's your justification to reject Creationism? There is just as much justification to reject it as there is to accept it. Precisely none.
No, rationally you should reject everything to be improbable over what is probable. Things do not warrant probability by default, everything starts in the negative and must be proven to be taken seriously. I guess this depends on personal perspectives, I assume everything to be wrong until I hear or see something to sway my opinion (which includes opinions of others). I may accept them as possible but they must show themselves as probable. Being open-minded doesn't mean you accept everything on a equal level, it just means give everything a chance to prove itself.
QUOTE
All your evidence is based on the system that Creationism essentially assumes to be doctored by a higher being. There is no way to reject such a statement.
From what I got from the debate, mentioned above, those creationists believe evolution to be contradictory to creationism. They believe the evidence for evolution to be flawed and thus incorrect (which somehow proves their beliefs biggrin.gif ). Of course that does not relate to all creationists who could use this 'defence', as illogical as it is (which it is, that's their argument that it is outside of logic which goes back to probability Vs. possibility, and also the "then everything is justifiable" argument).

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#32

Posted 08 April 2009 - 04:30 PM

Creationists that try to disprove evolution are just paranoid twats that don't understand what a scientific theory does, and think that it threatens their belief somehow, and therefore, has to be destroyed by all means. Younger of these should be sent back to school, and the older should be ignored, just like you ignore your grandpa's crazy war stories.

The problem with probable vs. improbable is that we cannot tell how probable creation is. Quantum physics creeps into it quite strongly. Imagine all possible mathematically self-consistent universes. Somewhere among these, there is a world that formed from dust gathered around a newborn star that gathered into a planet due to gravitational attraction, where complex organic molecules have formed by chance, and self replicating molecules have found way to become life forms that have evolved into thinking creatures. Somewhere else in this mess is a world created by a super-creature that has control over energy and matter. That has assembled the world bit by bit in record short time, and made it look identical to the world mentioned above, complete with the thinking creatures. The two worlds are entirely identical, with thinking creatures having the same philosophies, religions, and sciences. Both can sit and throw around arguments for creation and for natural evolution. Same exact arguments will lead to correct conclusions on one of these worlds, and to the wrong ones on the other. Quantum Physics tells us that if these worlds cannot be told apart by any experiment, they should be considered the same world.

In all possibilities, a world exactly like ours that has been created exists, along with a world exactly like ours that has evolved. Which is more likely is impossible to tell. We don't know how many crazy absolutely improbable events are required to spark life. There are certainly a few. But that's not even important. The important bit is that since the two cannot be distinguished, they are the same thing. Our world can, for all intents and purposes, be considered to be created a billion years ago, a few thousands, or yesterday. It makes no difference, and so it is all the same.

Seachmall
  • Seachmall

    Irish Motherfucker.

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2007

#33

Posted 09 April 2009 - 11:15 AM Edited by Seachmall, 09 April 2009 - 01:23 PM.

But of course we don't have that view of both worlds, we only have one and so must make logical decisions on what we do know (and what we know to be probable). As I mentioned before things are not probable by default, I am not rejecting creationism as a possibility but as a belief (that's not the same as saying "I don't believe it to be true" by the way which would be belief on it) based on probability (which is, by default, in the negative).

QUOTE
The two worlds are entirely identical, with thinking creatures having the same philosophies, religions, and sciences. Both can sit and throw around arguments for creation and for natural evolution. Same exact arguments will lead to correct conclusions on one of these worlds, and to the wrong ones on the other. Quantum Physics tells us that if these worlds cannot be told apart by any experiment, they should be considered the same world.
They may be the same in appearances and make-up but not in creation. If I created 2 balls which are identical in every way they would not be identical in their history or external influences, which is what we're discussing

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#34

Posted 09 April 2009 - 10:17 PM Edited by K^2, 09 April 2009 - 10:20 PM.

Probability doesn't even make it into consideration. Two worlds are identical. Indistinguishable. There is no experiment you can perform to figure out which one you are on. Therefore, you are on both. At once. Both of the suggestions have to be true.

QUOTE
They may be the same in appearances and make-up but not in creation. If I created 2 balls which are identical in every way they would not be identical in their history or external influences, which is what we're discussing

Incorrect. If they are identical, it doesn't matter which is which. That's quantum physics. Being a quantum physicist, and all, I do know how these things work.

Now, I'm not saying that's necessarily the case with our world, but we cannot know if it is. We cannot know if our world can exist within both of these contexts without any contradictions. There are too many factors to be considered.

But if you want to talk probability, go ahead, give me an estimate on how probable it is that a self-replicating molecule forms by random chance. Because that's required for natural development of life on Earth.

Struff Bunstridge
  • Struff Bunstridge

    ...loading...

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2007

#35

Posted 09 April 2009 - 10:45 PM

QUOTE (K^2 @ Apr 9 2009, 22:17)
Probability doesn't even make it into consideration. Two worlds are identical. Indistinguishable. There is no experiment you can perform to figure out which one you are on. Therefore, you are on both. At once. Both of the suggestions have to be true.

Is this linked to Schrodinger?

If so, interesting idea. Only thing I'm thinking is, while logically you would have to be on both worlds if they were indistinguishable, surely since it's impossible for a human to be in two places at once, you could only ever be on one? Or am I missing the point?

Seachmall
  • Seachmall

    Irish Motherfucker.

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2007

#36

Posted 10 April 2009 - 12:04 AM Edited by Seachmall, 10 April 2009 - 12:08 AM.

QUOTE (K^2 @ Apr 9 2009, 22:17)
Probability doesn't even make it into consideration. Two worlds are identical. Indistinguishable. There is no experiment you can perform to figure out which one you are on. Therefore, you are on both. At once. Both of the suggestions have to be true.

QUOTE
They may be the same in appearances and make-up but not in creation. If I created 2 balls which are identical in every way they would not be identical in their history or external influences, which is what we're discussing

Incorrect. If they are identical, it doesn't matter which is which. That's quantum physics. Being a quantum physicist, and all, I do know how these things work.

Now, I'm not saying that's necessarily the case with our world, but we cannot know if it is. We cannot know if our world can exist within both of these contexts without any contradictions. There are too many factors to be considered.

So if you can't calculate the probability we are back to it being in the negative and thus to pick creationism, or anything, is illogical.
QUOTE
But if you want to talk probability, go ahead, give me an estimate on how probable it is that a self-replicating molecule forms by random chance. Because that's required for natural development of life on Earth.
Does it have a time restraint? If not, and so has infinite chances to happen, I'll give it a 100% chance of happening.

rmmstnr
  • rmmstnr

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2006

#37

Posted 10 April 2009 - 12:09 AM

QUOTE
Somewhere among these, there is a world that formed from dust gathered around a newborn star that gathered into a planet due to gravitational attraction, where complex organic molecules have formed by chance, and self replicating molecules have found way to become life forms that have evolved into thinking creatures.


Actually, it wasn't probability alone that fostered complex molecules to become intelligent creatures. Around 3.5 billion years ago, perhaps a tad earlier, the sky was red and composed of gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and hydrogen sulfide (hence the sky's coloring). The ocean itself was different as well, having such chemicals dissolved and sequestered within. Energy input from the sun and/or lightning caused reactions that led to amino acids.

Compatible chemicals reacted with each other as they do when together, eventually creating chains of complex proteins. From which we got our precious little pro- and eukaryotes. Then came algae, our little savior, which with a little help from other plant-life, helped fill the air with yummy O2. Then came our bigger friends.

Then every now and then 70-98% of them (land dwellers anyway, sea-things were slightly luckier) got wiped out until we got lucky enough to catch a break and get to where we are now. I suppose I can't say "it was bound to happen," but with our starting point, it was quite probable. As big as the universe is, there's a good chance that there are a number of other places with their own forms of life.

Back to the topic, it is nigh impossible to disprove something, so good luck to all the philosophers out there pondering this. I'm pretty sure there's some good insight to be found though.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#38

Posted 10 April 2009 - 05:00 AM Edited by K^2, 10 April 2009 - 05:02 AM.

QUOTE (Seachmall @ Apr 9 2009, 20:04)
Does it have a time restraint?

4 billion years. Go.
QUOTE
Actually, it wasn't probability alone that fostered complex molecules to become intelligent creatures. Around 3.5 billion years ago, perhaps a tad earlier, the sky was red and composed of gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and hydrogen sulfide (hence the sky's coloring). The ocean itself was different as well, having such chemicals dissolved and sequestered within. Energy input from the sun and/or lightning caused reactions that led to amino acids.

Oh, I know how amino acids formed. You don't need to teach it to me. I know enough organic chemistry and genetics to know how that works. You can even have segments of RNA form on their own. That's not the question. Question is, what is the probability of an RNA molecule developing that can synthesize a protein that will replicate said RNA molecule.

Seachmall
  • Seachmall

    Irish Motherfucker.

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2007

#39

Posted 10 April 2009 - 06:08 AM

QUOTE (K^2 @ Apr 10 2009, 05:00)
QUOTE (Seachmall @ Apr 9 2009, 20:04)
Does it have a time restraint?

4 billion years. Go.
QUOTE
Actually, it wasn't probability alone that fostered complex molecules to become intelligent creatures. Around 3.5 billion years ago, perhaps a tad earlier, the sky was red and composed of gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and hydrogen sulfide (hence the sky's coloring). The ocean itself was different as well, having such chemicals dissolved and sequestered within. Energy input from the sun and/or lightning caused reactions that led to amino acids.

Oh, I know how amino acids formed. You don't need to teach it to me. I know enough organic chemistry and genetics to know how that works. You can even have segments of RNA form on their own. That's not the question. Question is, what is the probability of an RNA molecule developing that can synthesize a protein that will replicate said RNA molecule.

Clearly my knowledge of the [possible] creation of the universe through chance is lacking but there is a simple quote that can probable define my stance better than a paragraph could (although no doubt a bloated paragraph will follow)...

QUOTE (Ivor Coles)
We're here because we're here because we're here.


So, why are we here? Because we are. How did we come to be? We just did.

The statistics of the "chance" method may be small but it's not impossible. We don't know how many other universes had the same chances and failed, we could be that lotto winner who wonders "why me" without looking at the other contenders and seeing that they failed, primarily because we don't even know if the other contestants existed, but hey, it only takes one chance.

Probability may be small but it's not reliant on a god, who's probability of existence is equally small, just to support it. It's plausible and can support itself.

Ultraussie
  • Ultraussie

    With Sexy Company of CowGirl69 :P

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2009

#40

Posted 10 April 2009 - 06:40 AM

And guess what's F**Ked up about the creationisim theory?

The first human being ever was called Adam. When he got lonley, he asked God for a companion.
God then created Eve to be Adam's freind.
And then they were both kicked out of the garden of eden because they ate a rancid apple.


OK. Today there are 6 billion humans in our poupulation here on earth.
And there where only 2 humans back then, Adam and Eve.
So they reproduce.
Then they have kids. More kids...
And then Adam and Eve would eventually have to die.
But how did the kids reproduce? Incest?



C'mon, Creationism makes no sense! Evolution FTW!!!

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#41

Posted 10 April 2009 - 06:48 AM

QUOTE (Seachmall @ Apr 10 2009, 02:08)
Clearly my knowledge of the [possible] creation of the universe through chance is lacking but there is a simple quote that can probable define my stance better than a paragraph could (although no doubt a bloated paragraph will follow)...

QUOTE (Ivor Coles)
We're here because we're here because we're here.


So, why are we here? Because we are. How did we come to be? We just did.

The statistics of the "chance" method may be small but it's not impossible. We don't know how many other universes had the same chances and failed, we could be that lotto winner who wonders "why me" without looking at the other contenders and seeing that they failed, primarily because we don't even know if the other contestants existed, but hey, it only takes one chance.

Probability may be small but it's not reliant on a god, who's probability of existence is equally small, just to support it. It's plausible and can support itself.

I make exactly the same argument for creation. Probability of us being simply created is small, but we are here. There could be many universes where creation did not happen. We are just the lucky lotto winners.

You cannot tell me how likely that life was created by chance. Yet, you insist that it is infinitely more likely than life being created by a higher being. Your logic is worse than that of most creationists.

Vercetti21
  • Vercetti21

    V21

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2007

#42

Posted 10 April 2009 - 09:18 PM

QUOTE (Ultraussie @ Apr 10 2009, 00:40)
And guess what's F**Ked up about the creationisim theory?

The first human being ever was called Adam. When he got lonley, he asked God for a companion.
God then created Eve to be Adam's freind.
And then they were both kicked out of the garden of eden because they ate a rancid apple.


OK. Today there are 6 billion humans in our poupulation here on earth.
And there where only 2 humans back then, Adam and Eve.
So they reproduce.
Then they have kids. More kids...
And then Adam and Eve would eventually have to die.
But how did the kids reproduce? Incest?



C'mon, Creationism makes no sense! Evolution FTW!!!

A lot of people seem to mix this up, so I'm going to go ahead and step in here.

The Bible claims that Adam and Eve were the first human beings, but it is never specifically mentioned that they are the only human beings. In fact, they aren't. When the story of Cain and Abel is told, numerous other individuals are mentioned. While the common, generalized belief of creationism is that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve and thus all related, many tend to stray from the path and accept that perhaps other individuals were created after banishment from Eden.

Seachmall
  • Seachmall

    Irish Motherfucker.

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2007

#43

Posted 10 April 2009 - 09:34 PM

QUOTE (K^2 @ Apr 10 2009, 06:48)
You cannot tell me how likely that life was created by chance. Yet, you insist that it is infinitely more likely than life being created by a higher being.

Infinitely more likely? When did I say that? I've admitted throughout that I don't know but chance seems more likely because we know it could happen, it's logically possible. Creation however is dependent on a god which may not even exist.
QUOTE
Your logic is worse than that of most creationists.
Because I admit I don't know instead of making assumptions and claiming them as truth even if they contradict accepted theories and facts?

Lt. Dan
  • Lt. Dan

    ¡Demasiado tío!

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 May 2008

#44

Posted 11 April 2009 - 07:51 PM

QUOTE (Ultraussie @ Apr 10 2009, 06:40)
And guess what's F**Ked up about the creationisim theory?

The first human being ever was called Adam. When he got lonley, he asked God for a companion.
God then created Eve to be Adam's freind.
And then they were both kicked out of the garden of eden because they ate a rancid apple.


OK. Today there are 6 billion humans in our poupulation here on earth.
And there where only 2 humans back then, Adam and Eve.
So they reproduce.
Then they have kids. More kids...
And then Adam and Eve would eventually have to die.
But how did the kids reproduce? Incest?



C'mon, Creationism makes no sense! Evolution FTW!!!

Well, all those years ago, humans probably didn't have the morals that we have now. tounge.gif

I read something about African Eve, our first technically human ancestor. It even had pretty graphs and colors my mind could understand.

So yeah, thinking about stuff like this makes my brain hurt, but overall, I believe the science aspect more. Science has done so much more for humanity than religion.

Ultraussie
  • Ultraussie

    With Sexy Company of CowGirl69 :P

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2009

#45

Posted 12 April 2009 - 12:07 AM

QUOTE (Lt. Dan @ Apr 12 2009, 05:51)
QUOTE (Ultraussie @ Apr 10 2009, 06:40)
And guess what's F**Ked up about the creationisim theory?

The first human being ever was called Adam. When he got lonley, he asked God for a companion.
God then created Eve to be Adam's freind.
And then they were both kicked out of the garden of eden because they ate a rancid apple.


OK. Today there are 6 billion humans in our poupulation here on earth.
And there where only 2 humans back then, Adam and Eve.
So they reproduce.
Then they have kids. More kids...
And then Adam and Eve would eventually have to die.
But how did the kids reproduce? Incest?



C'mon, Creationism makes no sense! Evolution FTW!!!

Well, all those years ago, humans probably didn't have the morals that we have now. tounge.gif

I read something about African Eve, our first technically human ancestor. It even had pretty graphs and colors my mind could understand.

So yeah, thinking about stuff like this makes my brain hurt, but overall, I believe the science aspect more. Science has done so much more for humanity than religion.

And I belive modern law, and religion prohibits incest.
Unless I didnt remember the story right, that means we are all ancestors of people who sinned, and we are all inbred c*nts.
But we all have different DNA and hair colours, eye colours, etc, so thats impossible.
Now the only way religion can back itself up is by making an evolution excuse! tounge.gif

We have proof the earth is billions of years old.
Creationism c*nts think the entire universe started 10,000 years ago.

Charles Darwin, your a bloody ledgend. And it all came from turtle necks!

Bullet_Chris
  • Bullet_Chris

    Soldier

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2008

#46

Posted 20 April 2009 - 01:18 PM

So, you must be stupid to believe in creationism.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#47

Posted 20 April 2009 - 01:48 PM

QUOTE (Seachmall @ Apr 10 2009, 17:34)
QUOTE (K^2 @ Apr 10 2009, 06:48)
You cannot tell me how likely that life was created by chance. Yet, you insist that it is infinitely more likely than life being created by a higher being.

Infinitely more likely? When did I say that? I've admitted throughout that I don't know but chance seems more likely because we know it could happen, it's logically possible. Creation however is dependent on a god which may not even exist.

And the entire basis of evolution is in existence of the first life form, which also may not even exist. Most "irreducible complexity" arguments are complete bull. Especially the one about the eye. However, there is still a problem of reducing complexity of a living cell. We don't know anything simpler than a bacterium, and yet, there is a very big leap from non-living mixture of organic goo and a lipid bilayer surrounding a cytoplasm mixture containing long chains of RNA and a mixture of proteins and enzymes, some of which are responsible for transcribing RNA, some for constructing polypeptide chains, some for replicating RNA, some for constructing and repairing bilayer, and the rest for general metabolism and nourishment of the system. It's not something that can come out of nowhere, and yet, nobody has managed to construct even a model of something simpler that can replicate itself unassisted.

Part of the problem is the fact that there is just one specific strain of bacteria from which all life on Earth appears to have evolved. The probability of that is nearly zip, unless these bacteria did not develop on Earth. They must have come from somewhere else. So now you have to factor into your probabilities the odds of this life form ending up on Earth in the first place. Or maybe, someone engineered that bacteria and sent it to Earth intentionally. Who knows? Once you have a life form, yeah, it evolves, but getting this first spark of life? We understand big bang better than the origin of life.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Your logic is worse than that of most creationists.
Because I admit I don't know instead of making assumptions and claiming them as truth even if they contradict accepted theories and facts?

You are making assumptions without any facts. You assume that existence of creator is unlikely without having any idea of what sort of being we even need to be talking about. You then keep stating over and over again that it is less likely than life developing on its own, even after admitting that you have no idea how likely that is. So you are talking about two things likelihoods of which you don't know by your own admission, and yet you tell me that one is more likely than the other, and creationists are the ones who are ignoring the facts and making stuff up.

Do you really not see hypocrisy in that?

Seachmall
  • Seachmall

    Irish Motherfucker.

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2007

#48

Posted 20 April 2009 - 06:05 PM

QUOTE (K^2)
Do you really not see hypocrisy in that?

Yes I do, I was taking a subjective opinion and presenting it as objective. We don't know how life came to be, it could have been a superior being or perhaps just chance.

I guess I was still stuck on a mainstream deity and everything that goes with that instead of applying any of the other infinite possibilities to the equation (by that I mean I was doubting the probability of a God based on other concepts such as the problem of evil, which are irrelevant to the discussion (and the discussion of non-mainstream Gods in general)). I needed to let my "understanding" of Gods go and focus on the matter at hand. It seems obvious now but I've a habit of getting caught up in the tid-bits that don't even apply (you've undoubtedly already noticed).

Thanks for that turn.gif .

bobgtafan
  • bobgtafan

    The last thing you never see

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2009

#49

Posted 23 April 2009 - 10:14 PM

Creation. Don't care what you belevie. Don't care if you care what I beleive. Thats what I think and it will never change. Just like yours probably won't.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#50

Posted 24 April 2009 - 03:19 AM

QUOTE (bobgtafan @ Apr 23 2009, 17:14)
Creation. Don't care what you belevie. Don't care if you care what I beleive. Thats what I think and it will never change. Just like yours probably won't.

Okey dokey then.

Honestly it seems the only way creationists can argue their belief is by looking at tiny flaws in evolution, they can never actually bring facts to the table themselves but the bible.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#51

Posted 24 April 2009 - 03:57 AM

Creationism is a belief. Belief requires no facts. It also makes it fairly useless, but to ask someone to bring facts to prove Creationism is to completely miss the point.

That, by the way, goes more to the Creationists themselves, who keep trying to find facts to prove creationism. Stop it. You look like idiots.

JOSEPH X
  • JOSEPH X

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2008

#52

Posted 24 April 2009 - 04:10 PM

QUOTE (K^2 @ Apr 20 2009, 13:48)
However, there is still a problem of reducing complexity of a living cell. We don't know anything simpler than a bacterium,

A virus is simpler than a bacterium. What I find interesting about theories of life before cellular organisms is the concept of RNA World where the replicating molecules existed without the need for cell walls, and that`s all that is needed really to begin the process. Natural selection works on the phenotypes of these molecules and evolution occurs, if complexity of the phenotype is beneficial to the survival of these molecules then of course they will survive.

Creationists cannot see or understand this simple yet beautiful concept because they don`t want to see or understand it. Then again, understanding is not detrimental to the survival of these molecules as they pass through human bodies so religion creationism and other fallacies prevail.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#53

Posted 24 April 2009 - 06:54 PM

QUOTE (K^2 @ Apr 23 2009, 22:57)
who keep trying to find facts to prove creationism. Stop it. You look like idiots.

Excellent point

JOSEPH X
  • JOSEPH X

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2008

#54

Posted 25 April 2009 - 11:31 PM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Apr 24 2009, 18:54)
QUOTE (K^2 @ Apr 23 2009, 22:57)
who keep trying to find facts to prove creationism. Stop it. You look like idiots.

Excellent point

Yeah, why let facts get in the way of serious delusion. haha

Dragonex100
  • Dragonex100

    I run this town! Me!

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2009

#55

Posted 13 May 2009 - 12:57 AM

Yeah, evolution is pretty much a given fact. I believe in god, I just don't believe he said "Poof" and everything was te way it is now.

sellafield
  • sellafield

    Tschernobyl, Harrisburg, Sellafield, Hiroshima.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 23 May 2009

#56

Posted 22 June 2009 - 08:29 PM

The universe can be explained up to one point.Then when you aske when did all of this happen and where did it all come from is unexplainable.
That's why I think there's someone behind this.God created something from nothing.We can't understand that because we aren't like God.

And yeah, most of the things in the Bible are crap.But there is actually a God but not exactly as described in the Bible.

08LasVenturas
  • 08LasVenturas

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2008

#57

Posted 04 September 2009 - 11:34 PM

I believe in God and Creationism, but I believe that there are enough facts to support Evolution. IMO, I have no clue what to believe.

The Big Boom Theory states that the earth randomly just appeared in a boom of gases, and changed over time. But the Bible states that every creature was created on the exact same day out of scratch.

Both seem flawed. I believe that the Bible has most of the right ideas, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was exaggerated. I think all religions and beliefs have some of the truth, but no single theory or belief is 100% correct.

nlitement
  • nlitement

    Pare mou mia pipa

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 May 2005

#58

Posted 19 September 2009 - 04:24 PM

QUOTE (08LasVenturas @ Sep 5 2009, 01:34)
The Big Boom Theory states that the earth randomly just appeared in a boom of gases, and changed over time.

I've never heard of this "Big Boom theory", but it sounds pretty silly.

However, I don't see why creationists always think that evolution is related to abiogenesis. The creationism vs. evolution debate is about humans, not life.

bobgtafan
  • bobgtafan

    The last thing you never see

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2009

#59

Posted 20 September 2009 - 02:13 AM

God created cells and after evolution ( when humans evolued into well humans) he give us a soul. The end to the debate.

uNi
  • uNi

    Feroci

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 14 May 2004
  • United-Kingdom
  • Best Official Gang 2014 [Feroci]

#60

Posted 20 September 2009 - 12:21 PM

It's pretty wonderfull thinking that someone went to the trouble of creating everything you see, I was there like 10 years ago. Then I tried actually thinking by myself and it sounds kinda different now.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users