My OperaYou need to be logged in to post in the forums. If you do not have an account, please sign up first.
Creationism vs. Evolution
What is your view on this topic? I am an evolutionist/atheist. I think that creationism is a load of junk, as there is zero evidence and many contridictions.
Please Vote: Your view
| Option | Results | Votes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evolution |  |
63% | 148 |
| Creationism | |
27% | 64 |
| Other | |
10% | 23 |
| Total number of votes: | 235 | ||
Hmm... this topic is debated here... http://my.opera.com/community/forums/search.dml?term=&tag=&username=Bantay&exactusername=Y&mode=forum&submit=+search+&id=57&datemodifier=newer&limitdate=365&sortby=rel&disp=thread
[THE WISDOM OF MERLYN by WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT]
Originally posted by Wael Ch:
Evolution, Darwin, atheist Creationism
Evolution, Darwin and atheism are not needed to demonstrate conclusively that young earth creationism is bogus. A religious fantasy. Dumb.
Originally posted by sgunhouse:
I'm not a Catholic, but I agree wholeheartedly.I'm a Catholic - which means I believe in evolution. Just to point out that the question really isn't science versus Christianity, but science versus Biblical literalists.
It seems to me that creationism/ID is a belief system, but it doesn't seem that evolutionary science is.
Hence, it seems to me that the word "believe" doesn't mean the same thing in the two instances.
Originally posted by EJ902:
Evolution. I think that the bible isn't to be taken literally at all points, and a lot of Christians believe in evolution. I think the pope said something like "It's alright to believe in evolution as long as you remember only God can create the human soul".
Well, you know that that means they aren't true Christians. You can't be a Christian, believe everything in the Bible, and believe in everything tha God does and has done, if you don't even believe in the fact that He created everything, and we didn't evolve from anything.
Originally posted by G-off:
Well, you know that that means they aren't true Christians.
Depending on your interpretation of what being a 'true christian' means....is that such a bad thing?
Originally posted by G-off:
And by such ways of thinking are Inquisitions made. Sorry.Originally posted by EJ902:
Evolution. I think that the bible isn't to be taken literally at all points, and a lot of Christians believe in evolution. I think the pope said something like "It's alright to believe in evolution as long as you remember only God can create the human soul".
Well, you know that that means they aren't true Christians. You can't be a Christian, believe everything in the Bible, and believe in everything tha God does and has done, if you don't even believe in the fact that He created everything, and we didn't evolve from anything.
Originally posted by jbrother37:
Are those my only choices?
It seems to me that creationism/ID is a belief system, but it doesn't seem that evolutionary science is.
Hence, it seems to me that the word "believe" doesn't mean the same thing in the two instances.
Nah, you are right.. one is science... the other is faith, two topics and non-interchangeable context.... Thats what ID tries to haze.
[THE WISDOM OF MERLYN by WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT]
Originally posted by wschnell:
I believe in Solipsism.
Me, too. Sorry to say that you don't believe anything because there is no you.
Originally posted by cfellows:
I believe evolution is the method/tool used to create. But then there would have to be a creator, wouldn't there?
If you have to see it to beleive it, where's the faith?
Mine or yours?
You don't appear to understand the difference between evolutionary science and "creation." Using them in the same sentence can create confusion aplenty.
Originally posted by Ivegottheskill:
There does seem to be more physical evidence (current and ancient) to support evolution at this point in time
There is no evidence.
Originally posted by G-off:
There is no evidence.
There is more visible evidence in favour of evolution than there is in the theory of electricity. Do you believe in electricity?
Originally posted by G-off:
Originally posted by Ivegottheskill:
There does seem to be more physical evidence (current and ancient) to support evolution at this point in time
There is no evidence.
Ah, you haven't been to school, or read anything about it, then.
Originally posted by G-off:
Originally posted by Ivegottheskill:
There does seem to be more physical evidence (current and ancient) to support evolution at this point in time
There is no evidence.
So, here's some evidence you can go look at for yourself. Go to some fossil beds and observe the type of fossils found at various depths. Notice how less complex organisms are in the older layers. Notice how some of the older fossils are of organisms that are no longer alive. See how some of the fossils in the younger layers are not represented in the lower layers.
26. February 2007, 19:56:29 (edited)
I don't know about the rest of you but I do know that I was made in God's image and the main problem is that no one wants to be held accountable for their actions or rather afraid that if they believe in God they know they will have to face the music, so to speak. And when it's all said and done, there will be hell to pay. Learn the real truth at http://www.familyradio.com and may the Lord richly bless you. Originally posted by VR¡T¥.423:
who try to discredit God's word
Which one of 'his' words? There have been so many different variants. Enlighten me. Which bibel do you read?
Originally posted by aefields:
Originally posted by G-off:
Originally posted by Ivegottheskill:
There does seem to be more physical evidence (current and ancient) to support evolution at this point in time
There is no evidence.
So, here's some evidence you can go look at for yourself. Go to some fossil beds and observe the type of fossils found at various depths. Notice how less complex organisms are in the older layers. Notice how some of the older fossils are of organisms that are no longer alive. See how some of the fossils in the younger layers are not represented in the lower layers.
That does nothing but tell me that there were animals that died. There's nothing in your post that says anything about a species turning into another species over time.
garydenness: There is no visible evidence. If you think that there is, please. Show me.
Originally posted by G-off:
garydenness: There is no visible evidence. If you think that there is, please. Show me.
No visile evidence? Which hole have you been....never mind.
Once upon a time christians believed that we were all made by god in his shape, animals and all. Evolution? No! We are exactly as 'designed'. I'll leave change of species alone for a moment. A number of species of animals, when introduced into a non native environment, or having had non native species introduced into their environment have been observed to evolve. A famous case of a frog eating snake has been well documented. Within 70 years its head shape and general size had altered so much so as to be unrecognisable from its predecessor. The cause...natural selection. This also demonstrated that the second law of thermodynamics, often cited by christian fundies as proof evolution through natural selection was impossible, was irrelevant.
Fundies were then forced to concede, but split evolution into micro and macro states.... :yawn:
Nonetheless, ample proof that evolution does exist is there for you to see if you wish. It is also proof that christianity and the bible are fundamentally flawed. Notice the centuries of backtracking, re-interpretation and general denial of the obvious.
But you too are too far down the brainwashed cycle of the church to accept the reality of science and evolution.
Originally posted by G-off:
Originally posted by aefields:
Originally posted by G-off:
Originally posted by Ivegottheskill:
There does seem to be more physical evidence (current and ancient) to support evolution at this point in time
There is no evidence.
So, here's some evidence you can go look at for yourself. Go to some fossil beds and observe the type of fossils found at various depths. Notice how less complex organisms are in the older layers. Notice how some of the older fossils are of organisms that are no longer alive. See how some of the fossils in the younger layers are not represented in the lower layers.
That does nothing but tell me that there were animals that died. There's nothing in your post that says anything about a species turning into another species over time.
It also tells you that there were animals that didn't exist, and then existed later. What is your theory on how that happened? What is your theory on why humans only show up recently in the billions of years recorded in stone?
Now Gary, that frog eating snake you spoke about? If the basis of evolution is that it takes millions of years, how could this snake change shape so rapidly? This seems to be simple genetic mutation, more than likely caused by some nuclear or radioactive material. That is not an unknown effect of radiation exposure.
There are no flaws in the Bible. Your own beliefs are just getting in the way of yourself realizing that. Maybe, if you actually read it for once, without the fear of it burning you once you touched it, you'd realize all of this.
AE: You said
"It also tells you that there were animals that didn't exist, and then existed later. What is your theory on how that happened? What is your theory on why humans only show up recently in the billions of years recorded in stone?"
Where did you get "also" from? There is no "also" about it. It didn't show me what you attempted to prove. As for animals that existed at one point, then existed later, there is always that possibility that the bodies of those that were alive at the time, during your "interval", can simply be found somewhere else.
Originally posted by G-off:
AE: You said
"It also tells you that there were animals that didn't exist, and then existed later. What is your theory on how that happened? What is your theory on why humans only show up recently in the billions of years recorded in stone?"
Where did you get "also" from? There is no "also" about it. It didn't show me what you attempted to prove. As for animals that existed at one point, then existed later, there is always that possibility that the bodies of those that were alive at the time, during your "interval", can simply be found somewhere else.
Maybe you misread. I didn't ask about "animals that existed at one point, then existed later," I asked about animals that did not exist before, and which showed up later.
Originally posted by G-off:
Gary, may I call you Gary? I will anyway.
May I call you bozo?
Originally posted by G-off:
Now Gary, that frog eating snake you spoke about? If the basis of evolution is that it takes millions of years, how could this snake change shape so rapidly? This seems to be simple genetic mutation, more than likely caused by some nuclear or radioactive material. That is not an unknown effect of radiation exposure.
And how exactly does that contradict evolution / natural selection? Besides that - 'If the basis of evolution is that it takes millions of years' - well, it isn't. There goes your 'argument'.
Originally posted by G-off:
There are no flaws in the Bible. Your own beliefs are just getting in the way of yourself realizing that. Maybe, if you actually read it for once, without the fear of it burning you once you touched it, you'd realize all of this.
Yeah, reality must be wrong then
Originally posted by G-off:
Originally posted by aefields:
"It also tells you that there were animals that didn't exist, and then existed later. What is your theory on how that happened? What is your theory on why humans only show up recently in the billions of years recorded in stone?"
Where did you get "also" from? There is no "also" about it. It didn't show me what you attempted to prove. As for animals that existed at one point, then existed later, there is always that possibility that the bodies of those that were alive at the time, during your "interval", can simply be found somewhere else.
There must have been an awful lot of now-extinct species around on creation time and it must have been a hell of a job to hide all their remains for millions of years.
Or do you believe in 6 days, 6000 years ago?
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by G-off:
Gary, may I call you Gary? I will anyway.
I prefer God. Is that a problem? At least I am here in some form of reality
Originally posted by G-off:
Now Gary, that frog eating snake you spoke about? If the basis of evolution is that it takes millions of years, how could this snake change shape so rapidly? This seems to be simple genetic mutation, more than likely caused by some nuclear or radioactive material. That is not an unknown effect of radiation exposure.
You would like it to be so. I suggest more research on your part. Evolution on this level is known and observed fact. The snake in question had a large non native frog introduced into it´s habitat. Which would have been good news for the snake, except the frog was poisonous. The smaller built snakes, and those with smaller heads were unable to eat the frog and survived. And bred. Smaller and smaller. No radiation. No genetic mutations. Evolution. There are numerous examples of rapid, low level evolutionary steps that have been observed and documented.
Takes millions of years? You have in one swift stroke explained that evolution was taught to you by a fundamentalist christian. I suggest further reading on your part.
Originally posted by G-off:
There are no flaws in the Bible. Your own beliefs are just getting in the way of yourself realizing that. Maybe, if you actually read it for once, without the fear of it burning you once you touched it, you'd realize all of this.
There are countless flaws in the bibel. You´d have to be blind or utterly brainwashed not to see them. I suggest as a first step investigating the translation of the bibel. Do you also believe the earth is flat by the way. After all, Jesus was taken to the top of a mountain and shown all four corners of the earth. Which bits don´t you believe about the bibel?
Incidentally, I´ve had the joy. I would estimate that throughout my school life I read the bibel at least twice. Even at age 7, despite my belief at the time (brainwashing) I could see the gaping holes.
26. February 2007, 23:57:04 (edited)
Originally posted by sgunhouse:
I'm a Catholic - which means I believe in evolution. Just to point out that the question really isn't science versus Christianity, but science versus Biblical literalists.
The Catholic church does not have an issue with evolution. We don't believe in biblical literalism. As Catholics we do believe that the soul is created by God.
Originally posted by garydenness:
There are countless flaws in the bibel. You´d have to be blind or utterly brainwashed not to see them. I suggest as a first step investigating the translation of the bibel. Do you also believe the earth is flat by the way. After all, Jesus was taken to the top of a mountain and shown all four corners of the earth. Which bits don´t you believe about the bibel?
Its just a way of saying that in one vision he was shown the whole world. At that time scholars knew the world was round.
Originally posted by G-off:
If the basis of evolution is that it takes millions of years, how could this snake change shape so rapidly? This seems to be simple genetic mutation, more than likely caused by some nuclear or radioactive material. That is not an unknown effect of radiation exposure.
Evolution places no time scheme on change. The speed of evolution is controlled by the selection pressures placed on the individuals of a species by their environment - which may include temperature changes, geological upheaval, or the success or failure of other species. 'Other species' in this case could be available prey, competing predators, etc. The extreme case is that of artificial selection, where absolute selection pressure is applied, resulting in massive physical changes in just a few generations.
Strong radiation exposure produces very random effects, and is unlikely to ever produce the consistent changes necessary for a stable population like the one that Gary described. Gary's snake population is an example of mild artificial selection - the two species would never have crossed paths otherwise, and they would not have affected each other's development.
It's worth pointing out that our Earth is notable for long periods of geological stasis, followed by massive upheaval - exactly the sort of conditions that stimulate rapid selection pressures.
Originally posted by G-off:
There are no flaws in the Bible. Your own beliefs are just getting in the way of yourself realizing that. Maybe, if you actually read it for once, without the fear of it burning you once you touched it, you'd realize all of this.
I was brought up with the Bible, and studied it for many years. It's a very important piece of historical literature.
Originally posted by G-off:
As for animals that existed at one point, then existed later, there is always that possibility that the bodies of those that were alive at the time, during your "interval", can simply be found somewhere else.
Maybe. But until these mysterious fossils appear, we have to work with what we have. And I have to say, what we have is astonishingly consistent.
Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:
I agree with Barth, who once said that Fundamentalist Protestants make of the Bible a "paper Pope". Fundamentalists don't seem to grasp that the "revelation of God" in the Bible is in itself an evolutionary process. First, Yahweh as tribal God of Israel, among the many other gods, the existence of which other gods is not denied. One God for one people. Then, gradually by the time of Isaiah, Jeremiah and other prophets, the idea that there is one God, period.
Originally posted by G-off:
There are no flaws in the Bible. Your own beliefs are just getting in the way of yourself realizing that. Maybe, if you actually read it for once, without the fear of it burning you once you touched it, you'd realize all of this.
I was brought up with the Bible, and studied it for many years. It's a very important piece of historical literature.
Originally posted by BernG:
Its just a way of saying that in one vision he was shown the whole world. At that time scholars knew the world was round.
So this one isn't to be taken literally? Why not this one, and yet other equally wacky messages are to be taken literally?
Originally posted by fanfaron:
Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:
I agree with Barth, who once said that Fundamentalist Protestants make of the Bible a "paper Pope". Fundamentalists don't seem to grasp that the "revelation of God" in the Bible is in itself an evolutionary process. First, Yahweh as tribal God of Israel, among the many other gods, the existence of which other gods is not denied. One God for one people. Then, gradually by the time of Isaiah, Jeremiah and other prophets, the idea that there is one God, period.
Originally posted by G-off:
There are no flaws in the Bible. Your own beliefs are just getting in the way of yourself realizing that. Maybe, if you actually read it for once, without the fear of it burning you once you touched it, you'd realize all of this.
I was brought up with the Bible, and studied it for many years. It's a very important piece of historical literature.
That's the evolution of thought. And there were no "other gods". The Bible is referencing the idols, ie: statues, drawings, carvings, etc, that people worshipped and thought could actually help them.
27. February 2007, 03:34:35 (edited)
Originally posted by G-off:
So do you agree that thought evolves in the Bible? And in parts of the Torah, as well as in some passages in the Psalms (specific references later, if you like), it is taken for granted that other gods do exist; the Hebrews (and later, Israel) are simply not to meddle with them but to adhere to their own tribal God, Yahweh. One of the great things about the Bible (to me) is that it doesn't show the complete uniformity of thought that the "literal inspirationists" would want it to have. It's far richer than that, detractors aside.Originally posted by fanfaron:
I agree with Barth, who once said that Fundamentalist Protestants make of the Bible a "paper Pope". Fundamentalists don't seem to grasp that the "revelation of God" in the Bible is in itself an evolutionary process. First, Yahweh as tribal God of Israel, among the many other gods, the existence of which other gods is not denied. One God for one people. Then, gradually by the time of Isaiah, Jeremiah and other prophets, the idea that there is one God, period.
That's the evolution of thought. And there were no "other gods". The Bible is referencing the idols, ie: statues, drawings, carvings, etc, that people worshipped and thought could actually help them.
Evolution of thought is different from physical evolution.
Originally posted by G-off:
That's the evolution of thought. And there were no "other gods". The Bible is referencing the idols, ie: statues, drawings, carvings, etc, that people worshipped and thought could actually help them.
'Thou shalt have no other gods before me' makes absolutely no sense if there are no other gods.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
27. February 2007, 09:41:32 (edited)
Originally posted by G-off:
Again gods as in figures, statues. Money could be considered one. Things that are (pretty much) worshipped.
So "I am the lord thy god" refers to figures, statues, money etc. ?
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by garydenness:
Originally posted by BernG:
Its just a way of saying that in one vision he was shown the whole world. At that time scholars knew the world was round.
So this one isn't to be taken literally? Why not this one, and yet other equally wacky messages are to be taken literally?
Depends what religious group you belong to. Catholic belief is that the bible should not be taken literally. The scriptures are words written by men under the guidance and inspiration of the holy spirit.
But there are issues with the Catholic church. They're very hung up on the evils of homosexuality since its heavily condemned in scripture. Yet other condemned things are now allowed or not paid attention to - we no longer recommend that Sabbath violators be put to death.
Plus the church has this hang up about priests getting married even though the apostles and the first pope were. And Paul did not have a problem with marriage. In Titus he stated that - "appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious". The church also has the eastern rite - where their priests are allowed to marry.
Go figure.
Originally posted by G-off:
Again gods as in figures, statues. Money could be considered one. Things that are (pretty much) worshipped.
Nonsense. I've heard this theory before, but it makes no sense at all. Money is not a god.
Blog: http://douglaseryan.wordpress.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/Douglas_E_Ryan
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/douglas.ryan2
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
Denis Diderot
If geiger counter does not click, the coffee, she is just not thick - Pitr Dubovich
GAT d- s: a C++++ UB+ P L++
Should one not value the spirit of the belief over the words in the book?
Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:
If money and statuary can be considered 'things' that can be 'worshipped as gods', then does the worship of a book not come under the same heading?
Should one not value the spirit of the belief over the words in the book?
The words in the book come from God, written into book form by men who were doing God's will, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So it's not worshipping the book. It's learning and doing what God wants us to do, according to his Word.
People have worshipped money before, by putting money before their loved ones, doing anything for it etc. They don't pray to it or anything, usually, but that's what it's considered as. Idol worship.
"I am the Lord thy God" doesn't reference any other "gods". I don't know where you go that idea. It's the Lord stating that He is God. No mention of any other gods, because there aren't any other ones.
Gary, why don't you back up your claims of flaws in the Bible, rather than just saying that there are some? Name one. Please, I'd like to know.
Originally posted by aefields:
Originally posted by G-off:
Originally posted by aefields:
So, here's some evidence you can go look at for yourself. Go to some fossil beds and observe the type of fossils found at various depths. Notice how less complex organisms are in the older layers. Notice how some of the older fossils are of organisms that are no longer alive. See how some of the fossils in the younger layers are not represented in the lower layers.
That does nothing but tell me that there were animals that died. There's nothing in your post that says anything about a species turning into another species over time.
It also tells you that there were animals that didn't exist, and then existed later. What is your theory on how that happened? What is your theory on why humans only show up recently in the billions of years recorded in stone?
I really am curious as to how people who don't believe in evolution interpret this. No mammal fossils older than 195 million years. No human fossils older than 200,000 years. Etc. There are many plants and animals which didn't exist in the past that do exist today. Where do you think they came from? Did God decide to add them to the planet later, and whip them up from scratch?
Originally posted by G-off:
Gary, why don't you back up your claims of flaws in the Bible, rather than just saying that there are some? Name one. Please, I'd like to know.
Sure. I have done many times before. What came first...plants, animals then humans or humans, plants then animals? You can find both in the bible!
Who was Jesus paternal grandfather) Or the father of Joseph, for the virgin birth believers! Heli or Jacob? You can find both.
Do you really need the inconsistencies in the bible listed? It starts from page one and continues to the last page. Have you never investigated the translation of the bibel? Go search the internet, or do you really need me to paste them all here? Thing is, Opera have only so much free space on their servers...
PS. You've gone quiet on evolution
Originally posted by aefields:
I really am curious as to how people who don't believe in evolution interpret this. No mammal fossils older than 195 million years. No human fossils older than 200,000 years. Etc. There are many plants and animals which didn't exist in the past that do exist today. Where do you think they came from? Did God decide to add them to the planet later, and whip them up from scratch?
A certain user came up with a guess in one of the earlier threads, but I'll not repeat it yet so that others can post their own ideas.
Originally posted by G-off:
"I am the Lord thy God" doesn't reference any other "gods".
Nobody said so. That came from "thou shat have no other gods before me".
Originally posted by G-off:
I don't know where you go that idea.
Read the thread. A few posts ago you still knew.
Originally posted by G-off:
It's the Lord stating that He is God. No mention of any other gods, because there aren't any other ones.
And the whole verse says...?
Originally posted by G-off:
Gary, why don't you back up your claims of flaws in the Bible, rather than just saying that there are some? Name one. Please, I'd like to know.
Tell me, did Noah have galapagos penguins on his ark? And jaguars? Siberian tigers? Tasmanian devils?
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Showing topic replies 1 - 50 of 1022.