Debate? This doesn't seem like a Debate post. Actually it seems a lot like advertising and religious recruitment. Advertising is not welcome here. I can only speak for myself, but religious recruitment seems inappropriate as well. If you want to post in the debate section, please try to argue logically for your position. Do not post advertisements trying to sell to vulnerable minds.
Humans evolved to fill a certain niche in the environment. They had beneficial traits that enabled to survive and fulfill that role better than most other organisms. However, we are obviously different than monkeys. Because of that, monkeys are suited to fulfill a different niche than we are. Basically, since we did not perform the same role in our environment, we did not crowd monkeys out, and thus they still survived.
ah dont worry about, it's a debate alright and that's my side i'm sharing with you guys. i dont have to attack you to share my side of things, eh but nice understanding and thoughts you got there. the debate is between creationism and evolution and i'm giving you my support for creationism and that's that. it's crystal clear now.
i dont believe in the upholding of man. we EVOLVED and eventually became the supreme beings on the planet. and on the side of global warming, to imagine that the earth is so fragile that we has man can ALTER it, is placing us in a much higher position than the planet. the earth is not fragile, and keep in mind, the more scientists work through things, and learn, the more they realize they dont know very much. Global warming is just a hypothesis, and evolution is the escalation of man, to a point where its almost funny. why cant our origin be humble, under the creation of a just and loving God? instead, we have, "and then the cell became a 2 celled organism, eventually becoming a fish, and then the fish washed up on land and grew feet, then it got really hairy, then smart, lost all of its hair and here we are! look how far weve come!" im really not trying to be mean or a jerk, its just, man is pretty impresive, but not THAT impressive. i can never talk about global warming of evolution without getting a little frustrated, ill stay here, but just understand that to me the truth is very obvious, and ill make sure to see both ends before coming to a decision. i respect all of your opinions, and i will speak to anyone who would like a conversation over any subject, Religious or not. thank you for your time.
its faith man, if he came out of the sky and said "here i am" then everyone would believe in him. your expecting too much of him. its because we have no proof in Him that he respects us to put something higher than ourselves into our daily thinking. and please dont flame the guy, hes actually making perfect sense. like i said its called "Faith".
Here is the evolution process that I believed happen. I learned a lot about Taxonomy yesterday in Biology class. We started with the **** Genus and went all the way back to unicellular organisms. The earliest living things had no jaws, swam, and laid eggs. Then, slowly, these water creatures slowly developed jaws. After a long time, some of these water organisms started depending less on water and became what we know today as amphibians. They had jaws and still laid eggs; but their eggs are fragile and need water to survive. Then some amphibians evolved into reptiles. They can now live on land, and laid hard eggs that did not need water. Anyways, let me fast forward here to the Primatae group. We had old world monkeys, which some of them evolved into new world monkeys, then apes, then a group of apes evolved into the **** genus which are our ancestors. All of the **** genus is extinct except for Homosapiens; us.
Humans didn't evolve from monkeys or apes, we all evolved from a common ancestor. Creation, and religion in general, is not humble at all. In fact its pretty much a perfect example of how humans are so desperate to believe they are more significant than they truly are.
Well, I'm just saying that evolution has an incredible amount of evidence behind it. At this point it has become nearly impossible to come up with any evidence to the contrary. I actually believe in God, but I believe that He made the universe to follow a set of rules. That includes the world and life being made by natural processes. Besides, it wasn't like we were just some slimy thing that popped out of the water. The fact that we have developed so well that we can thrive better than any other animal on Earth seems to mean something. Besides, why would we need such special, grand origins? We may have dominion over other animals, but we're still animals ourselves. Getting all high and mighty just seems a little... prideful.
"There are 1 to 1.5 million species on Earth. Plants don't grow on ships. Animals would kill each other. A flood doesn't create layers, floods are water not ash." ---------------------------------------------------- Mount Saint Hellens is a volcano. Dirt + water + sun = plant. Yes. They can. If God could get every created kind into a boat, he could probably keep them from eating each other. The flood waters washed mud from hills into other areas, creating layers.
1- As much as I think aliens are cool, the odds of other life developing somewhere else are just as bad. 2- Those things can develope proteins now because it's within their genetic coding. In the beginning, there was no previous data. Here: When amino acids form proteins, they must combine in a chain in a single order. If this order is wrong, the protein would not be alive. There are one hundred something letter combinations needed to creat this protein. Take this odd (very slim), and make it 1,000 times slimmer. 3- Irreducably complex things usually have 100 components, only 60 would be open to come out over time. The other 40 are completely new. 4- Carbon dating is extremely inacurrate past a time of 5,000 years. 5- Like I said, the evidence that hasn't been proven wrong fits on a pool table. You're evidence (and 90% of textbook evidence) has been proven wrong, but just used as examples.
To stop further arguments: micro-evolution is a proven, and accepted by Christians. (Would every single species fit on the boat the Bible describes if they started off different species?). Micro-evolution is contained in our DNA. Macro-evolution is not. Please do not use micro-evolution as an example for evolution.
No. We can use Micro-Evolution. We are talking about creation v Evolution. Not What christians beleive and what everyone else believes.
No you. Micro-evolution in no way substantiates the claims of Macro-evolution. The colors red and blue do not prove that purple exists, however purple can only exist if red and blue do. Also, if I as a creationist am telling you what I believe with respect to this argument who are you to tell me how I am supposed to discuss this issue?
Give us solid proof that creationism is right before you say that evolution cannot possibly be right. You can't prove that creationism exists by attempting to disprove evolution. To put it another way, you say that the ideas of evolution must be wrong because they cannot be proven, and then say creationism is right without proof- it's hypocritical.
Wow. This is getting a little sad. There have been so many good quotes on the evolution and neutral side, yet none on the religious side. I love the fact that somebody here believes that someone, or something created the big bang. It is taking everything that we can almost prove down to the one thing we have no idea about, and placing god in there. Bravo.
By that logic, if 1+1 does not equal 3 then you prove it equals two, since it can't equal anything else!
Exactly. I have noticed a certain trend in these creation vs evolution discussions - Creationists arguing to disprove the scientific basis of evolution. It seems to be assumed that once evolution is theoretically disproved then creationism is the only answer. But I have not yet seen an actual logical argument backing up creationism as a standalone theory. The religious basis for creationism is precedent, scripture and religious dogma, and it seems to me as if people are now trying to tack on scientific reasoning in an attempt to defend a theory that has no scientific basis. If someone could actually put forward a standalone theory, method and basis of proof in favour of creation then an actual discussion could take place. But creationism is being put forward as a scientific alternative to evolution with nothing to back it up, and then people try to criticise evolution as a theory through scientific argument. It seems like a pretty harsh double standard to me seeing as no one has actually put forward a reasonable explanation of how creationism works within the bounds of science. I'm not trying to say that science is better than religion as a way to evaluate the universe (its my personal perspective, but I don't claim to know that its better than any other), but if you're going to try and argue science against evolution, then take a look at your own theory and evaluate it in the same way.