# Temp Debates #9



## Deleted User (Sep 10, 2010)

*Religion. Coming in the next TD#10*

*Debate 9 *Evolution or creation: how did human beings come about?​*How to debate*


Spoiler



We will be debating about a question, make your point heard.
If the question is: *Can we live without air?*

*A response can be:* No, because air sustains life.
*Another can be:* No, that point is wrong because we can live on Oxygen alone, not air.
*Another can be:* No, because plants need CO2 which is in air to live, and without plants, we would die.
^ I love this debate fail...

and so on.
OK.

You will find today's debate title at the top of this post/in the topic description. Happy debating! I am impartial to this and will ignore the posts I have made to count the final score, as they were made *solely to get the debate up and running*. I will judge which side has won at the end, however will join the debate.

The debate will last as long as I think it should last








Previous Debates


Spoiler



Can we live without modern technology? The 'Temp says *we can*.
Will the world end in 2012? The 'Temp says '*fuck no*'.
Genetic/DNA Manipulation on humans. Should it be legal in the UK? The 'Temp thinks that *it should be legal*
Media Censorship? Protective or Restrictive? The 'temp believes media censorship is *restrictive* - but only just!
Health and Safety laws. Protective or restrictive? *Protective*, 13 to 7
Cannabis (plant) should be legalized. Oh really? The 'temp says *yes*, 21 to 8, but it's use should be enforced like tobacco.
Medical Research on animals. Does it do more good than harm? *It does good.*
Should fascists be given a platform to speak? ~Suggested by TrolleyDave :*Yes, they should. 8 to 5.*

Evolution or creation: how did human beings come about?



Future Debates


Spoiler



...





*Description:*
This is simple. Touching on religion a bit, though, so I'm slightly sensitive about this one... Anyways. How did we come about? Were we created by God (or gods, depending on your religion), or did we evolve in accordance with Darwin. No description needed for this one. Suggest me some debates in the comments on my profile.

4034 -t9, uC 1TrolleyDave,20ddity, 3FAST 4Blood Fetish stat G


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 10, 2010)

I would say that we evolved without god, "in accordance with Darwin" as you say. But the question isn't mutually exclusive, we could have evolved "in accordance with god." It has to be one or the other though since there is incontrovertible evidence humans and all other living things evolved into their current state and continue to evolve.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Sep 10, 2010)

We evolved and were not in any way created by a God or a 'higher being' as some prefer to call it.

End of argument.

Also, for more information, read this and look for posts from J.T., GhostAnime, R. New, Tim the turtle, chuboy and natie (that's me!).


----------



## Magmorph (Sep 10, 2010)

Evolution says nothing about the origin of life.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Sep 10, 2010)

Life originated from a cell that started multiplying.

Or do you mean the way the universe came into existence?


----------



## Zarcon (Sep 10, 2010)

If the question was
"Evolution or Creation?"
Then it could easily be both. Something created the starting materials, things evolved from there.

But the question is
"Evolution or Creation: How did humans come about?"

The answer is pretty clear cut, there's plenty of evidence to suggest we evolved to this point, even if not all the evidence is there quite yet.


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 10, 2010)

Overlord Nadrian said:
			
		

> Life originated from a cell that started multiplying.
> 
> Or do you mean the way the universe came into existence?



He means evolution is not attempting to answer the question of how life developed, only the variation in species. The origin of life is called abiogenesis.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Sep 10, 2010)

Ah, the variation in species just exists because certain 0ddities of nature were strong enough to survive and started multiplying themselves, thus creating a wide array of different creatures.


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 10, 2010)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> started multiplying themselves



With variation 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (ie brown hair blonde hair etc) otherwise everything would be the same.


----------



## Sterling (Sep 10, 2010)

Not sure if I want to get into this one. I may have a crack at my own explanation, but I bet most of you know how I would post.


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 10, 2010)

Sterl500 said:
			
		

> Not sure if I want to get into this one. I may have a crack at my own explanation, but I bet most of you know how I would post.



Please do, you never know what you might learn.


----------



## RoMee (Sep 10, 2010)

until I see proof of a god, I'm gonna say we evolved

and I don't want to be the result of incest from adam and eve


----------



## Thoob (Sep 10, 2010)

There is just so much evidence to back up evolution, it's a fallacy some people can just ignore it.


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Sep 10, 2010)

Magmorph said:
			
		

> Evolution says nothing about the origin of life.This.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Evolution doesn't disprove God.

They aren't brother and sister.


----------



## Fudge (Sep 10, 2010)

Evolution.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Sep 10, 2010)

We were created somehow, that doesn't necessarily mean that a higher power did so.

But it has been proven that evolution is not just a theory. It happened, happens and will continue to happen.


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 10, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> We were created somehow, that doesn't necessarily mean that a higher power did so.
> 
> But it has been proven that evolution is not just a theory. It happened, happens and will continue to happen.



Evolution is just a theory, but that is not a mark against it, as in the scientific vernacular, theory does not mean the same thing as the layman term theory. Evolution is a theory in the same way the round earth is a theory, germs a theory, gravity is a theory, etc.


----------



## KingdomBlade (Sep 11, 2010)

_The universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws._
-Stephen Hawking

That is what I believe in. Something has to be the one to make something so elaborate, so perhaps, I believe Science and God intertwine in a certain way. God makes a law, and science is the law that he made. Possibly, God could have made a law about evolution, and the universe just follows it.


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 11, 2010)

KingdomBlade said:
			
		

> _The universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws._
> -Stephen Hawking
> 
> That is what I believe in. *Something has to be the one to make something so elaborate*, so perhaps, I believe Science and God intertwine in a certain way. God makes a law, and science is the law that he made. Possibly, God could have made a law about evolution, and the universe just follows it.



That is a cheap intellectual crutch. If you follow it through to its logical conclusion, if something had to create something as elaborate as the universe and its laws, then that creator itself must be as complex as the universe and itself require a creator, and it's creator must be at least as complex and require a creator, etcetera ad infinitum. However, this is moving more into debate #10 territory, lets stick with evolution vs. creationism.


----------



## ball2012003 (Sep 11, 2010)

Creation. Evolution just doesn't make any sense. A sea creature becomes a land creature, how the fuck is that possible, if according to science, evolution takes thousands of years, so how the hell is that sea creature gonna be on land for all that time to evolve if it needs to breath by water.


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 11, 2010)

ball2012003 said:
			
		

> Creation. Evolution just doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Are you being serious? It's hard to tell. I'm going to assume you are.
> 
> ...



Individuals don't evolve, populations do. This is a common misconception about evolution, and difficult to grasp if you don't understand evolution. Even so, I'd imagine something like this:

http://vimeo.com/3219092


----------



## _Chaz_ (Sep 11, 2010)

0ddity said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gravity is a law...


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Sep 11, 2010)

ball2012003 said:
			
		

> Creation. Evolution just doesn't make any sense. A sea creature becomes a land creature, how the fuck is that possible, if according to science, evolution takes thousands of years, so how the hell is that sea creature gonna be on land for all that time to evolve if it needs to breath by water.


That's incredibly ignorant of you to say.

A sea creature doesn't become a land creature overnight. It takes hundreds of thousands of years. Organisms have been around for millions of years. There's time.

They don't just stop swimming and start walking by the way. There's processes to it, such as droughts, earthquakes, volcanoes (forming land), shortage of food in water, gradually getting closer to the surface until finally leaving the surface somewhat (like an alligator or crocodile), the formation of gills shifting to lungs (like whales, which are perceived IIRC to be land creatures in the past. I think they'll evolve to have gills in the future), the formation of limbs, the loss of fins, vestigial organs, and that's just the stuff a sixteen year-old can think of off the top of his head. The list on how goes on, and on, and on.


----------



## monkat (Sep 11, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> 0ddity said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The theory of gravity entails one of four major powers, gravity, that control this universe - through that, we have created several laws to explain the world around us.


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 11, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> 0ddity said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gravity is a theory. The "law" of gravity is what we expect because of our experiments and knowledge of the theory. Modern gravitational theory is based on the understanding of the general theory of relativity. Before Einstein, it was based on the Newtonian theory.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 11, 2010)

ball2012003 said:
			
		

> Creation. Evolution just doesn't make any sense. A sea creature becomes a land creature, how the fuck is that possible, if according to science, evolution takes thousands of years, so how the hell is that sea creature gonna be on land for all that time to evolve if it needs to breath by water.


You shouldn't be against a theory if you don't understand it.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Sep 11, 2010)

flameiguana said:
			
		

> ball2012003 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KingdomBlade (Sep 11, 2010)

flameiguana said:
			
		

> ball2012003 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree... maybe you should have paid attention to science class.


----------



## RayJT9 (Sep 11, 2010)

Guys, it's a debate, not a "Jump down the creationist's throat" thread. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I agree with evolution purely because to disagree with it would be to completely ignore all of the ridiculously huge amounts evidence that has been provided in its favour.


----------



## monkat (Sep 11, 2010)

As far as the origin of life itself, in regards to intelligent design and what have you, I can't say. No one can say.

However, with evolution, we have an incredibly credible theory explaining where humans came from. Moreover, just look at a naked human. We are an incredibly bipedal naked ape.

Or in my case, not so naked.



Spoiler


----------



## Sterling (Sep 11, 2010)

KingdomBlade said:
			
		

> _The universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws._
> -Stephen Hawking
> 
> That is what I believe in. Something has to be the one to make something so elaborate, so perhaps, I believe Science and God intertwine in a certain way. God makes a law, and science is the law that he made. Possibly, God could have made a law about evolution, and the universe just follows it.


I absolutely love this post. Though the idea that the Creator is so complex that it would need a Creator makes some sense, it just seems to be a paradoxical question. Though if you look back to the beginning of time... No the before time. How could all the materials for the creation of an infinite universe just be there? How did all of it get there, and how long had it been sitting there? Nothing spawns nothing. If there was nothing, how did something come to pass. I was watching the science channel the other day, and one topic was the creation of the universe. There was a theory that was being broached about how the creation and destruction of the universe is a never ending cycle caused by the collision of two membranes. This shit just blows my mind, and the more I think about it the more I believe that some form of higher power exists. To me looking at all the theories being tossed about the fact remains that none of use have any idea how it happened. And until someone is able to beyond a doubt prove to me that there is no higher power, I will remain adamant on my position that the universe was created by a higher power. Also evolution is real. I have seen proof beyond a doubt that animals and creatures of all sorts adapt to survive, and even mutate to something similar but different at the same time.

EDIT: There should be an option to say nothing is concrete.


----------



## gifi4 (Sep 11, 2010)

We evolved from some other animals, it may have taken a _very _ long time but we did evolve, it is impossible for something to have created us, I don't beleive in god either but that has nothing to do with this as if there was a god, there would be no hobos/bums around, everyone would be happy and all that, anyway evolution has been proved and god has not, that is all.


----------



## Sterling (Sep 11, 2010)

gifi4 said:
			
		

> We evolved from some other animals, it may have taken a _very _ long time but we did evolve, it is impossible for something to have created us, I don't beleive in god either but that has nothing to do with this as if there was a god, there would be no hobos/bums around, everyone would be happy and all that, anyway evolution has been proved and god has not, that is all.


Evolution may be proven but the ideology of God has not been disproved either. Gonna take a second to preach a bit. When man first sinned and took a bite of the apple of knowledge, they now knew right from wrong. Which is why the world isn't a perfect place, because we humans ignore things like that. Not that it matters to you that I used the Bible.


----------



## KingdomBlade (Sep 11, 2010)

Yes, we most likely did evolve, but where did the things we evolve from come from? They could also have been created. That is where two ideas could intertwine and form this idea. This debate is not really true, as these ideas could possibly be very distinct depending on the understanding. The idea of creation for many, is spontaneous, like we just popped out of nowhere. But, it could be much more complex than that. Wouldn't that be possible? We could have evolved from something that was created in a way that was not spontaneous, but in a more.... how should I say it, graceful way? Maybe even a scientific way? Which God most likely decreed.


----------



## gifi4 (Sep 11, 2010)

Sterl500 said:
			
		

> gifi4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The bible was written by humans, that means that it could all just be fake. (No disrespect meant to religious people)
Oh and I forgot to add, if the Adam and Eve story is true, how are there asians, blacks,whites, etc. (NOT BEING RACIST)


----------



## injected11 (Sep 11, 2010)

I whole-heartedly believe we've evolved from something.

From what exactly, is what I've been thinking about a little lately after my friend told me he believed in creationism, then explained why he thought that. He believes that intelligent life found our planet, rich in natural resources and already rich with living organisms, humans not being among them. The intelligent life then used genetic engineering to create a new species, mixing some of their own genetic material with those of Earth's apes to create a creature similar in form to themselves, but with diminished brain capacity so they could be used as a sort of slave species. This species was then left to propagate until it reached sufficient numbers, then was used to harvest many of Earth's natural resources (said this is why many ancient tribes valued gold and sought to accumulate it. Gold is a great conductor.) until the intelligent beings left the planet. We don't find evidence of their being here, because the most likely remnants we'd find would be tools, but we were the tools. From there, humans continued to develop and grow and here we are.

It doesn't sound quite right to me. I was kinda surprised though when a bunch of his ideas had logic behind them that didn't make me instantly think he was batshit crazy. Anyone wanna poke holes?


----------



## KingdomBlade (Sep 11, 2010)

gifi4 said:
			
		

> Sterl500 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's bullshit. Were did he get that idea? If there was anything remotely like that, then wouldn't we have discovered something that huge by now? Like a carbon footprint? Also, wouldn't they have either died because of Dinosaurs or because of the Meteor or the volcano or something? That's the theory of people who've read too much science fiction. Er.....ew.... also, he fantasizes about Aliens and Apes. We don't have alien chromosomes or anything. Wait until they finish the Genome project and show that to your friend.


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 11, 2010)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> From what exactly, is what I've been thinking about a little lately after my friend told me he believed in creationism, then explained why he thought that. He believes that intelligent life found our planet, rich in natural resources and already rich with living organisms, humans not being among them. The intelligent life then used genetic engineering to create a new species, *mixing some of their own genetic material with those of Earth's apes to create a creature similar in form to themselves*, but with diminished brain capacity so they could be used as a sort of slave species. This species was then left to propagate until it reached sufficient numbers, then was used to harvest many of Earth's natural resources (said this is why many ancient tribes valued gold and sought to accumulate it. Gold is a great conductor.) until the intelligent beings left the planet. We don't find evidence of their being here, because the most likely remnants we'd find would be tools, but we were the tools. From there, humans continued to develop and grow and here we are.



Nope. Endogenous retrovirus's and 23 chromosome pairs are good evidence refuting the above, and that we share ancestors with other great apes. You can't just splice genomes together and get fertile animals, you can cross breed very close species, and the best you can get is sterile cross breeds, for example, mules.

edit: fixed antonym


----------



## injected11 (Sep 11, 2010)

KingdomBlade said:
			
		

> That's bullshit. Were did he get that idea? If there was anything remotely like that, then wouldn't we have discovered something that huge by now? Like a carbon footprint?*What carbon footprint? Ours? He'd also argue that the pyramids could be argued as that footprint.* Also, wouldn't they have either died because of Dinosaurs or because of the Meteor or the volcano or something?*...the fuck?* That's the theory of people who've read too much science fiction. Er.....ew.... also, he fantasizes about Aliens and Apes. We don't have alien chromosomes or anything. Wait until they finish the Genome project and show that to your friend.


Naysaying for the sake of naysaying is dumb. Back up your points, please.


----------



## Terminator02 (Sep 11, 2010)

First of all, let's get this out of the way:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fossil record does not in ANY way PROVE that evolution is true, evolution is a THEORY
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A third impassible barrier to chance creation is the fossil record. Despite years of extreme, might we say "frantic", effort to find "missing links", none have ever come to light.

For example: the fossil evidence has long been distressing to evolution theory because it does not show the gradual change of life forms that evolution requires. What it shows is that a series of complex life-forms have appeared as the earth has progressed from supplying the bare necessities of life to an ability to support life at the present level. As the environment for the support of life has changed, new life-forms have suddenly appeared. Many earlier life forms became specialised and then became extinct.

Life-forms change within their kind, none can be realistically shown to have changed gradually into new kinds of life-forms.

Evolutionists claim that the fossil record is incomplete and imply that it is just a matter of time. In fact, all strata since the earliest time of life have been searched and the evidence is conclusive that there are none of the evolutionary missing links that chance evolution requires.

This is not to say that everything is known of the fossil record, but definitely, that enough is known to eliminate gradual evolution as a scientific theory.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As for the why is there evil arguement, I think Hercules Cummings explains it best (warning, long read):


Spoiler: Why does God allow Evil and Suffering?





EVIL AND SUFFERING

Probably one of the biggest hurdles for Christians and atheist is due to the insurmountable evil and incalculable suffering present in our world. We often hear and read the news about people tragically dying from an uncontrolled fire, a mother and her baby drowning, or innocent kids being murdered in school from an open fire. It's very difficult to imagine how God would allow all of this to exist much more blame him for not putting an end to this. It's even more difficult to reconcile how evil and God can both exist. When we look around it's not difficult to distinguish that evil is happening all the time and increasingly growing because we are affected by it everyday. The purpose of this is to discuss why evil and suffering exists and does it disprove God's existence? Before we discuss that, we must clearly define evil. Evil for once, is not a physical thing and in a sense, is not created. It's the absence of goodness. Evil is not some black shadowy cloud that lurks above us causing us to sin. It is like a donut hole. A donut hole isn't really a physical thing that exists but is due to the lack of matter in the middle of the donut. That condition exists when something is taken away. Cold is the absence of heat, dark is the absence of light, and sin is the absence of holiness. So evil is neither a physical thing nor a thing that God created. It is a condition due to sin. So since sin exists then can God exist? It's very common for someone to use the classical argument: God either is unwilling to prevent evil or unable to prevent evil because it exists? The popular thinking usually evolves to something like this:

1. God is all-powerful, loving, and perfect 
2. A perfect, loving God would create a universe that was perfect (e.g., no evil and suffering) 
3. The universe is not perfect but contains evil and suffering.

Therefore, God does not exist

Now a few problems posits with this claim. First and foremost, the presence of evil does not prove that God does not exist. Both can co-exist without contradicting each other. I want to illustrate that by stating the following:....

1. Barbers cut, style, and groom hair

2. There are people out there with shaggy and unclean hair.

3. Therefore barbers do not exist

See where I'm coming from? Just like messy hair, evil does not mean that God does not exist. Then one might take it to the next step and say, "Then why does God allow evil to happen and not stop it?" Now there posits another problem with this question and we will closely examine that. The answer lies with the concept of FREE WILL and misunderstanding of it. Free will is the most loving act of all and God is all love. We know that forced love is not real love. It's like forcing someone to marry someone at the altar. Now, is that real love? Of course it isn't.

So now let's go back to the answer. In order for God to stop all evil, he would have to interfere with one's own will. What if someone wanted to commit murder by their own free will? If God stopped them, He would then be violating His own love for us and His gift of Free Will. Let's take it a step back further- which evil then should God stop: some of it or all of it? Evil is evil no matter what shape, form, or degree including an evil thought. Evil actions are born from evil thoughts. In order for evil to not exist, God would have to program our minds to never think evil and remove our freedom of thought. Essentially we would be nothing more that robots with only one choice available: to make the right choice only! But once again, that wouldn't make us humans and that would not be authentic love. If you cause someone to make a specific choice than that choice is no longer free. God loved us so much that he gave us a choice to love Him back or not, to believe Him so or not.

Another problem with that is who is to say that God allowed all evil? You can prove this right now through a simple project. Look at a pen and pick it up....now was God responsible for you picking up that pen or did you make a choice and committed the action? It was all your choice. Part of evil that occurs is because of a self made choice. God didn't cause that guy to drink too much alcohol on a party Friday night and then caused him to drive home that resulted in killing someone by accident. It was entirely his choice and choices have a consequence of suffering or non-suffering.

Blaming God for someone's evil is like blaming parents for giving birth to their child that grew up and later on gave birth to another child that committed such an atrocity! So who is to blame: The parents, or their parents, or their parents? You might as well not have kids at all to prevent a potential suffering for them and for others in the future right?

If God is all powerful, then He would prefer to create a perfect world than a world full of evil...

Now, that is not necessarily true because of the hidden assumption and misunderstanding that the objector has made that an all powerful God can just create any possible world. All powerful does not mean you can do logical impossibilities such as create a round square. God is all good, all love. God can not sin and can not break His own promise. He never violates his own nature and grants us Free will. With free will comes the potential to choose evil. It is logically impossible to create a physical world with free will and not have the potential for sin to come into fruition. Even a beautiful hand-crafted vase has a potential to break and shatter but that doesn't mean that its created state isn't perfect. Furthermore, just because God didn't do something doesn't prove that He doesn't exist. If you didn't want to lift your left hand, does that mean you don't exist?

Inconsistency of the argument

If evil is evidence that God does not exist then the opposite has to be true. "If good exist, then God has to exist" right? That alone is not sufficient evidence and only proves that evil does not permit God from existing. Once again evil itself is not evidence that dismisses God's existence.

Why does God allow suffering?

A fallacy is that if all evil in the world was removed, there would only be good consequences. That is not necessarily true. We don't know that. But one should know that both pain and suffering is not all entirely bad. Another possibility is that God uses pain and suffering to help us grow and to forge us into excellence. For example: there comes a point where parents can no longer tend to their child's bruises and ouches, and that child must no grow and becomes tempered from mistakes, suffering, and growing pains. Virtue could not exist and have any value if evil did not exist. You can't be considered virtuous or moral unless you are tested with evil. Besides, if God removed all the pain and suffering in this world, we would all become spoiled brats having our own ways. C.S. Lewis puts it in this perspective: God is like a surgeon who operates on us and knows best on how to heal us. The entire surgical process is painful but we will be all right at the end. If God stopped in the middle of the surgery then all of that pain was in vain. Also, suffering and pain is sometimes necessary. Imagine a world where you never experienced pain. Every time you placed your hands above a flame you couldn't feel pain. You could burn to death. Finally, by definition, God has the attributes of all-knowing so He knows the final outcome and purpose as we are limited. We might not see the purpose for evil then and there or at all, but if God is all knowing and all loving, then He is in full control.

THE PERFECT CURE:

Based on what I have discussed so far, there is only 3 cures that could remedy evil and suffering in this world.

Cure 1: Eliminate mankind

Cure 2: Eliminate our ability to do evil

Cure 3: Provide us a way to be holy and give us the ability to do good thus eliminating or minimizing evil

I'm not going to further emphasize on cure 2, or even bring up cure #1. But I am going to leave it up to you to think about if cure #3 was already in motion.


----------



## Magmorph (Sep 11, 2010)

Sterl500 said:
			
		

> KingdomBlade said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How could all the materials that made the _finite_ universe not be there? There is no theory that the universe was ever nothing. Why do you assume that it was? If there was nothing how did God come to pass?


----------



## Sterling (Sep 11, 2010)

injected11 said:
			
		

> *What carbon footprint? Ours? He'd also argue that the pyramids could be argued as that footprint.*
> Maybe people back then were smarter than we give them credit for. Doesn't mean aliens helped build the Pyramids, all the Pyramids are is a burial place for a mortal that in death becomes a God. If you is hell bent on "becoming" a God wouldn't you create monuments to immortalize yourself in life?
> 
> 
> ...



There is no evidence to suggest everything was already in place. How do we know that there was something? The simple answer is we don't. We also don't know if God is real. There is no evidence to support anything we know about the beginning, so we can only assume and speculate.

@ Terminator: I love your post as well.


----------



## Terminator02 (Sep 11, 2010)

Magmorph said:
			
		

> Sterl500 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


God was always there, before there was time, before there was anything. God created the universe, created everything.


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 11, 2010)

<!--quoteo(post=3106427:date=Sep 10 2010, 08:42 PM:name=Terminator02)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Terminator02 @ Sep 10 2010, 08:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3106427"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->First of all, let's get this out of the way:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fossil record does not in ANY way PROVE that evolution is true, evolution is a THEORY
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A third impassible barrier to chance creation is the fossil record. Despite years of extreme, might we say "frantic", effort to find "missing links", none have ever come to light.

For example: the fossil evidence has long been distressing to evolution theory because it does not show the gradual change of life forms that evolution requires. What it shows is that a series of complex life-forms have appeared as the earth has progressed from supplying the bare necessities of life to an ability to support life at the present level. As the environment for the support of life has changed, new life-forms have suddenly appeared. Many earlier life forms became specialised and then became extinct.

Life-forms change within their kind, none can be realistically shown to have changed gradually into new kinds of life-forms.

Evolutionists claim that the fossil record is incomplete and imply that it is just a matter of time. In fact, all strata since the earliest time of life have been searched and the evidence is conclusive that there are none of the evolutionary missing links that chance evolution requires.

This is not to say that everything is known of the fossil record, but definitely, that enough is known to eliminate gradual evolution as a scientific theory.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As for the why is there evil arguement, I think Hercules Cummings explains it best (warning, long read):


Spoiler: Why does God allow Evil and Suffering?





EVIL AND SUFFERING

Probably one of the biggest hurdles for Christians and atheist is due to the insurmountable evil and incalculable suffering present in our world. We often hear and read the news about people tragically dying from an uncontrolled fire, a mother and her baby drowning, or innocent kids being murdered in school from an open fire. It's very difficult to imagine how God would allow all of this to exist much more blame him for not putting an end to this. It's even more difficult to reconcile how evil and God can both exist. When we look around it's not difficult to distinguish that evil is happening all the time and increasingly growing because we are affected by it everyday. The purpose of this is to discuss why evil and suffering exists and does it disprove God's existence? Before we discuss that, we must clearly define evil. Evil for once, is not a physical thing and in a sense, is not created. It's the absence of goodness. Evil is not some black shadowy cloud that lurks above us causing us to sin. It is like a donut hole. A donut hole isn't really a physical thing that exists but is due to the lack of matter in the middle of the donut. That condition exists when something is taken away. Cold is the absence of heat, dark is the absence of light, and sin is the absence of holiness. So evil is neither a physical thing nor a thing that God created. It is a condition due to sin. So since sin exists then can God exist? It's very common for someone to use the classical argument: God either is unwilling to prevent evil or unable to prevent evil because it exists? The popular thinking usually evolves to something like this:

1. God is all-powerful, loving, and perfect 
2. A perfect, loving God would create a universe that was perfect (e.g., no evil and suffering) 
3. The universe is not perfect but contains evil and suffering.

Therefore, God does not exist

Now a few problems posits with this claim. First and foremost, the presence of evil does not prove that God does not exist. Both can co-exist without contradicting each other. I want to illustrate that by stating the following:....

1. Barbers cut, style, and groom hair

2. There are people out there with shaggy and unclean hair.

3. Therefore barbers do not exist

See where I'm coming from? Just like messy hair, evil does not mean that God does not exist. Then one might take it to the next step and say, "Then why does God allow evil to happen and not stop it?" Now there posits another problem with this question and we will closely examine that. The answer lies with the concept of FREE WILL and misunderstanding of it. Free will is the most loving act of all and God is all love. We know that forced love is not real love. It's like forcing someone to marry someone at the altar. Now, is that real love? Of course it isn't.

So now let's go back to the answer. In order for God to stop all evil, he would have to interfere with one's own will. What if someone wanted to commit murder by their own free will? If God stopped them, He would then be violating His own love for us and His gift of Free Will. Let's take it a step back further- which evil then should God stop: some of it or all of it? Evil is evil no matter what shape, form, or degree including an evil thought. Evil actions are born from evil thoughts. In order for evil to not exist, God would have to program our minds to never think evil and remove our freedom of thought. Essentially we would be nothing more that robots with only one choice available: to make the right choice only! But once again, that wouldn't make us humans and that would not be authentic love. If you cause someone to make a specific choice than that choice is no longer free. God loved us so much that he gave us a choice to love Him back or not, to believe Him so or not.

Another problem with that is who is to say that God allowed all evil? You can prove this right now through a simple project. Look at a pen and pick it up....now was God responsible for you picking up that pen or did you make a choice and committed the action? It was all your choice. Part of evil that occurs is because of a self made choice. God didn't cause that guy to drink too much alcohol on a party Friday night and then caused him to drive home that resulted in killing someone by accident. It was entirely his choice and choices have a consequence of suffering or non-suffering.

Blaming God for someone's evil is like blaming parents for giving birth to their child that grew up and later on gave birth to another child that committed such an atrocity! So who is to blame: The parents, or their parents, or their parents? You might as well not have kids at all to prevent a potential suffering for them and for others in the future right?

If God is all powerful, then He would prefer to create a perfect world than a world full of evil...

Now, that is not necessarily true because of the hidden assumption and misunderstanding that the objector has made that an all powerful God can just create any possible world. All powerful does not mean you can do logical impossibilities such as create a round square. God is all good, all love. God can not sin and can not break His own promise. He never violates his own nature and grants us Free will. With free will comes the potential to choose evil. It is logically impossible to create a physical world with free will and not have the potential for sin to come into fruition. Even a beautiful hand-crafted vase has a potential to break and shatter but that doesn't mean that its created state isn't perfect. Furthermore, just because God didn't do something doesn't prove that He doesn't exist. If you didn't want to lift your left hand, does that mean you don't exist?

Inconsistency of the argument

If evil is evidence that God does not exist then the opposite has to be true. "If good exist, then God has to exist" right? That alone is not sufficient evidence and only proves that evil does not permit God from existing. Once again evil itself is not evidence that dismisses God's existence.

Why does God allow suffering?

A fallacy is that if all evil in the world was removed, there would only be good consequences. That is not necessarily true. We don't know that. But one should know that both pain and suffering is not all entirely bad. Another possibility is that God uses pain and suffering to help us grow and to forge us into excellence. For example: there comes a point where parents can no longer tend to their child's bruises and ouches, and that child must no grow and becomes tempered from mistakes, suffering, and growing pains. Virtue could not exist and have any value if evil did not exist. You can't be considered virtuous or moral unless you are tested with evil. Besides, if God removed all the pain and suffering in this world, we would all become spoiled brats having our own ways. C.S. Lewis puts it in this perspective: God is like a surgeon who operates on us and knows best on how to heal us. The entire surgical process is painful but we will be all right at the end. If God stopped in the middle of the surgery then all of that pain was in vain. Also, suffering and pain is sometimes necessary. Imagine a world where you never experienced pain. Every time you placed your hands above a flame you couldn't feel pain. You could burn to death. Finally, by definition, God has the attributes of all-knowing so He knows the final outcome and purpose as we are limited. We might not see the purpose for evil then and there or at all, but if God is all knowing and all loving, then He is in full control.

THE PERFECT CURE:

Based on what I have discussed so far, there is only 3 cures that could remedy evil and suffering in this world.

Cure 1: Eliminate mankind

Cure 2: Eliminate our ability to do evil

Cure 3: Provide us a way to be holy and give us the ability to do good thus eliminating or minimizing evil

I'm not going to further emphasize on cure 2, or even bring up cure #1. But I am going to leave it up to you to think about if cure #3 was already in motion.


<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Wrong. Creationists ignore almost all evidence for creation, and just use a straw man argument on the rest, as seen here. Yes, we have found tons of transitional fossils, We have seen speciation in the field. I would respond to everything thats wrong with this post, but I've only got one hand for the time being (son is on my lap.)


----------



## Magmorph (Sep 11, 2010)

Terminator02 said:
			
		

> Magmorph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just because part of a story is true doesn't make the rest of it true. If I write a fictional book about a real person that takes in a real place it doesn't make that book true.


----------



## ball2012003 (Sep 11, 2010)

Terminator02 said:
			
		

> God was always there, before there was time, before there was anything. God created the universe, created everything.


True words.


----------



## Terminator02 (Sep 11, 2010)

0ddity said:
			
		

> Wrong. Creationists ignore almost all evidence for creation, and just use a straw man argument on the rest, as seen here. Yes, we have found tons of transitional fossils, We have seen speciation in the field. I would respond to everything thats wrong with this post, but I've only got one hand for the time being (son is on my lap.)
> show me the true link between an ape and a human
> 
> Edit: I'd just like to bring this back up on the top of this page
> ...


----------



## injected11 (Sep 11, 2010)

Terminator02 said:
			
		

> show me the true link between an ape and a human


Show me God.


----------



## Terminator02 (Sep 11, 2010)

injected11 said:
			
		

> Terminator02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so your "proven" "facts" are based on belief? just like God?


----------



## injected11 (Sep 11, 2010)

Terminator02 said:
			
		

> injected11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, experience, observation, science and logical extrapolation. Unlike God.


----------



## gifi4 (Sep 11, 2010)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> God was always there, before there was time, before there was anything. God created the universe, created everything.


Show me some proof.


----------



## Terminator02 (Sep 11, 2010)

Magmorph said:
			
		

> Terminator02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you're saying the Earth always was? as well as fish, which evolved into us eventually, even though there is all this scientific "proof" which dates the Earth's age and how long it has existed


----------



## Magmorph (Sep 11, 2010)

Terminator02 said:
			
		

> injected11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Science isn't out to disprove God believe it or not. Science is about finding an answer that most logically explains a given question. Evolution can be observed under laboratory conditions (certain insects can become resistant to pesticides for example). That's not mentioning the microscopic organisms that can evolve incredibly quickly.


----------



## Terminator02 (Sep 11, 2010)

injected11 said:
			
		

> Terminator02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


it's belief, not proof, believe what you will


----------



## Magmorph (Sep 11, 2010)

Terminator02 said:
			
		

> Magmorph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No that wasn't even close to what I was saying. You made some pretty huge leaps there. Our universe hasn't always existed in it's current state but there is no evidence that there was ever nothing.


----------



## Infinite Zero (Sep 11, 2010)

ball2012003 said:
			
		

> Terminator02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't need to see proof. It's a belief and faith like Terminator said. I can't force you to believe what we all say and it's the same for me.
God created *all* things. If God didn't exist, then who made nothing? Who is the originator of those Apes if you think we evolved in them? Are you saying they sprouted like mushrooms and took millions of years before they became humans? Enlighten me please


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 11, 2010)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> show me the true link between an ape and a human



Humans are apes. Ape is not a species, it is a broad categorization for the hominoidea family of primates. You don't know what an ape is but you are arguing evolution?


----------



## ball2012003 (Sep 11, 2010)

0ddity said:
			
		

> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So i guess a dog is a cat.


----------



## Terminator02 (Sep 11, 2010)

Magmorph said:
			
		

> Terminator02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know science isn't made to disprove God, but some people use it to try and find answers to things that can't be explained, and your example is an adaptation, that insect didn't turn into a bunny. Now i know you're going to say that tons of those small adaptations lead into an evolution of the species, but I'd like to see an adaptation significant enough to completely change a species, has any happened since history has been recorded?


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 11, 2010)

ball2012003 said:
			
		

> 0ddity said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Red herring. try making an actual argument.


----------



## Magmorph (Sep 11, 2010)

Infinite Zero said:
			
		

> You don't need to see proof. It's a belief and faith like Terminator said. I can't force you to believe what we all say and it's the same for me.
> God created *all* things. If God didn't exist, then who made nothing? Who is the originator of those Apes if you think we evolved in them? Are you saying they sprouted like mushrooms and took millions of years before they became humans? Enlighten me please


If you want a serious answer don't ask loaded questions.


----------



## Sterling (Sep 11, 2010)

Terminator02 said:
			
		

> I know science isn't made to disprove God, but some people use it to try and find answers to things that can't be explained, and your example is an adaptation, that insect didn't turn into a bunny. Now i know you're going to say that tons of those small adaptations lead into an evolution of the species, but I'd like to see an adaptation significant enough to completely change a species, *has any happened since history has been recorded*?


In the future there is skynet...


----------



## Raika (Sep 11, 2010)

Created.
I dunno why, I just feel that way.


----------



## Terminator02 (Sep 11, 2010)

0ddity said:
			
		

> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, would you prefer I say non-human apes?


----------



## Magmorph (Sep 11, 2010)

Terminator02 said:
			
		

> Magmorph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


History has only been recorded for a few thousand years. You obviously misunderstand evolution if you think a insect can turn into a bunny in that period of time.


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 11, 2010)

Terminator02 said:
			
		

> I know science isn't made to disprove God, but some people use it to try and find answers to things that can't be explained, and your example is an adaptation, that insect didn't turn into a bunny. Now i know you're going to say that tons of those small adaptations lead into an evolution of the species, but I'd like to see an adaptation significant enough to completely change a species, has any happened since history has been recorded?


There are answers to all these questions, you just have to read!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


----------



## Terminator02 (Sep 11, 2010)

Magmorph said:
			
		

> Infinite Zero said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


it was just an example, I know your theory thinks it will take little baby steps and lots of time to get there

Ok, I'm starting to sound like an ass, time to sign off, someone please continue the fight for me


----------



## Magmorph (Sep 11, 2010)

Terminator02 said:
			
		

> Magmorph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Go do some research on what a loaded question is.


----------



## injected11 (Sep 11, 2010)

Terminator02 said:
			
		

> injected11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You really like trying to put crazy words in people's mouths, don't you. Stop making crazy leaps and pretending others believe that. I've taken science and biology classes and done personal research into studies done on evolution. I have at least a vague understanding of how evolution works and why it happens, and seen evidence provided by science. That's why I believe these crazy things.



Spoiler



I sure don't believe some almighty being waved his hands (or whatever an omnipotent being would wave) and wished everything into existence.


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 11, 2010)

Terminator02 said:
			
		

> 0ddity said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Australopithecus africanus	

Australopithecus sediba	

Homo habilis	

Homo ergaster	

Homo heidelbergensis

Homo rhodesiensis

Homo floresiensis

Homo erectus

to name a few. I know you won't accept these though, because if you were really interested in knowing, you'd _look it up yourself._


----------



## Terminator02 (Sep 11, 2010)

Magmorph said:
			
		

> Terminator02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


before I go, tell me what it is then, I'd like to know for future battles of the arguments in which people like to use smart words
He's gonna get so pissed


----------



## monkat (Sep 11, 2010)

Terminator02 said:
			
		

> show me the true link between an ape and a human


----------



## Magmorph (Sep 11, 2010)

monkat said:
			
		

> *snip*


Oh my God.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




@Terminator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question


----------



## Infinite Zero (Sep 11, 2010)

injected11 said:
			
		

> Terminator02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Show me an actual image of an atom.


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 11, 2010)

Infinite Zero said:
			
		

> injected11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Terminator02 (Sep 11, 2010)

Magmorph said:
			
		

> monkat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you know I could have used google myself, it was a joke because you were trying to sound professional and sophisticated (maybe you are?). Anyway, now that this is over and alot more people hate me, BYE!


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 11, 2010)

Terminator02 said:
			
		

> Magmorph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See how they ask question after loaded question, spout red herrings and straw men arguments, but when I actually answer their questions, they don't respond (or respond with appeal to ridicule.) When your entire argument is built on logical fallacies, how are we supposed to respond?


----------



## Magmorph (Sep 11, 2010)

Terminator02 said:
			
		

> Magmorph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was unaware that the term "loaded question" was sophisticated. Hell, my posts have tons of grammatical errors. They don't seem sophisticated at all to me.


----------



## lolzed (Sep 11, 2010)

/me joins in discussion

Creation.
God created everything,laws,world,animal,man.
But that doesn't mean He is BOUND to that.
Like how Genesis says "In the beginning...",it doesn't mean that from God's first moment we were created,it just means when the world was created.
Let's take an example(which btw,isn't real,just an example):unstoppable object meets unmovable object
Unmovable would be God,but He is omnipotent,that means He can stop everything,or move anything.He can't create anything bigger than Him,so He is not bound to friction and such.

my 2 cents,I can't change your belief,but I'll defend my faith.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 11, 2010)

I believe in creation. We are simply too perfect to have been evolved.


----------



## zeromac (Sep 11, 2010)

I believe that we evolved from lesser species not created by some unknown force. Evolution happened because it happened, if it hadn't happened, there would be no god to believe in therefore no god. I mean how did people find out about god, without evolution, there would be no-one to spread the belief of god, therefore there theroyitcally would be no god


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Sep 11, 2010)

injected11 said:
			
		

> Terminator02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And I sure don't believe that one species of animals turns into another.


----------



## Frogman (Sep 11, 2010)

I am not too sure in evolution people were %100 sure the earth was flat but then somebody discovered that is wasnt.
sure we may be (our DNA) what like %95 percent the same as a monkey but that other five percent is from hundreds of other animals do you know (apparently) we are also some percentage snail idk it all seems like a very extreme theory but then so does the term of god an un seeable force that we have never seen or heard before. but then we could be saying that memories dont exist, sure we can see them in our head one person cant see anothers memory though we believe it is there.

The topic is How did Human Beings come about though there are only two choices in the poll we were created or we evolved what if it was none of the above what if it was toally different could the first human beings really been born out of a cabbage patch but that type of cabbage has now become extinct causing us to have to make our bodies use the last minute resort of labor and sex.

anyway from the above what im really tring to say it i dont really have an absolute view on what i believe, i believe that we are here now, thers been people befor us and there are going to be people after us we'll just have to see if a new race of supieror species come to life in the next few years that can really explaing what and how we were caused into existance because in the last   however so many years we havnt really noticed anything else waling around we havnt recognised. maybe were just a freak of nature that will die out in the next thousand years or so.
i really dont know....


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Sep 11, 2010)

Uncle FEFL said:
			
		

> Overlord Nadrian said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How did your 'almighty being' come into existence, then?

Theism is a load of bullshit, now you'll all just need to realise that.

@Theists: YOU'RE A BUNCH OF FUCKING IDIOTS.


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Sep 11, 2010)

Overlord Nadrian said:
			
		

> *post removed


I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that you believe in god but also believe in evolution.


----------



## RayJT9 (Sep 11, 2010)

I have to question the stage of decay one's mind must be in when believing that a big man in the sky made everything is the most logical answer. Even though there's lots of actual evidence to the contrary.

It's like a jury in a court of law deciding to ignore all of the evidence in a trial, and instead choosing to believe a drunken homeless man with a mental disorder who wasn't even in the country when the crime occurred.

But... the existence of God has very little to do with the debate topic.


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (Sep 11, 2010)

jet™ said:
			
		

> I believe in creation. We are simply too perfect to have been evolved.




*quietly looks around at all the arguing, all the attacks, all the naked hatred, not only in this thread, but in the entire world...all the misunderstanding, cruelty, xenophobia, pompous assertions, and blatant lies...*



There's nothing even remotely 'perfect' about us.


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Sep 11, 2010)

Vulpes Abnocto said:
			
		

> jet™ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think he literally meant 'perfect' but was referring to how our bodies and this world, work quite flawlessly and for it too all happen by luck is a little far fetched. Also, the reason there's so much arguing, wars, murder etc is because we were given free will by god. I doubt anyone here has never done something remotely bad.


----------



## Phoenix Goddess (Sep 11, 2010)

lolzed said:
			
		

> /me joins in discussion
> 
> Creation.
> God created everything,laws,world,animal,man.
> ...




I agree with this completely.
I'll defend my faith, as well.
Humans aren't perfect, Jet, not one single bit. We could have evolved from animals and humanity proves that daily by acting like wild animals(Not that this is always a bad thing) but I believe we were created. I try my best to avoid wars like this, because they only kill the brain cells and anger people, that's why we avoid speaking of religion too much, to not disrespect the beliefs of another with our own. The beginning of the "Temp debates" was pleasant, but now, it's just huge issues that is best to be avoided out of respect and maturity, simply because we all know there will be people who aren't mature or respectful on sensitive subjects like this.


----------



## Infinite Zero (Sep 11, 2010)

jet™ said:
			
		

> I believe in creation. We are simply too perfect to have been evolved.
> Well... not really perfect because all men are sinners y'know since.  But I _think_ you mean that humans like us are too complex enough to come/evolve from apes who don't come close to the intelligence of man though I may agree with PG with the part that we have been much more cruel than animal predators
> 
> 
> ...


As humans only, we are bound to hate since we are not physically and emotionally perfect and because as a Believer, Satan, is much more dominative on earth as he is referred to the fallen angel.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Sep 11, 2010)

BobTheJoeBob said:
			
		

> Overlord Nadrian said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now tell me, how did you come to that conclusion?

PS: for people that didn't get the chance to read my post, here's a summary: I strongly 'believe' there is no 'almighty being'.


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Sep 11, 2010)

Overlord Nadrian said:
			
		

> BobTheJoeBob said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because in your post you said: "@theist your all fucking idiots", in relatively large font.


----------



## Frogman (Sep 11, 2010)

Overlord Nadrian said:
			
		

> BobTheJoeBob said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


was much or any of your post directed at me?


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Sep 11, 2010)

BobTheJoeBob said:
			
		

> Because in your post you said: "@theist your all fucking idiots", in relatively large font.Yeah, that's why I asked why you came to the conclusion that I believe in a higher being. So you still haven't answered that question.
> 
> QUOTE(Coreyfrog7 @ Sep 11 2010, 01:34 PM) was much or any of your post directed at me?


No.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Sep 11, 2010)

Everybody, take a fucking chill pill.
Think about it. You guys are too close-minded. Learn to accept what others believe instead of calling theists or atheists idiots.​


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 11, 2010)

Human beings are not even close to perfect (physically.) We are a veritable chalkboard of hit and miss trial and error. We have birth defects, because of mis-copied or mutated genes, our eyes often fail us (how many of you wear glasses) our hearing often fails, before modern medical science, the average lifespan and infant mortality rates were atrocious, we have vestigial features, and on and on.


----------



## Infinite Zero (Sep 11, 2010)

0ddity said:
			
		

> Human beings are not even close to perfect (physically.) We are a veritable chalkboard of hit and miss trial and error. We have birth defects, because of mis-copied or mutated genes, our eyes often fail us (how many of you wear glasses) our hearing often fails, before modern medical science, the average lifespan and infant mortality rates were atrocious, we have vestigial features, and on and on.


What you're talking about is the health condition. What I mean is how our body was made, those conditions you said are caused by bad health, pollution, and the world slowly degenerating.


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 11, 2010)

Infinite Zero said:
			
		

> 0ddity said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok...

Do you know how the human body is made? It isn't a perfect process. And no, bad eyesight/hearing is not caused by "bad health/pollution/world degeneration" whatever that means. Vestigial features, I notice you ignored.


----------



## Magmorph (Sep 11, 2010)

Infinite Zero said:
			
		

> 0ddity said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This isn't so much an argument as it is an unfalsifiable assertion.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Sep 11, 2010)

lolzed said:
			
		

> Let's take an example(which btw,isn't real,just an example):unstoppable object meets unmovable object



Those two objects couldn't exist in the same universe.  If you had an unmovable object then you couldn't have an unstoppable one and vice versa.


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 11, 2010)

I am going to post the lines of evidence we have that <b>support </b>evolution. These are unrelated but convergent scientific fields that all point to the same thing, evolution happened. What you (the creationist) are supposed to do, is explain why each line of evidence is wrong, and then provide your own evidence supporting why creation is correct (try doing it without the bible.) What I will not accept are straw men arguments, red herrings, and appeals to ridicule, that's almost all I've seen from the creationist side so far in this thread. The rest has all been argument from ignorance. 

Example of straw man in this thread:

<!--QuoteBegin-ball2012003+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ball2012003)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A sea creature becomes a land creature, how the fuck is that possible, if according to science, evolution takes thousands of years, so how the hell is that sea creature gonna be on land for all that time to evolve if it needs to breath by water.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Example of red herring in this thread:
<!--QuoteBegin-ball2012003+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ball2012003)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So i guess a dog is a cat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Example of appeal to ridicule:
<!--QuoteBegin-terminator02+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(terminator02)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->it was just an example, I know your theory thinks it will take little baby steps and lots of time to get there<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Example of argument from ignorance:
<!--QuoteBegin-Jet+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jet)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I believe in creation. We are simply too perfect to have been evolved.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ok, now we've got that out of the way. On to the evidence <i>for </i>evolution:

<u><b>Fossil Evidence:</b>
</u>
The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time.

Early fossil discoveries
In the 17th century, Nicholas Steno shook the world of science, noting the similarity between shark teeth and the rocks commonly known as "tongue stones". This was our first understanding that fossils were a record of past life.

Two centuries later, Mary Ann Mantell picked up a tooth, which her husband Gideon thought to be of a large iguana, but it turned out to be the tooth of a dinosaur, Iguanodon. This discovery sent the powerful message that many fossils represented forms of life that are no longer with us today.

Additional clues from fossils
Today we may take fossils for granted, but we continue to learn from them. Each new fossil contains additional clues that increase our understanding of life’s history and help us to answer questions about their evolutionary story. Examples include:

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/ammobite1.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />

<i>Indication of interactions
</i>This ammonite fossil shows punctures that some scientists have interpreted as the bite mark of a mosasaur, a type of predatory marine reptile that lived at the same time as the ammonite. Damage to the ammonite has been correlated to the shapes and capabilities of mosasaur teeth and jaws. Others have argued that the holes were created by limpets that attached to the ammonite. Researchers examine ammonite fossils, as well as mosasaur fossils and the behaviors of limpets, in order to explore these hypotheses.

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/thinsection.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />

<i>Clues at the cellular level
</i>Fossils can tell us about growth patterns in ancient animals. This is a cross-section through a sub-adult thigh bone of the duckbill dinosaur Maiasaura. The white spaces show that there were lots of blood vessels running through the bone, which indicates that it was a fast-growing bone. The black wavy horizontal line in mid-picture is a growth line, reflecting a seasonal pause in the animal’s growth.

<b>Transitional Forms:
</b>
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.

Pakicetus, is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.

A skull of the beluga whale that roams the seas today has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/pakicetus_nostrils.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/aetiocetus_nostrils.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/beluga_nostrils.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />

Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern beluga — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!

Our understanding of the evolution of horse feet, so often depicted in textbooks, is derived from a scattered sampling of horse fossils within the multi-branched horse evolutionary tree. These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses.

But, the standard diagram does clearly show transitional stages whereby the four-toed foot of Hyracotherium, otherwise known as Eohippus, became the single-toed foot of Equus. Fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution did indeed exist.

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/transition_horse.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />

Each branch tip on the tree of horse evolution indicates a different genus, though the feet of only a few genera are illustrated to show the reduction of toes through time.

<u><b>Homologies:
</b></u>Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms.

In the following photos of plants, the leaves are quite different from the “normal” leaves we envision. 

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/homology.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />

Each leaf has a very different shape and function, yet all are homologous structures, derived from a common ancestral form. The pitcher plant and Venus’ flytrap use leaves to trap and digest insects. The bright red leaves of the poinsettia look like flower petals. The cactus leaves are modified into small spines which reduce water loss and can protect the cactus from herbivory.

Another example of homology is the forelimb of tetrapods (vertebrates with legs). 

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/transition_lobe.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />


Frogs, birds, rabbits and lizards all have different forelimbs, reflecting their different lifestyles. But those different forelimbs all share the same set of bones - the humerus, the radius, and the ulna. These are the same bones seen in fossils of the extinct transitional animal, Eusthenopteron, which demonstrates their common ancestry.

<u><b>Anatomy:
</b></u>

Individual organisms contain, within their bodies, abundant evidence of their histories. The existence of these features is best explained by evolution.

Several animals, including pigs, cattle, deer, and dogs have reduced, nonfunctional digits, referred to as dewclaws. The foot of the pig has lost digit 1 completely, digits 2 and 5 have been greatly reduced, and only digits 3 and 4 support the body. Evolution best explains such vestigial features. They are the remnants of ancestors with a larger number of functional digits.

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/pigfoot.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />

People (and other apes) have chests that are broader than they are deep, with the shoulder blades flat in back. This is because we, like all extant apes, are descended from an ancestor who was able to suspend itself using the upper limbs.

On the other hand, monkeys and other quadrupeds have a different form of locomotion. Quadrupeds have narrow, deep chests with shoulder blades on the sides.

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/chest_compar.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />

Hoatzin chicks have claws on their wings, as do some chickens and ostriches. This reflects the fact that bird ancestors had clawed hands.

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/claws.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />


<u><b>Comparative Anatomy
</b></u>


Organisms that are closely related to one another share many anatomical similarities. Sometimes the similarities are conspicuous, as between crocodiles and alligators, but in other cases considerable study is needed for a full appreciation of relationships.

<i>Modification of the tetrapod skeleton
</i>Whales and hummingbirds have tetrapod skeletons inherited from a common ancestor. Their bodies have been modified and parts have been lost through natural selection, resulting in adaptation to their respective lifestyles over millions of years. On the surface, these animals look very different, but the relationship between them is easy to demonstrate. Except for those bones that have been lost over time, nearly every bone in each corresponds to an equivalent bone in the other.

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/whale_hummer.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />

<u><b>Developmental Biology:
</b></u>
Studying the embryological development of living things provides clues to the evolution of present-day organisms. During some stages of development, organisms exhibit ancestral features in whole or incomplete form. 


<i>Snakes have legged ancestors
</i>Some species of living snakes have hind limb-buds as early embryos but rapidly lose the buds and develop into legless adults. The study of developmental stages of snakes, combined with fossil evidence of snakes with hind limbs, supports the hypothesis that snakes evolved from a limbed ancestor.

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/pachyparalimb2.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />


<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/snakelimb2.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />

<i>Baleen whales have toothed ancestors
</i>
Toothed whales have full sets of teeth throughout their lives. Baleen whales, however, only possess teeth in the early fetal stage and lose them before birth. The possession of teeth in fetal baleen whales provides evidence of common ancestry with toothed whales and other mammals. In addition, fossil evidence indicates that the late Oligocene whale Aetiocetus (below), from Oregon, which is considered to be the earliest example of baleen whales, also bore a full set of teeth.

Again, these observations make most sense in an evolutionary framework where snakes have legged ancestors and whales have toothed ancestors.

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/aetiocetus_skull2.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />

<u><b>Cellular/Molecular Evidence
</b></u>
All living things are fundamentally alike. At the cellular and molecular level living things are remarkably similar to each other. These fundamental similarities are most easily explained by evolutionary theory: life shares a common ancestor. 

<i>The cellular level
</i>All organisms are made of cells, which consist of membranes filled with water containing genetic material, proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, salts and other substances. The cells of most living things use sugar for fuel while producing proteins as building blocks and messengers. Notice the similarity between the typical animal and plant cells pictured below — only three structures are unique to one or the other.

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/cells.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />

<i>The molecular level
</i>Different species share genetic homologies as well as anatomical ones. Roundworms, for example, share 25% of their genes with humans. These genes are slightly different in each species, but their striking similarites nevertheless reveal their common ancestry. In fact, the DNA code itself is a homology that links all life on Earth to a common ancestor. DNA and RNA possess a simple four-base code that provides the recipe for all living things. In some cases, if we were to transfer genetic material from the cell of one living thing to the cell of another, the recipient would follow the new instructions as if they were its own.

These characteristics of life demonstrate the fundamental sameness of all living things on Earth and serve as the basis of today's efforts at genetic engineering. 


<u><b>Distribution in Time and Space</b></u>

Understanding the history of life on Earth requires a grasp of the depth of time and breadth of space. We must keep in mind that the time involved is vast compared to a human lifetime and the space necessary for this to occur includes all the water and land surfaces of the world. Establishing chronologies, both relative and absolute, and geographic change over time are essential for viewing the motion picture that is the history of life on Earth.

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/sm_strat.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/sm_gondwana.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />

<u><b>Chronology:
</b></u>
Relative dating places fossils in a temporal sequence by noting their positions in layers of rocks, known as strata. As shown in the diagram, fossils found in lower strata were typically deposited first and are deemed to be older (this principle is known as superposition). Sometimes this method doesn't work, either because the layers weren't deposited horizontally to begin with, or because they have been overturned.
If that's the case, we can use one of three other methods to date fossil-bearing layers relative to one another: faunal succession, crosscutting relationships, and inclusions.
By studying and comparing strata from all over the world we can learn which came first and which came next, but we need further evidence to ascertain the specific, or numerical, ages of fossils.

Numerical dating relies on the decay of radioactive elements, such as uranium, potassium, rubidium and carbon. Very old rocks must be dated using volcanic material. By dating volcanic ash layers both above and below a fossil-bearing layer, as shown in the diagram, you can determine “older than X, but younger than Y” dates for the fossils. Sedimentary rocks less than 50,000 years old can be dated as well, using their radioactive carbon content. Geologists have assembled a geological time scale on the basis of numerical dating of rocks from around the world.

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/strat_column.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />

<u><b>Geography:
</b></u>
The distribution of living things on the globe provides information about the past histories of both living things and the surface of the Earth. This evidence is consistent not just with the evolution of life, but also with the movement of continental plates around the world-otherwise known as plate tectonics.

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/marsup_distrib.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />

Marsupial mammals are found in the Americas as well as Australia and New Guinea, shown in brown on the map above. They are not found swimming across the Pacific Ocean, nor have they been discovered wandering the Asian mainland. There appear to be no routes of migration between the two populations. How could marsupials have gotten from their place of origin to locations half a world away?

Fossils of marsupials have been found in the Antarctic as well as in South America and Australia. During the past few decades scientists have demonstrated that what is now called South America was part of a large land mass called Gondwana, which included Australia and Antarctica. Marsupials didn’t need a migration route from one part of the world to another; they rode the continents to their present positions.

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/gondwana1.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />

<u><b>Evidence by Example:</b></u>

Although the history of life is always in the past, there are many ways we can look at present-day organisms, as well as recent history, to better understand what has occurred through deep time. Artificial selection in agriculture or laboratories provides a model for natural selection. Looking at interactions of organisms in ecosystems helps us to understand how populations adapt over time. Experiments demonstrate selection and adaptive advantage. And we can see nested hierarchies in taxonomies based on common descent.


<i>Artificial Selection:</i>

Artificial selection provides a model that helps us understand natural selection.
People have been artificially selecting domesticated plants and animals for thousands of years. These activities have amounted to large, long-term, practical experiments that clearly demonstrate that species can change dramatically through selective breeding.

Broccoli and brussels sprouts bear little superficial resemblance to their wild mustard relatives.

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/le_mustard2.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />

If domesticated dogs were discovered today they would be classified as hundreds of different species and considered quite distinct from wolves. Although it is probable that various breeds of dogs were independently domesticated from distinct wild dog lineages, there are no wolf relatives anywhere in the world that look much like dachshunds or collies.

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/le_dogs2.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />

These observations demonstrate that selection has profound effects on populations and has the ability to modify forms and behaviors of living things to the point that they look and act very unlike their ancestors. Artificial selection provides a model that helps us understand natural selection. It is a small step to envision natural conditions acting selectively on populations and causing natural changes.

<u><b>Ecology:
</b></u>
<i>The environment affects the evolution of living things.
</i>As predicted by evolutionary theory, populations evolve in response to their surroundings. In any ecosystem there are finite opportunities to make a living. Organisms either have the genetic tools to take advantage of those opportunities or they do not.

House sparrows arrived in North America from Europe in the nineteenth century. Since then, genetic variation within the population, and selection in various habitats, have allowed them to inhabit most of the continent. House sparrows in the north are larger and darker colored than those in the south. Darker colors absorb sunlight better than light colors and larger size allows less surface area per unit volume, thus reducing heat loss—both advantages in a cold climate. This is an example of natural selection acting upon a population, producing micro-evolution on a continental scale.

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/le_sparrows.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />

<u><b>Experiments:
</b></u>

<i>Experiments also show that populations can evolve.
</i>John Endler of the University of California has conducted experiments with the guppies of Trinidad that clearly show selection at work. The scenario: Female guppies prefer colorful males for mating purposes. Predatory fish also "prefer" colorful males, but for a less complimentary purpose—a source of food that is easy to spot. Some portions of the streams where guppies live have fewer predators than others and in these locations the males are more colorful. Not surprisingly, males in locations where there are more predators tend to be less colorful.

When Dr. Endler transferred predatory fish to the regions with brightly colored male guppies, selection acted rapidly to produce a population of duller males. This demonstrates that persistent variation within a population provides the raw material for rapid evolution when environmental conditions change.

<img src="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/images/le_guppies.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />

<u><b>Nested Hierarchies:
</b></u><i>Common ancestry is conspicuous.</i>
Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies—rather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record.

Humans and chimpanzees are united by many shared inherited traits (such as 98.7% of their DNA). But at a more inclusive level of life’s hierarchy, we share a smaller set of inherited traits in common with all primates. More inclusive still, we share traits in common with other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals. At the most inclusive level, we sit alongside sponges, petunias, diatoms and bacteria in a very large “box” entitled: living organisms.

<u><b>Endogenous retroviruses:
</b></u>
Endogenous retroviruses provide yet another example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

<img src="http://www.helmholtz-muenchen.de/uploads/pics/Fig.1.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />




And that's just a primer. Evolution is much more complex then the usual line "one species can't turn into another" straw man. I know some people might think I'm taking this a little too seriously, but evolution is very important to modern life as we know it, and our knowledge of it enables us to produce food at the rates we do, and provide the medical care we do.

And to end on a lighter note (I know that was a long read, congrats if you read it all) here's a funny to lighten the mood:

<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KNl4_IXf-uw/THfBi0X_VII/AAAAAAAABgQ/vYWExSaic0c/s400/wrong%20on%20the%20internet.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />

edit: grammar


----------



## Blood Fetish (Sep 11, 2010)

I didn't bother clicking on this thread once I saw the title, because it isn't even a discussion. Imagine my surprise when I check again today and it is over half a dozen pages long. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution and nothing in favor of intelligent design except "belief". This makes me sad that there is a discussion on this at all.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 11, 2010)

When people think of intelligent design, one of the only things they think of is 'creation', which is associated primarily with God. I'm surprised that something that touches on religion can stir this up.



			
				0ddity said:
			
		

> *snip


-even if it is copy-paste, well done for the interesting contribution.


----------

