Focusing on Creationism

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.Acts 1.

This is what "we Christians" call The Great Commission.

[back on topic]

Show me proof of evolution. And no theories now. After all, you just said evolution is not a theory. Show me scientific experiments that PROVED evolution. Then I might start to take you guys seriously as oponents in this debate. We don't only use the Bible as proof of Creationism, we use it to affirm truths we seek.

...no. It says sare the news. It doesn't give specifics. You dislike christianity, how can you say you know the Bible? He never said FORCE it on people, but it says try to convert them. You're twisting the text.

@Tsunokiette-
Alright, but you do know that evolution and Darwinian Natural Selection are not the same thing right? Here's some evidence for evolution and the reason why people don't want to explain evolution to you is because it is not a subject in debate, excluding by you of course.

One piece of evidence is based on our DNA molecules. 
Every single cell in our bodies contains DNA, a special molecule which
literally makes us what we are.  Our DNA is almost EXACTLY the same as gorilla
DNA, and is even closer to DNA obtained from fossils of ancient ancestors of
human beings.

   1.  Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
          * All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
          * Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
          * Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
          * Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
          * The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
          * Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
          * Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
          * Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
* The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
* Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
* The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
* When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
* The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
* Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
* Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
* Speciation has been observed.
* The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).
The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

-http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

-Stephen J. Gould

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

-Stephen J. Gould

How evolution happens is a subject of debate, not evolution its self. If things that should have been explained to you in grade school miss your grasp, then perhaps you should do some research before you ask people to show evidence of a commonly believed, and proved fact.

I partly agree with ~

How evolution happens is a subject of debate, not evolution its self. If things that should have been explained to you in grade school miss your grasp, then perhaps you should do some research before you ask people to show evidence of a commonly believed, and proved fact.

However, in schools (in britain anyway) if someone in the science class believes god created everything, the teachers are suppose to also teach that. Not that they always do.

Also evolution is where a mutation occurs in the DNA. Each DNA strand has the data to remake your entire body exactly the same. Things like UVA, UVB and some radiation (not all radiation is bad for you) can change the coding. Most commonly this results in a cancer of the cells affected. (btw ~ can someone tell me how cancer spreads? i forget lol). Sometimes the DNA changes from the norm when a child is born (Appart from the normal spread of DNA from both parents alltering the looks of the child) which results in many different effects, many ending (or starting) in death. This covers things like; Cystic Fibrosis, Huntington's Disease and sickle-cell anaemia. None of which should be taken lightly.

Anyway maybe I went a litle off topic. However if there is a God, or a creator, shouldn't we be perfect?

EDIT: The bible was written 500 years after the events told within it, hardly reliable. Also, it contradicts itself.

EDIT2: Grammer and Spelling.

Evolution is apparent in all things. I'm religous, and I can own up to that. I'm not saying we evolved from apes, that's a HELL of a stretch, but yes, evolution = truth.

You can not say that we should be made perfect because he could create us like we are to marvel at his glory and give glory if we were perfect then we would be him and there fore could not marvel and give him gloory. It the same as you saying that I want to build a robot that is so perfect that it could match me in every thing I do or even be better.

I would also like to include that if we did evolve from apes then why are apes not evolving themselves or we continue to evolve are form geneticcaly

*sigh* When we say evolution we're not speaking of micro-evolution, we're speaking of inter-species evolution. Like arrow said, we didn't come from apes!

@Darico - Once again, as I have to ask constantly, where in the Bible does it contradict itself?

@DS - Prove that there were no mammals that long ago. In fact, prove that it WAS that long ago. Most creatures of myth came about (such as the Cyclops) due to people finding large bones, and piecing them together incorrectly. I'm not saying dinosaurs didn't exist, the Bible mentions them (or do I need to bring it up again?) but the flood killed them all. And a theory is a theory,  I said bring me proof - not a quote.

Also, just because it may seem that the earth is that old, it's not. As was said before, whether by God or by Big Explosion (which you all contradict yourselves by saying God must of been created although the energy for the Big Bang - it makes PERFECT sense that it already existed -_- ) the earth had to be created as an aged earth, not a young earth. If it were a young earth no sustenence would have formed and no organism could have survived. Also, where did all of the plants come from? Where did vegetation come from? I don't see evolution explaining that?

ALSO: This IS on topic. If you discuss creationism you must also discuss the aadverse in the debate, in this case evolution. You can't have an intelligent debate without having both sides of the equation.

And just as a side note : If we were all perfect we would all be Gods, why would God created His own adversaries?

@cobragamer ~Because one ape had a successful mutation (aka, helpful mutation) and went on to become 'human' and the others did not. Its really that simple lol.

@tsunokiette ~ So adam and eve are the only people on the planet then they have kids... the bible says,

Abel and Cain where the sons...
"Genesis 4, 5" 16&17" quotes;
"16. And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
17. And Cain knew his wive; and she conceived, and bare Enoch : and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."

Umm... Hold on... Another women!? Where? How?

Also @ Tsuno ~ the firstlife forms where bacteria from a asteroid that collied with our planet many many billions and billions of years ago. Apparently, no one can prove anything.

Besides. The "why aren't the apes evolving" idea is entirely flawed. The most obvious reason is that evolution branches. It's not like there's only ONE TYPE OF FROG in the world, or ONE TYPE OF BEAR. It branched! (if we did in face come from apes) One branch was more suited for staying in the wild, and so the offspring that retained the ape qualities survived, and those that didn't did not live. The human branch found ways to break away from the wild and create an environment for itself.

check above post.

Ah. Well, he deleted the question anyhow, so I guess neither matters.

Lol, he changed it. and the new answer to your... change question is....







*Drum role please...*







We havnt mutated yet, or we have but science has over taken evolution and we are "fixing" ourselves to stay the same!

@Darico - Read the whole section. They have more kids. -_-

Yes, another boy named Seth for when Cain is killed,. But no girls are born.

That doesn't mean it contradicts itself though. Where does it say "These are the only children they had" ?

For example, the Bible never says that people breathed oxygen in Genesis, but does that mean they don't? No.

They author probabaly didn't find it important to mention the females born. (sex views)

But you can't prove any exsited either, which brings a close to that leg of this discussion.

Also, you bringing oxygen onto the table made me think; where does the bible explain for all the elements that we are still discovering?

@cobragamer- You really haven't the slightest clue on what your talking about. Darwinism doesn't say we came from "apes", it says that we share common ancestry. When I come to intelligent debate I don't expect to be forced to teach, I come here to debate people who have an understanding on both sides of the situation. You do not.

It the same as you saying that I want to build a robot that is so perfect that it could match me in every thing I do or even be better.

If we didn't make robots better then ourselves then we would have no use for them. GTFO please.

@Tsunokiette- Evolution is the change of a species. If you are attacking Darwinism, then say "Darwinism", if you are attacking macro-evolution then say "macro-evolution". Evolution its self does not have an answer to how it happens, it just says it does. The mechanics ( not the same as the theory of evolution ) or explanation theories try to explain the fine tuning. 

Prove that there were no mammals that long ago. In fact, prove that it WAS that long ago. Most creatures of myth came about (such as the Cyclops) due to people finding large bones, and piecing them together incorrectly. I'm not saying dinosaurs didn't exist, the Bible mentions them (or do I need to bring it up again?) but the flood killed them all. And a theory is a theory,  I said bring me proof - not a quote.

Alrighty, prove that you exist. That same question is as stupid as yours, I'm sure you have overwhelming evidence that you exist, but a theory is just a theory.

(which you all contradict yourselves by saying God must of been created although the energy for the Big Bang - it makes PERFECT sense that it already existed -_- )

Of course the energy pre-existed to create the bigbang, matter can not come from nothing. If you knew anything about the bigbang you would know it isn't a final explanation. A theory doesn't have to explain its existence or come-abouts to be true, just like evolution.

Also, just because it may seem that the earth is that old, it's not.

Perhaps you would like to show me some proof of this..?

the earth had to be created as an aged earth, not a young earth. If it were a young earth no sustenence would have formed and no organism could have survived.

We can think up ways to terraform mars, A.K.A. bring life to a dead planet, your saying your god couldn't?

Also, where did all of the plants come from? Where did vegetation come from? I don't see evolution explaining that?

Yeah, it kinda does =). Plants are lifeforms too, just simple ones...

And just as a side note : If we were all perfect we would all be Gods, why would God created His own adversaries?

So did he make us weak out of fear??

Oh and the bible contradicts its self in many places, I really couldn't be bothered posting them as I've done so on many occasions... It all ends with either "THAT'S FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT, HOW DARE YOU" or "The bible your quoting from is incorrectly translated!!".

Ok, well first off the story of Adam and Eve is largely known to be just a parable about humans needing to be baptized and containing original sin. Only very extreme sects of religions believe it to be true, and personally, I think if you believe that Adam and Eve and the story of the garden of Eden are real, you have more to worry about than this debate.

@Saucy ~ What you said.
@Holkeye ~ lol.

[offtopic]
If there is a God then there must be a Satan. If there is the sky then there must be the ground. If there is light then there must be dark. There must always be a opposite. (This is where i say, "The equation must be balanced" but that is a bit Matrix-like for my tastes!)
[/offtopic]

Truth is relative, there are no absolutes.
That is why arguing about things is only useful if you like instigating, as long as you are content in your own opinion, nothing else matters.

Wether we evolved over billions of years or a diety created us is irellevant, we are, and thats what matters.
Do the best with the time you have, and don't worry about death, cops, laws, money etc.

Does what you said actually have any point towards this topic? You basically through everything said so far out of the window and said it dosnt matter. 

Yes, and that is my point.
Argue all you want but don't expect to reach a conclusion.
And even if you against all odds do reach a conclusion, it doesn't change anything, so why bother?
The only thing you could possibly gain is avoiding a bruised ego.

We are only talking about it  don't get involved if you have nothing contributing to say.

Yes, and that is my point.
Argue all you want but don't expect to reach a conclusion.
And even if you against all odds do reach a conclusion, it doesn't change anything, so why bother?
The only thing you could possibly gain is avoiding a bruised ego.

Elegy is like a piece of change; two faced, and always flipping over.

But you can't prove any exsited either, which brings a close to that leg of this discussion.

Also, you bringing oxygen onto the table made me think; where does the bible explain for all the elements that we are still discovering?

Most of the elements that we are all still discovering are man made and God has created enough so that we can marvel at his glory.