Evolution or Creation?

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: JLee
I don't care...

I vote for :beer:.

Who's with me?

Here here! :beer:

Thirded. :beer:

KT

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FoBoT
God created evolution and all scientific laws

Who or what created god?

i don't know
i could be wrong, it is just my point of view

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: ironwing
I just received a bicentential quarter in change.

? what is that?

An alternative spelling of bicentennial.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FoBoT
God created evolution and all scientific laws

Who or what created god?

Q did it.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: ironwing
I just received a bicentential quarter in change.

? what is that?

An alternative spelling of bicentennial.

no, as in bicentential of what? Theory of Evolution?


<- not Amerikinsky, I don't know what shows up on American Quarters


Eagerly awaiting pwnage of someone pointing out the coin is actually Canadian.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FoBoT
God created evolution and all scientific laws

Who or what created god?

Each believer gets to make their own.

 

[Babbles]

I don't think these two concepts are necessarily mutually exclusive. Embracing some sort of creationism ideal seems acceptable, to me, as long as it is reasonably approached.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: ironwing
I just received a bicentential quarter in change.

? what is that?

An alternative spelling of bicentennial.

no, as in bicentential of what? Theory of Evolution?


<- not Amerikinsky, I don't know what shows up on American Quarters


Eagerly awaiting pwnage of someone pointing out the coin is actually Canadian.

Nah, the Canadians didn't want to come along and spent another 206 years in miserable servitude to the English dogs.

Bicentennial quarters were released in 1976 to commemerate the 200th anniversary of the signing of the American Declaration of Independence. The front face George Washington in profile with 1776-1976 along the bottom. The back shows a drummer in period costume and a torch surrounded with 13 stars.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: ironwing
I just received a bicentential quarter in change.

? what is that?

An alternative spelling of bicentennial.

no, as in bicentential of what? Theory of Evolution?


<- not Amerikinsky, I don't know what shows up on American Quarters


Eagerly awaiting pwnage of someone pointing out the coin is actually Canadian.

Nah, the Canadians didn't want to come along and spent another 206 years in miserable servitude to the English dogs.

Bicentennial quarters were released in 1976 to commemerate the 200th anniversary of the signing of the American Declaration of Independence. The front face George Washington in profile with 1776-1976 along the bottom. The back shows a drummer in period costume and a torch surrounded with 13 stars.

err, what is the relevance in this then?

Or is it one of those "This thread is now about pies" thing?

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: sdifox
I know that, I meant it would sound better.

"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence."

"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of faith."

Me like version 2 better. Religion is all about faith.

Unless he is knocking the religious for their lack of confidence in the religion itself

Ah, so you find his lack of "faith" disturbing.

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Q did it.

"Change the gravitational constant of the Universe, thereby altering the moon's mass."

"And how am I supposed to do that?"

"You just do it!"

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Why does the poll have an option for "point nine repeating equals one"? Are you saying it doesn't?

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
This thread fails. For one thing it's just flamebait, for another this is a false dichotomy.

No it's not. When someone says "Creation" in this context, they mean Biblical creation, as in MAN was created whole and placed on Earth by God. This is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to evolutionary theory which says man evolved form other life forms over billions of years. There is no melding of the two ideas. You can have one or the other, but not both. It's not a false dichotomy.

People who make arguments for things like God creating the basic function and laws of the universe and letting this mechanism unfold into whatever it will (leading to us), are abandoning the definition of Creationism for their own fancy. Creationism is strictly confined to Biblical Genesis; Adam and Eve.

 

[frostedflakes]

.999...!=1

 

[RESmonkey]

religion is full of LOL and fail.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: sdifox
I know that, I meant it would sound better.

"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence."

"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of faith."

Me like version 2 better. Religion is all about faith.

Unless he is knocking the religious for their lack of confidence in the religion itself

Ah, so you find his lack of "faith" disturbing.

yeah, not into that whole "God help those who help themselves" thing.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: jonks
When does life begin? Should women have the right to choose an abortion?

Life begins fifteen minutes before conception.

Oh SNAP!

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Point nine repeating factorial doesn't equal one if point nine repeating doesn't equal one, so we are in the same bind. I NEED ANSWERS!

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: iFX

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: iFX
My view is that there is not enough conclusive evidence to support either of these theories.

Yes there is... There are piles of evidence of evolution, and no evidence of creationism.

I suppose reading comprehension isn't your strong area. Well, you are welcome to believe that. I have studied both in detail and for me there is not enough conclusive evidence supporting either theory to confidently explain the beginnings of life on our planet. Perhaps in the future there will be, right now there is not.

creationism isn't a theory.

as far as evolution goes, you need to look up the definition of scientific theory. The way you emphasize it as being significant in your comment shows that you don't understand what a scientific theory is.

 

[Oceandevi]

Something had to poop all this matter from somewhere.

I vote for the space cow.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: iFX

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: iFX

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: iFX
My view is that there is not enough conclusive evidence to support either of these theories.

Yes there is... There are piles of evidence of evolution, and no evidence of creationism.

I suppose reading comprehension isn't your strong area. Well, you are welcome to believe that. I have studied both in detail and for me there is not enough conclusive evidence supporting either theory to confidently explain the beginnings of life on our planet. Perhaps in the future there will be, right now there is not.

Then you are a complete idiot. It's clear that you are incapable of understanding anything above a 1st grade level. Congratulations.

Hey look, an e-thug.

Oh no, I've been called out. Forgive me for not losing sleep over what you think of me.

You can go now, no one cares about you.

Care to join him?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
It's a failure of science education in this country that so many Americans believe that there's an actual scientific debate about whether or not evolution has occurred. How is it that today, 4 years since Kitzmiller v. Dover, we still have people using the "it's only a theory" argument? If, at this point, you still can't be bothered to learn the scientific definition of a theory, there's no helping you.

To be fair, it is not education that failed, it is the administration actively promoting ID. Look at the various states that actually allowed ID into the classroom though legislation.

Indeed.

You know, I have no problem if some private school wants to teach religion as part of their curriculum, so long as it is addressed in the proper background. An elective, something like History of Religion, Spirituality, Metaphysics, a section in Mythology, whatever. It should even be addressed in a History of Science class. Science is an offshoot of religion, anyway. All great religions spawned scientific thought. As far as Biology and other sciences, where the practice of science is enforced--religion does not belong. it simply confuses these disciplines among neophyte students. No wonder they have no clue what "theory" means. The language is not the same.

The difference is that the scientists that came from the West and those from the East, the North and South--those out of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, whatever...share a common understanding, an identical foundation. While the dominant religious structure of these various regions kept believers polarized, those who sought knowledge through the scientific approach came together, shared, and gained in such little time an unimaginable scope of understanding.

Both disciplines seek understanding and knowledge about the world around them, both ask "why?" Neither share a common approach, however; which is why religion does not belong in the science classroom.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: jonks
When does life begin? Should women have the right to choose an abortion?

How is babby formed?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Arcadio
I believe in evolution as directed by an intelligent agent, in this case God. Without intervention, evolution would be impossible. Genesis is just a symbolic description of the actual process of evolution, not a lie.

How so, oh AT arbiter of all that is knowledge? Why does Genesis have to undergo revision after revision simply so that it can fit into more modern understandings of reality?

your mixing disciplines in an improper manner, and this a fallacy.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Arcadio
I believe in evolution as directed by an intelligent agent, in this case God. Without intervention, evolution would be impossible. Genesis is just a symbolic description of the actual process of evolution.

You are proof that ID is false. There is no intelligence in your design.

And if our species is the best that an "infinitely intelligent" designer can do....haha, oh wow. Well that would be just plain pathetic. The rate for birth defects is about 1 in 33. 97% success rate. Our manufacturing methods strive for 6-sigma or higher, for a 99.9997% success rate. That failure rate alone would seem to say that this creator is certainly not all powerful or all knowing, and in fact has created a product with some serious technical flaws. Even if there aren't problems at birth, genetic flaws can occur later on, manifested as cancer.

Yeah yeah, it's all because of original sin and us getting tossed out of Eden. That load of BS is a whole other paradoxical can'o'worms.


And then there's my sig (for those who block them):
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence." - Doug McLeod

At one time, God was responsible for lightning. Why isn't that still true? Did religion have to *gasp* evolve in the face of science? Why would God smite His own houses of worship, as he seems to do on a fairly consistent basis?

Why did God create modern man with an appendix? What an idiot!

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Arcadio
I believe in evolution as directed by an intelligent agent, in this case God. Without intervention, evolution would be impossible. Genesis is just a symbolic description of the actual process of evolution, not a lie.

How so, oh AT arbiter of all that is knowledge? Why does Genesis have to undergo revision after revision simply so that it can fit into more modern understandings of reality?

your mixing disciplines in an improper manner, and this a fallacy.

But, but he knows physics!