Evolution Vs. Creationism

[Dirty Penguin]

I agree and I would much rather see a video on spontaneously reproducing bunny rabbits and their ability to fill a room in a span of 5 years and eventually producing one with big floppy ears or how a tree is capable of producing fruit than debating nylon eating bacteria, disease, and agitated germs.

You'd first have to get and understanding of what the ToE says and then you have to understand that it happens on microscopic level. This is why I was giving you this type of information. Creationist are under the impression that evolution is about metamorphosis such as one species becoming something totally different (cats evolving into birds) and that's not how it works so it's best to get an understanding of what the ToE says before asserting what it doesn't.

As far as debating bacteria, you're right. There is no debate. Their ability to grow and their classification of being alive is fact. We have bacteria all around us, on us and in us and they are live and functioning. The point was to show how it all works.

 

[micrurus]

Gloone, just for clarity and for the sake of conversation.
Do you STILL think that plants aren't living beings?

 

[McBell]

actually its because i dont like your attitude, thats why i refuse to debate with you.

Ah, is that what you call merely throwing out a list of unsubstantiated claims that you can only support with even more unsubstantiated claims?

 

[dallas1125]

dallas, then what source is valid for "creation"?

Objective evidence. Science...

 

[McBell]

sorry, i thought the "creation" part was biblically related

It would probably help you look less ignorant if you were to actually read the OP.

 

[McBell]

dallas, then what source is valid for "creation"?

This thread is about evolution, not creation.
Of course, if you had read the OP you would know that.
Here is the OP:

I am curious as to the facts each side claims. I am going to be neutral on this and I am looking for a debate between people using facts.

Questions for Debate:
1. What evidence is there for evolution?
2. What evidence is there against evolution?

Rules: Any facts should be backed up with a valid source. There is no attacking the credibility of the other side because I have seen debates turn into nothing more than: Im right your wrong! No, Im right and your wrong! We are discussing the facts and not the person. The bible is not considered a valid source, along with any other religious texts.

Please be so kind as to point out, from the OP, anything about creation...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I am actually very aware of the so called evidence as I read a lot

Here's the problem as I see it. As "aware" as you think you are you actually make the classic creationist assumption revealing that you either haven't read the evidence for the ToE, have no idea what the ToE says and have no clue of the Scientific Method.

I am actually very aware of the so called evidence as I read a lot, wich in effect is to this date only a theory (wich is why it's called Theory of Evolution - ToE).

In regards to science a "Theory" is fact based on the evidence. You're understanding and common usage of the word reflects that it's just a guess or an idea but in science that's not so and not how it works.

The fact that our skeleton is similar to that of an ape or that our muscle structure is very similar is not evidence that we have evolved from them

I call dishonesty here. If you truly are "aware" of the evidence then you wouldn't have stated this. We did not come from them rather they (chimpanzees) and us humans share a common ancestor.

there is still the "missing link" that proves it all, and it has not been found, even scientists today say it.

There is no missing link and Scientist don't claim that there is. The evidence has already been compiled showing we are related and share a common ancestor. If you say "missing link" then what you are in effect acknowledging is that all of the primates and humans are related.

More over Evolution should be continuous, to this date nothing is evolving.

Now I'm sure you're being dishonest because if you were "aware" of the evidence you'd know that biologist understand that ALL LIFE on this planet is continuing to evolve. What it boils down to is you really don't have a firm understanding what evolution (in the biological sense) means nor do you really know what the ToE says.

But it has only being used to somehow trying to explain our existance.

NO biologist working in the field of medicine would ever conclude evolution is static. In order to develop new medicines, vaccines etc. as a biologist you *MUST* understand that evolution is continuous. Just in this thread alone we've displayed plenty of evidence of this.

So for the moment we have to accept the fact that it is a theory under consideration.

No..a theory means fact based on the evidence. No one but the uneducated is coming to your conclusion.

On the other hand there are accounts in the scriptures that prove the existance of a creator who intended us to be on the earth.

What is evident is that the book exist. The information contain therein is out of sync with what we now know of the natural world. If you want to talk science at least get an understanding before commenting because "Proof" is not something you'll see in science. Science does not deal in the absolute. Its only concerns is what does the current evidence suggest. Proof is reserved for Mathematics.

 

[sniper762]

evolution vs CREATIONISM

and dallas i'm surprised, since the bible is very much concidered as a valid sorce by the lds

 

[dallas1125]

evolution vs CREATIONISM

and dallas i'm surprised, since the bible is very much concidered as a valid sorce by the lds

Yes but I am looking for facts separate from the bible. If it is true then it wont only be in the bible.

 

[sniper762]

i doubt you will find any FACTS that will substanciate a faith based BELIEF such as lds.

you seem to be influenced by the many atheists here.

 

[micrurus]

i doubt you will find any FACTS that will substanciate a faith based BELIEF such as lds.

you seem to be influenced by the many atheists here.

Is that why you ignore the facts? because they undermine YOUR beliefs?

 

[dallas1125]

i doubt you will find any FACTS that will substanciate a faith based BELIEF such as lds.

I believe contrary to that. But as stated in the OP, I am staying neutral and watching. I have put int input in here and there though.

you seem to be influenced by the many atheists here.

Maybe that is because very few creationists were able to defend their position. Actually, im only aware of one who was able too.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Lol, that's some source you got there.

[youtube]Ri20shBEsls[/youtube]
YouTube - Ida Know
Watch this video, it was created to tackle the inappropriate hype that Ida got as being the "missing link", but he does a very nice job explaining the links we find throughout all of the monkey ancestry. Yea, [youtube]4A-dMqEbSk8[/youtube]
we're monkeys.

I've always liked AronRa. I haven't seen all of his videos but what I have seen I've been impressed with.

 

[sniper762]

there is nobody that has investigated various religious beliefs MORE (30 years and continuing)than i.

wouldn't you perceive my posts differently, if i claimed to be a southern babtist, a penticostal holiness preacher or an lds priest.

thats why i dont post my religious affilliation.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

there is nobody that has investigated various religious beliefs MORE (30 years and continuing)than i.

wouldn't you perceive my posts differently, if i claimed to be a southern babtist, a penticostal holiness preacher or an lds priest.

thats why i dont post my religious affilliation.

So, who cares.....????

How about we stay on topic...

:sad:

 

[dallas1125]

there is nobody that has investigated various religious beliefs MORE (30 years and continuing)than i.

wouldn't you perceive my posts differently, if i claimed to be a southern babtist, a penticostal holiness preacher or an lds priest.

thats why i dont post my religious affilliation.

I might view it differently, who knows. At first glance I would by your affiliation until I got to know you better.

 

[Autodidact]

Scientists have NOT found the necessary "links" between apelike animals and man...."Science Digest" speaks of "the lack of a missing link to explain a relatively sudden appearance of modern man. "Newsweek" observed: "the missing link between man and apes....is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule"
Because there are NO links, "phantom creatures" have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they really existed. That explains why the following contradictions could occur, as reported by a science magazine: "humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contended, in sudden jumps from one form to the other....But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion"......
Thus we can better understand the observation of Solly Zuckerman (a respected anatomist) who wrote in the "Journal of the Royal Collage of Surgeons of Edinburgh": "The search for the proverbial 'missing link' in man's evlution, that holy grail of a never dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allow speculation and myth to flourish as happily to-day as they did 50 years ago and more". He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary...............

It seems I am doing a lot of expaining.....why don't you enlighten me on the truths of evolution? and prove me wrong

O.K., I will, if you will promise to stick around, pay attention, and please don't make me repeat the same thing to you over and over, because I'm about at the end of my patience with doing that.

 

[Autodidact]

I have never said I support creationists, on the contrary, however...give me a day or so to get hold of all the sources and I will post them on here with pleasure...I am off to work now (horrible chef life)....I'll catch you guys in a bit.....hopefully you will still be the same and will not have evolved into something else.... just kidding

Great! And if any of them are from this century, I will be surprised, and will frubal you.

 

[Autodidact]

thats why it was not addressed to you.

public forum, sniper. If you want to talk to dallas in private, we have PM for that.

 

[micrurus]

there is nobody that has investigated various religious beliefs MORE (30 years and continuing)than i.

wouldn't you perceive my posts differently, if i claimed to be a southern babtist, a penticostal holiness preacher or an lds priest.

thats why i dont post my religious affilliation.

it doesn't matter how long you have been studying, people could have studied something for 1 year or 100. either way I couldn't care less. the onley thing that matters is the arguement that you bring foreward and the knowledge that you use to back it up.

And when you say that it took you 30 years to get to the level that you are showing here... the word "pity" comes to mind.