Evolution vs. Intelligent Design discussion

You can begin by stating your beliefs...

I encourage you all, athiests and Christians to watch "Expelled"

And answer these questions (PLEASE DON'T DODGE THEM)

Why is Christianity the most controversial religion in the world?

Why in public schools is Christianity being pushed out, and evolution being brought in?

Why are Christian scientists told to shut up when they begin questioning the evolution theory (hint, something WILL, and is being exposed)?

That house I was talking about, is evolving... didn't your own house do the same? There couldn't have been a builder, that's ridiculous. It's just a theory you're concocting... right?

I seriously have no answers to your questions.

Christianity is the most argued because so many are forced to realize that it is true, but do not want to believe it.

First, I wish to state that both Creationism and Evolution are merely theories, since none of us were there at the beginning to see what really happened. This said, I would like to assure people that, although I am rather partial to Creationism and Intelligent design, I will try my best to argue my points as logically as possible.
Camille, your questions on why Christianity is so controversial bring to mind a quote I once read, and I believe it was from C. S. Lewis. It ran something like the following: The reason why Christianity is being so vehemently contested is because it is the truth; and the truth is always and forever one of the devil's main adversaries. Satan will continuously use whatever means possible to mislead God's people, causing them to stray from His path(Satan's main goal).

True, as Christians we're not supposed to beleive that our faith is merely a theory... that defeats the whole purpose of faith.

Ah! All marvellous points! Andrea, yes, the Bible (which I hold to be the most sacred Book on earth) does state "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth." However, to play the devil's advocate, He (God) never stated in specific whether he instantaneously created each thing, or developed a form of evolution which somehow took place, as I have heard argued. Now, seen altogether, and with the intimate knowledge of God and his M.O. that only we Christians can posses, I beleive that God performed the former (creation), not the latter.
Also, remember, God did not intend the Bible to be a detailed scientific treatise. It was the famous astronomer, Galileo, who stated that "The Bible shows us how to get to Heaven, not how the heavens work!"
Camille, I am talking about Creationism as a theory, not as a matter of faith. The definition of "theory" being "A proposed but unverifiable explaination"; the definition of faith being "The acceptance of the word of another, trusting that one knows what the other is saying and is honest and is telling the truth." I am not disputing the Word of God! However, if you argue with an atheist or an evolutionist, they will not accept the Bible as a reliable authority. Therefore, you must try to put yourself in their boots, as it were, and frame your statements and questions from there. How would you do that?

Alright, I see your point. And I will be arguing from that standpoint once we get more of the opposing side here. Just wanted to clarify that you do actually believe it's not a theory ( :

Sarah, It's not really that you will offend a "hard core Evolutionist," its that he will just blow you off. In order to debate logically, (and to actually convince your opponent) you need to have and share evidence which they cannot possibly ignore (evidence like this does exist, but you have to work hard to find and use it).

I'll grant you this, the Bible is the strongest piece of evidence one can use for many logical debates; but only where it is accepted by all involved. The Bible would be consulted, and indeed must be consulted, in debates among fellow Christians! Debates like this would include "How long did the earth exist before Noah's Flood" and the like. The bible should only be used as an 'authority' in a "Creation vs. Evolution" debate when its members are exclusively Christian. However, the topic of this debate invites both Christians and Atheists; and Atheists, by definition, do not accept the Bible as proof of anything! So, in order to sway them, you have to work a bit harder.

Also, in a logical debate, to illegitimately appeal to an authority is to enact the logical fallacy of "Ipse Dixit." Here, in this particular debate, you have not really appealled to the wrong authority, just the right authority at the wrong time.

Besides, I don't think anyone needs to argue over the fact that Brady or I (or anyone else, for that matter) agree with the Bible or not. As I have said before, I am convinced that the Bible tells the truth, and that the theory of Creationism is correct. To argue whether or not a participant of this debate believes in the Bible is really beside the point and should be left out entirely. Eventually, not all participants will believe. What then? Exclude them for thier beliefs? How could we debate? We wouldn't have anyone to debate with!

I think we should all go back to the top and read Camille's first message and follow her advise; namely, to state our beliefs right when we join and leave the topic of our faith to another debate, where it belongs.

Kenna, I agree with you 100%.

Exactly! And we can!

Might I suggest reading the book "Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation: The Explorer's Guide to the Awesome Works of God" by Dennis R. Petersen. It is very enlightening and will give all Creationists ideas for arguing their point.

Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation: The Explorer's Guide to the Awesome Works of God

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/...

I didn't actually read it, but I don't know. And like I stated before, I have mixed feelings about this.

That's perfectly ok, Madisen. But for the sake of the debate, argue on side you feel most strongly about.

i belive in being inteligent.
God put us here.

an evolutionist view on life.


there's an epty room.
an evolutionist walks in.
"ohh look! a rock! it must have walked here! certianly noone put it here!"
all of a sudden the roch turns into a stone.
"the stone into a boulder.
the boulder into a hill.
the hill into a mountian.
the mountian into a continent.
the continent into the world!"
thinks the evolutionist.

how very foolish.

creationist view

"someone put it there."

evolutionist response

"that's stupid! why would you believe that?!"

creationist responds

"they left a note"


....
honestly, which makes more sense

Might I remind everyone of the subtle difference between debating and arguing? The first, and point of this group, requires an open mind. You can't write ideas off until you understand the reason behind them. The world isn't black and white, and some statements you disagree with might actually have a valid argument.

And Eric, it's a bit more complicated than your bolder comparison. The idea of evolution in it's self is a logical train of thought, and most "leaps of faith" occur in the beginning, where none are quite certain exactly if and how* chemicals came into being what we call "life".

*Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe there's any proof to the beginning of evolution, but there might be.

FYI, i don't believe in evolution because there is no proof at all of how it started. I am a christian, and believe strongly that if you find a computer in a room, some one puting it there is far more logical that it evolving.

simply put, i can't find ANY proof about it being POSIBLE evolution just started by itself. I do know that God created earth.





now that i have clarified my beliefs, i will say that there is nothing logical about a fish with legs...

Now that's what I'm talking about, Courtney! Lets debate logically! Know both sides of the argument! Attempt to understand your opponent; then you will more easily sway them! Our intent is not to scare Evolutionists away from the truth; unfortunately, that is exactly what happens when we refuse to keep an open mind and debate using facts to support our case!

For example: In a true debate, Eric would at this point give scientific reasons to support his belief "that there is nothing logical about a fish with legs..."

...but as he has not, I shall present the contrary.

http://www.state.nj.us/pinelands/scie...

Tadpole=fish with legs.

Now, I understand frogs are not technically fish, nor are mammals extremely closely related to frogs, but you cannot deny that a regular stage in the life cycle of common animals is likely to have occurred some time in history.

ok, so this happens to frogs, toads, and...
uhm...

2 times in 100,000,000 does not seem common to me...
and FISH never grow legs. MAYBE a FEW AMPHIBIANS, but ABSOLUTLY NO FISH!

ok, scientific proof?

well, you asked for it...
General realativity
UNIVERSE TOO FINELY TUNED TO BE CHANCE.
also proves it is possible


ARE YOU BRAVE ENOUGH TO TRY AN EXPERIMENT? There is one way to know for YOURSELF that God exists and that Christ is God. Suspend disbelief for a few moments, and take a leap of faith and have the courage to SINCERELY pray the following prayer. Now you suspend disbelief for hours at a time to watch a movie, or read a book, you can surely do it for sixty seconds to perform an important experiment!

Leaps of faith are necessary in everything, even science. We wouldn't' have made it to the Moon if Humanity hadn't taken a leap of faith that the technology to make it possible would be inventible and put in the effort to invent it. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

If Christ is not real, you will be no worse off than you were before. If Christ is real you will have gained eternal life and found a new best friend.

A few words of warning; you must be willing to commit to allowing this Presence to change you into the Being He wants you to be. If you perform it half heartedly, or with no real intention of changing, you will get nowhere. Not everyone is up to performing this experiment, Are you?

"Dear Lord Jesus, I have trouble believing in you. Please help my unbelief. If you are real, please forgive me my faults and help me to forgive others. Thank you for taking responsibility for my faults yourself by dying on the cross for me, and help me to overcome my faults. Please come to live inside of me. Be my Lord and Savior. Help me to live for you, and help me to help others find you. Amen."

If you pray that prayer, soon you will know for yourself that God is real, but if you don't pray that prayer you may or not believe in Him, but you won't have Him living inside of you, loving you from the inside out, from the deepest marrow of your being outward. It is not enough just to believe. Even demons believe.

No one learns anything without performing experiments. If you don't try to find God, you never will, because He won't go where He is not invited. Why should He waste His time on those who do not want Him when there are millions who do? The Kingdom of Heaven is for volunteers. No one is ever dragged there kicking and screaming against their will.

If you sincerely pray the above prayer, my theory is, you will not realize how well it worked until you find yourself quietly and gently changing.


THERE YOU ARE I HAVE TO GO NOW BE BAK LATER!

WOOOOOOOOOooo-HOOOOOOOOOO!!! go Eric!!! =) nicely done =)

I believe high-fiving is in order? *high-fives Eric from the bottom, middle, and top of her heart*

PS... Eric, did you hear that radio thing called "You Bet Your Life" by.... well, sorry, I can't remember his name. But it was a very good show and something you said reminded me of it...

"If Christ is not real, you will be no worse off than you were before. If Christ is real you will have gained eternal life and found a new best friend."

By common, I meant that frogs aren't exactly a rare genetic mutation, but rather, a fully accepted order. (as in, scientific classification)

Amphibians are suddenly outcast from the animal kingdom because they contradict your argument? Amphibians are the link you seem to be complaining about. As we were not around to see humanity evolve, we make a hypothesis. This hypothesis includes a transition from water animals to land animals. Not necessarily fish with legs, simply a series of generations that, over time, developed the characteristics of land animals, and more specifically, mammals.

You question the feasibility of this, as you have every right too. Such a huge ecological jump seems impractical. I have shown you an example where a single being makes the transition from aquatic to terrestrial life, a much larger feat than the slow change proposed by evolution. I do not have direct proof that animals made this transition, but you cannot deny me the fact that it is perfectly possible that animals could make the transition from aquatic life to terrestrial life: it happens often in neighborhood ponds.

Furthermore, amphibians are the equivalent of fish with legs. Evolution is centered on change. Of course there will be no fish with legs: as soon as they sprout legs, they are renamed and classified, even though their ancestors were the fish you speak of.

Secondly, you are citing a source called "proofgodexists.org". The author obviously has an intent with their message, and therefore, the whole site is extremely biased. The author would, and probably has, left out any logic and points that would hurt their argument. Information that helps them on the other hand, would be included, and probably has, despite whether or not it is completely true. I cannot trust the information on that page, and so, cannot believe all the conclusions it reaches.

I will not attempt to argue General Relativity as I know little about it, but this I can say about the "Too finely tuned to be chance":

Humanity is a very self-obsessed species. The author of the page, and the authors she mentions, all assume that the ONLY way for life to exist is as it does currently on planet Earth. I purpose the opposite. Life is defined as the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter. It does not require that said life needs water. It does not require that said life needs anything. If hydrogen were absent, an helium took it's place, who is to say that a similar life wouldn't have come into existence, dependent on helium? If we didn't have stars, and never had, would we even know the difference? Even the electron and proton charge balance: what is to say that life wouldn't have emerged able to withstand such conditions?

We look around and think that this world fits us perfectly: could it be instead, that we fit it perfectly? By necessity, not by chance? Even in the Bible, was not the Universe created before the human?

I believe I have addressed all that I meant to.

yes, frogs do start as tadpoles, but consider the hundreds of years humans have observed tadpoles turn into frogs. It is always the same thing over and over. A tadpole has never turned into something that was not a frog, has it? And the frog has stayed the same...it is not evolving. The life cycle of a frog is much like other forms of life, like mushrooms. Mushrooms form underground, and pop up when in a certain stage of life. Does that mean that the mushroom is proof of evolution because it's now above ground? No! It is just a continuous stage of life.
Although evolution is taught as fact in public schools, what they're not telling you is that there is absolutely no solid evidence whatsoever for this theory. The "simple life form" that life supposedly evolved from does not exist. The simplest life form known to man is actually rather complex. It is a single cell, but within this cell is the capability to reproduce, make/catch its own food, eliminate waste, protect itself, and in some there is even an eye spot that is sensitive to light.
Now the way that this cell reproduces is just by cloning itself. When you clone something, it is exactly the same. How could evolution take place if the cell was just cloning itself over and over again, making the exact same thing over and over again? Also the chance that life could actually occur randomly is extremely small. Scientists have never been able to create life from something nonliving, and I am confident that they never will be able to, because God is our creator and it is only through him that life is made.

Nicely said, Jessica. =) *high-fives, high fives, and more high fives* =)

Very true Jessica, however, I wasn't suggesting that frogs in themselves are evolutional, but rather giving an example of the water-to-land evolutional transition that explains how we ended up breathing air after (supposedly) being fish for so long.

Cells do reproduce by cloning themselves. However, it doesn't always work. Sometimes, DNA mutates, creating a non-identical offspring. Thus, a new type of life. If this new type does well, then it in turn reproduces, increasing the spread of the new type.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evol...

If you need an example that DNA mutations do occur, simply consider extra limbs. Some children are born with them, and if they were not amputated/often useless, these humans might in turn produce off spring with extra limbs. (Of course, the human form of reproduction makes this unlikely, but the bacteria way would work like this.) If these new, extra-limbed people were more efficient, then eventually they would dominate, and our civilization would evolve to be mostly made of people with extra limbs until the point, all homo sapiens had extra limbs.

As for the cell being extremely complex, you are right again. The chemical situation, extreme heat, and other properties of early oceans (supposedly) came to create DNA, which then, under more series of circumstances, came to very, very simple cells (probably more simple than that of today.) It is not known how this happened: DNA is very recent discovery in the history of science. At some point, chemicals became "life". Though I am no scientist, I would hypothesize this began through chemical attractions, developing into conscious seeking.

To the argument of life not being able to occur randomly, please see my earlier statement. ("To finely tuned to be chance")

I am similarly confident that humans will never create life out of the inorganic. Life (under the evolution theory) took a very, very, very, VERY long time to begin, and that is with the right circumstances, which we do not know enough about to recreate. Besides that fact, we have no business attempting to play the supernatural.

HHHHMMMM....i wonder why "howstuffworks" doesn't have "evolution began"....

hi-5s back!

oh, and you obviously havent tried the experiment...

Yes, of course. Mutations do occur. But once something has mutated it is no longer the same, correct? If this be the case then why do we have the variety of life that we do now? Why is there not just one species that keeps on changing?

Even if evolution were possible under "chemical situation, extreme heat, and other properties of early oceans" that still leads to the question, where did these other chemicals, heat and early oceans come from? They had to have come from somewhere.

The world being millions of years old is, in my opinion, preposterous! There is no solid evidence for it being so old. All the methods used to date fossils and that sort is seriously flawed. If you don't believe me research radiometric dating, this is one method that is used.

Courtney, are you a Christian? I noticed you mentioned the supernatural...

"If this is a dream, then it cannot be my own, for it's too wonderful to have been thought up by myself" ... or something like that. yeah.... just felt like saying that.

Actually, Eric, it does.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evol...
However, conclusions aren't really reached, because the fact is, we don't exactly know. I saw a movie once about it, but I don't really remember much other than it has to do with confusing chemical processes.

Mutations change only that being. Life form B is a mutation of life form A, but even as life form B prospers, life form A still exists. Repeat this process quite a few times, and you end up with a variety of life. (Bacteria, believed to be one of the first life forms, are very numerous and have a shorter life cycle, so a variety would come into existence much more quickly than it would develop in todays world.)

I do believe that the universe is not only millions, but billions of years old. Starlight could have not reached the earth otherwise.

The massive force of energy that (supposably) caused the Big Bang resulted in atoms, which then grouped together and eventually caused planets, water, etc. The source of this massive force of energy is the great unknown of science.

To this I can provide no defense, for Jessica, I am Christian. I gladly attended worship and Sunday School this morning, and will gladly attend youth group this evening. I have not preformed any experiment you mention Eric, for when first realizing I had never officially done it before (despite attending a Christian pre-school), I prayed to Christ and invited him into my heart, at the age of 8.

I do believe that the Earth is billions of years old. Scientific evidence shows such, and the Bible gives no contrary: I believe God is timeless, so there is no reason billions of years couldn't be described as mere days.

awesome! glad to find another sister in Christ =)

Now you still have not explained where this energy came from, or what kind of energy it was. Also have you found out anything about how scientists determine the earth's "age"?

Yeah! Now we are getting somewhere!

Courtney, I believe that the Bible does mention (in a rather roundabout way) the age of the earth. Scientists and Religious who have studied the Bible in depth have added all of the names and ages up in the Old Testament and have determined that the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. In addition, much of the same evidence that Evolutionists use to "prove" that the earth is billions of years old is used by Creationists to prove their point of view.

Things to think about:

1.) When NASA first thought about sending an expedition to the moon, they were very worried about the safety of landing. They believed that the cosmic dust that had settled on the moon would be about 100ft. deep and that the astronauts would simply disappear into it when they stepped out of their Lander. However, when the astronauts arrived, they found that the dust was actually only 1/8th of an inch to 3 inches deep. Using measurements of the rate of dust accumulation taken over the last several decades, scientists currently believe that it only took a mere 8,000 years max for this dust to accumulate.

2.) All observed mutations have been detrimental to the organism. Take for example fruit flies that grow an extra set of wings, chickens born without wings and/or feathers, and (to take your example, Courtney…) people born with extra limbs/appendages.

3.) At the currant rate of sediment accumulation in the world’s oceans, there should be at least 30 times the amount of sediment on the seabed as there actually is if the world was billions of years old.

4.) The Carbon-14 dating method is only accurate to 5,730 years, due to the length of this particular isotope’s atomic half-life.

5.) Potassium–argon tests measure the age of volcanic material (lava rocks, ash, etc.) from the date it was released from the earth. Not too long ago, volcanic lava rocks from Hawaii were subjected to a potassium-argon test. The results indicated that the rocks were between 160 million and 3 billion years old. The scientists who tested these rocks later went back and checked these results with historical records. They discovered that the lava rocks were actually formed in a volcanic eruption that took place in AD 1801. This and other such tests show that the Potassium-argon dating technique is not as accurate as some would have others believe.

6.) C-14 tests on various things contradict the claims of the geologic chart. A saber-toothed tiger fossil, which was between 100,000 - 1,000,000 years old according to the geologic chart, was tested; the C-14 result: 28,000 years old. Natural gas, which was about 50,000,000 years old according to the geologic chart, turned out to be 34,000 years old, according to the C-14 test. Coal, which was 100,000,000 years old according to the geologic chart, was determined to be 1,600 years old by C-14 testing. Granted, 28,000 and 34,000 years is older than 8,000 to 10,000 years (age of the earth), but keep in mind the C-14 method is only accurate to 5,730 years.

7.) Man-made objects have been discovered imbedded in rock that predate the advent of man according to the geologic chart. An example of this is recorded in the June 1851 issue of Scientific American, which ran the following article on a metallic vase that was dynamited from solid rock in Dorchester, Massachusetts:

“…the two parts together …formed a bell-shaped vessel, 4 ½ inches high, 6 ½ inches at the base, 2 ½ inches at the top, and about an eighth of an inch in thickness. The body of this vessel resembles zinc in color, or a composition metal, in which there is a considerable portion of silver There is no doubt but that this curiosity was blown out of the rock…The matter is worthy of investigation, as there is no deception in the case.”

The article also describes the “exquisitely done” inlaid decoration that adorned the vase, which included vines, wreaths, and flowers. The item circulated from museum to museum for a time until it mysteriously disappeared.

8.) The geologic chart as depicted in textbooks is found in only one place on earth; those textbooks.

9.) The layers depicted on the geologic chart are all scrambled up in real life. In every place on earth, they appear in a different order.

10.) This scrambling of the layers can easily be accounted for by the Genesis Flood (the story of Noah’s Ark). If you place different materials in a water-filled jar, shake the jar to mix the contents, and leave the contents to settle, you will find that the heavier objects collected at the bottom of the jar, the 2nd heavier objects on top of that, and so on. This will arrange the materials into layers, and the order will be arranged by weight and water turbulence, not by the order in which you added the materials. Imagine this experiment on a global scale and you can see why everything is all jumbled. Such jumbling would have taken place in a matter of weeks if the flood was anything like the Bible describes. Inversly, this also means that you cannot rely on the layers of the earth as a means of dating the objects found in them.

I find these things to be rather thought provoking and I have always been curious as to how an Evolutionist would explain them.

Much of the information I provided I found in the book Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation; The Explorer’s Guide to the Awesome Works of God, by Dennis R. Petersen. Courtney, please don’t blow me off because I quoted from a book that has the word “creation” in its title. It is true that the author is a Creationist, but it is also true that this is one of the least “one-sided” books I have ever read on the subject. Petersen presents facts to back up all his claims for Creationism. Besides, any book that you read on this subject will be slanted towards either Creationism of Evolution. If everyone used the argument that “The author obviously has an intent with their message,” then we would not be able to quote from any material on earth in any debate. There is no such thing as an unbiased author; there are only authors who present their ideas logically and authors who do not. If someone followed your reasoning through to conclusion, he could say that he would not accept the comments of anyone, because they all had “an intent;” and this would defeat the whole purpose of debate. Rather, when debating, try to keep an open mind and “Test and prove all things.” (1 Thessalonians, 5:21)

PS. Courtney, I hope you don’t think I’m picking on you or anything. It is never my intent to hurt anyone in this debate. However, so far you are the only evolutionist on here; so I warn you, until we get more Evolutionists to join, you are going to be asked many, many questions! …But you’ve probably figured that out already!

PPS. Great job debating, people! I think we are finally getting the hang of it!

"...the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago."

ah, so it "spontaneously" formed from "chemicals of planet Earth..."
wait, where did the Chemicals come from? and for that mater, where did Earth come from?

ok, you know what?
you will never see the Intelegent theory as logical, and i will never EVER see intelecence as illogical, so i agree to disagree

2 Questions:

1)If people evolved from monkeys, why aren't the monkeys alive today evolving into human beings?

and 2)If the universe was billions of years old why isn't there a LOT more dust on the moon and earth???

Whew! You guys sure can give a lot to reply to.

Jessica: I personally believe the energy came from God. What atheists believe, I can tell you not. Probably some sort of rebirth theory: After the previous universe finished expanding, it began to shrink, until it was so dense the Big Bang caused another energy release to resume expanding. Where all these universes started... that’s a question I’d like to ask too.

Ronan: Adding up names and ages, I’m afraid, doesn’t mean much to me. People in Bible times are described to live longer than we can imagine, and the Bible is not a firsthand record. (Yes, yes, the people writing them were given the information from God, but honestly, is the human mind really adapt enough to handle contact with the supernatural flawlessly?) So while I accept this as another argument for other dates, I cannot honestly say I weigh it much in my consideration.

Of these statistics on dust accumulation, I was not previously informed. However, research revealed that NASA’s estimations were quite an overestimate. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-...

Each of your examples is a mutation in complex organisms, which I must admit, generally have bad results. In simple organisms however, where mutations would the be basis for evolution, an example mutation comes easily to mind: immunity. A mutation that allows bacteria to not be affected by anti-bacterial soap: antibiotic resistant. In more complex organisms, heredity, not mutations, is generally the form of evolution. For example: the giraffe. When most of the species had necks about the length of a horse, and leaves were scarce, those that could reach higher survived to reproduce and pass on their tall genes, those that could not, starved from competition, and the short genes faded out of the gene pool. Repeat. Eventually, you’d end up with the creatures we have today.

All techniques have flaws. (Carbon, Potassium-argon, archeological layers)Merely because we cannot accept them blindly does not mean we can’t use them to support (note, support, not prove) positions, as you yourself demonstrate in your fourth and sixth argument. Does that mean they are invalid? No. But valid and factual are separate adjectives. That being said, I believe the general scientific consensus, which as far as I have heard, is around 4 billion years, merely because I believe that evidence to be more substantial than other theories.

The Dorchester Pot was found in pieces after an explosion of a hill. Metal is far behind the advent of man, as you refer to it, and a supposed (I’ll admit, the source is not confirmed) picture reveals Victorian styling. As far as I can see, it’s a strange scenario, but without much scientific weight.

Ah yes, I suppose I was a bit unnecessarily critical in writing off Eric’s source. Really not fair of me, though the site made one too many jumps in logic without stopping to prove it points for my taste.

And it’s okay, I love debate. :P

Eric: Mass came from the Big Bang, under the theory of evolution. Where this energy came from, I believe God, and as I am not an atheist, I cannot tell you what they believe.

And contrary to common belief, debate is not always about swaying your opponent. By having all the flaws of your argument pointed out to you, and having to figure out why in the world you believe it anyways, often you discover more fully what you believe in, and more importantly, why. Trust me, I know. Ironic as it is, an atheist was a major cause in my renewed faith.

Ashleigh: Evolution is extremely complex. You have to have the right circumstances, genes, and cause to make the necessary jumps. Monkeys have been observed having very human-like things: social hierarchies, tools, etc. In thinking about this area, it’s important to consider that humans have effectively established themselves as the dominant species. Very effectively. Evolution is not necessarily the progress towards human: it’s the progress towards dominance, ease of living. With humans and their reign over the earth, it’s unlikely we will be up seated by monkeys, however much certain communities of monkeys are “evolving”.

Andrea: You believe then, in a literal interpretation of Genesis. That’s wonderful. The creation story, after all, is among my favorite Biblical tales. When I chose to look at it though, I take it as just that: a story. The days, for me, don’t represent 24-hour rotations of the Earth, but rather, each new “day”, a new dawn, in the figurative sense: something new was created each time, something worth setting this time period as distinctly different from that before it. Not a clock measurement. I don’t know if that’s right, but it’s what I get out of the first bit of Genesis.

So somewhere along these lines:
-1st Day: Good and Evil (for in chaos, these are what you must define first); light and dark.
-2nd Day: Formation of planets (The earth from the skies)
-3rd Day: Formation of seas and land. Evolution* of plants begins!
-4th Day: More defined orbits begin. Starlight reaches Earth’s surface
-5th Day: Animal Evolution*.
-6th Day: Human’s created.

Obviously, the above doesn’t make a ton of sense, but that’s the gist of it-- That these creations didn’t have to happen so quickly, but rather a series of events.
*Keep in mind, when I say “evolution”, I don’t mean “hey, um, here is some chemicals... form some RNA or something...”, I mean a slow design, in which every step can be seen. Theistic Evolution. (which is basically evolution+ Deistic interference)

To your first question: Theistic Evolution. Kinda like, giving a group of students the materials to build a birdhouse, and letting them try with free will for a while, but when they’re going the wrong way, a prod in the right direction: like the best way to attach the roof. I do believe in free will, but I also believe in acts of God: see how far you make it, then I’ll tell the way I want you to do it. And through this way, you could paint the right picture.

To your second question: This is going to sound really bad (and I mean like, really, really bad)... but that’s the one problem I have with the Bible. It’s the Holy Word of God-- Not the Word of God. It’s inspired by: not written by. I believe in the concept of absolute truth: in which the feeling of love can be described in one word, every color is distinct and no miscommunications are possible. I believe this is the “language” God would speak. I believe that human brains are incapable of thinking in absolute truth: words and images mess up our minds. Therefore, when God calls on humans to write the stories of the world, they don’t all turn out perfect. And here’s a question to really throw you through a loop: What happens if I’ve prayed, explained that which I believe, and been told (for lack of a better word) it was not incorrect?

In general:
Okay, so I have some questions for all you.

-What about those dinosaurs? Where do they fit into all of this?
--Assuming they were created with everything else, then forced into extinction, why did other life live on?
-“Day” and “night” were created on the very first day of creation, according to the Bible. It’s common knowledge that the Earth rotates around the sun, creating an illusion of day and night (as opposed to dark and light taking turns over the land), and has been for quite a while. How is this possible?



o.o That is over 1200 words long.

So wait I'm confused... You said you have to have the right genes for evolution to occur. Every living thing on earth has a different number of chromosomes in a gene. It's impossible for one animal or thing to evolve because of this fact. How could a monkey with 48 chromosomes become a human with 46 chromosomes???

Day is pretty much defined in Genesis 1:5, "God called the light day and the darkness he called night. And there was evening and there was morning - the first day." Along with day and night came time as we know it. One day according to the Bible is, like it says, one evening and one morning. Aka 24 hrs.

To answer your first two questions, Courtney, dinosaurs fit into the story of creation. I believe they existed at the same time humans did, contrary to some evolutionists beliefs. Early cave drawings have shown paintings of men killing dinosaur-resembling creatures with spears. Medieval legends tell of men killing creatures that could easily be what we today call a dinosaur. Even the old testament speaks of "dragons."

"..why did other life live on?" Well,animals do not all require the exact same things. As the environment changes it can become uninhabitable for certain animals. Humans have more recently become aware of animal population. Consider what other species would have been extinct if it were not for intervention on humans part: koalas, the white tiger, the giant panda, and I've even heard rumors about the polar bear becoming on the verge of extinction. Another reason for extinction is they are killed for whatever purpose whether it be for their fur, meat, or (as perhaps in dinosaurs case) fear. It makes perfect sense that humans would be afraid of such large creatures as these, and so they killed them so humans would not be harmed.

I'm not quite sure I understand your third question, but here are some questions for you:

-As Ronan proved, the methods for determining the age of the earth don't match up. One method says coal was 1 million years old while another says it's only 1600 years. Is this not a significant difference?
-The "evidence" which supports evolution is only accurate up to a certain thousand years, but is being used as "proof" for up to millions. This ensure a definite flaw in aging the earth. Why are evolutionists hanging on to evidence that is clearly being revealed as flawed?

wow, it is very late; I'm going to bed! I'll write more later...

so the earth came from cells that formed from chemicals of earth, as i've been told...



wait, WHAT?????
O.o.......
XD
iza paradox!
LOL

lol yeah you guys are saying strange things... Don't try to speak human, just make sense. XD lol =)

I couldn't have answered Courtney's question on Dinosaurs myself, Jessica! Well done!

I have but one thing to add to that. Records of dinosaurs coexisting with humans were made even after the coming of Christ (the years AD).

Here are some examples.

1.) In an ancient Roman mosaic (c. 2nd century AD) there appear two long necked dragons frolicking by the sea. These “dragons” startlingly resemble a pair of Tanystropheus.

2.) The city of Nerluc in France was renamed in honor of the killing of a dragon there. According to the description, the “dragon” was four legged, bigger than an ox, and had great horns upon it’s head. Doesn’t this sound like a Triceratops?

3.) A well known, old science book called the “Historia Animalium” claims that “dragons” were still not yet extinct by the 1500s. However, those that were left were of the smaller sort and were extremely rare.

4.) In 1977, a trawler off Christchurch, New Zealand snagged the semi-decomposed body of what appeared to be a plesiosaur. It was 32ft. long, weighed 4,000 pounds, had a long neck, and four 3ft. fins. After careful scientific examination, the Director of Animal Research at the National Science Museum of Japan said, “It seems that these animals are not extinct after all. It’s impossible for only one to have survived. There must be a group.”

6.) A Coelacanth (a type of “prehistoric” fish), which was thought to have been extinct for 70 million years, was caught off the cost of South Africa in 1939. After more investigation, it was discovered that the local fishermen had been regularly catching these fish for generations.

And that’s just for starters!

Ashleigh: Eh, that’s where the mutations occur, I suppose. To be honest, I don’t spend my free time studying evolution and how it came about.

Preemptive: Someone will, undoubtedly, ask how I can believe something I don’t know every detail of in response to my above comment, so I will go ahead and respond. We know every detail of just about nothing. Genesis is, at best, a poor secondhand description of creation: think about every detail missing from the story. So I don’t know the details. I know the gist, which is about all you’re working off of too. :)

Jessica: And a bow is pretty much defined as a curved arrow-shooting weapon, a type of knot, a musical rod with horsehair, or something bent in shape (as commonly described, a rainbow), yet does not this icon after The Flood represent promise?

Your other defenses I must compliment as splendid, I cannot think of a rebuttal despite my joy at finding them.

Quite significant. And actually, I believe some evidence for the proof of the earth comes from how long it would have taken life to evolve, so that point is rather void. Difference means that somewhere along the line, someone or something messed up. Does this mean that all results must be accounted as false?

Clear is a relative term? Has not the possibility of a body being brought back to life after 3 days without a pumping heart been disproved many a time? Do not Christians persist that this very event has occurred in history?

It’s called faith. Despite absolute proof, they take what they know and reach conclusions they believe to be true. People are not as different as they believe themselves to be.

But in reality, the issue of the age of the earth is not one I care passionately about. If concrete proof came along tomorrow dating the beginning of the earth to a drastically different time, my estimate would be changed before I fell asleep.

Eric: I’m not sure what you mean. Your statement cannot be true. If this was a paradox I missed typed, my sincerest apologizes, but I cannot see such in my post. The earth formed, under the Big Bang assumption, from mass created in the explosive energy realize named the same as the theory. The explosive energy is a mystery of the universe, a solution to which requires a leap of faith.

Ronan: Fascinating. Thank you for eliminating my ignorance, I’ve always been curious how such dominant creatures could disappear. But as stated above, this is not one of the issues I feel strongly about.

Some more generalities:

Just a question out of wonder really, I’m not sure what my own answer is to this one:
-Why do you all believe that the creation of other planets/stars/the rest of the universe is not mentioned in Genesis?

And then one more question just because I am curious about what answers will be given. To this one, I do know my own response.
- Does not the presence of evil (as defined by God) in the world disprove the existence of an all-powerful God, previously mentioned?

Sorry my reply is so late, life's been busy.

The creation of the stars is mentioned.

Genesis 1:16(NIV)-God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

The answer to your second question is no-evil does not disprove God.

To expand on Ashleigh's answer...evil does not disprove God, but why not? Because evil is simply the absence of God, just like dark is really a lack of light. Without light there would be no dark, and without God there would be no evil, if that makes sense.

I'll have to answer the other stuff later...dinner is on the table!

Ah, so the stars are mentioned! I must learn to read more carefully. Nonetheless, what about the planets?

Very interesting. Yes Jessica, that makes perfect sense, though unexpected.

Hello everybody! I introduce myself, my name is Daniela and I am an evolutionist, so Courtney won't be alone anymore :)
Now, I believe Courtney has done an amazing job answering all your questions, I don't know if I'll be able to, but I'll do my best. It's late night here in Mexico (2:37 am) so I'll just reply to some of the facts Ronan quotes (the ones I know more about, the others get me curious but I'll research on them tomorrow or when I can :)).

Sure, if one reads all those facts, it sounds like our theories have severe contradictions. However, the ones I know about are wrong:
1. The calculations on moon dust. Courtney has already mentioned it was an overestimation, and it is known why. Apparently, the person who published the equations made a wrong assumption (that all the nickel he collected was meteoritic in origin) and thus his results were a gross overestimation. Actually, the rate of dust accumulation after IN SPACE measurements were made now is much, much lower. So now there are no contradictions with the Earth being millions of years old. For more information you can see this: http://www.usd.edu/esci/age/content/c...

2. My area of expertise... I am a geneticist. And no... that is completely wrong. Not all observed mutations have been detrimental to the organism. I have found a webpage with only a few of the lots of examples of beneficial mutations, however it is quite illustrative (it is a collection of scientific papers, so you can verify this is not made up and can reproduce the experiments whenever you want to). http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutation...

3. I don't know anything of sediment accumulation in oceans! :P But I'll research journals to find answers :)

4. This is not true. What is true is that Carbon-14 has an AVERAGE HALF-LIFE of 5,700 years, but this is not equal to saying the method is accurate only to 5,700 years. In fact, this method is accurate for dating to 60,000 years, and other isotopes (such as potassium-40) have half-lives of 1.3 million years. There are scientific articles for what I am saying, so I am curious about the author's sources for saying such things. For more information you can see http://science.howstuffworks.com/carb..., and I myself can explain this more precisely if it is required. Just tell me :).

5. Another thing I know nothing about! Homework for me.

6. Again with Carbon-14 dating methods. As I've already mentioned, if carbon-14 dating said 28,000 and 34,000 years old... nothing wrong then.

And I know nothing of the other subjects. I'll post more when I know more. So Ronan, here you have an evolutionist's point of view :)

For Jessica: Your questions are solved above. Evolutionists are not hanging on to flawed evidence. Don't believe everything you read without looking at reliable sources which will allow you to reproduce the experiment and draw your own conclusions. Scientific articles do such things. They tell you exactly how the experiment was done and why they arrived to their conclusions, so you can question everything. I can give you the scientific research articles for each of my statements before.

For Ashleigh: Chromosomes can be lost or gained, just look at individuals with Down syndrome (Trisomy 21, one more chromosome than normal people). Besides, because monkeys have now 48 chromosomes doesn't mean they've always had 48 chromosomes. Man and monkeys could have split lineages when the common ancestor had 48 or 46 chromosomes, then one of the species lost or gained one pair. This is just a made up explanation, I don't know how it is hypothesized they evolved. I'm only giving a plausible explanation of why it is possible.

I will look for information regarding the dinosaurs/man coexistence, as my knowledge is very limited here.

I hope this helps! :)