Creation or Evolution?

[Toudiyama[NL]]

In answer to your question "what was there before that?", people believe (more like Steven Hawkings) that there was energy compressed into the size of a pea. The energy was disrupted and big explosion occurs. That was the Big Bang.
And I believe that a creationist believes that God was always there and he wasn't created.

It wasn't the size of a pea because size wasn't there yet, it was just pure energy without a state ( a state would be radiation or pressure)
Oh and there was no "before" since there was no time yet, time came into excistance after the Big Bang (String theory?)

[Lizard]

[QUOTE=eXcessiveForce]there is no proof for evolution either.
Why hasn't anything else evovled since we started looking for it. Evolution says that something changed from on thing to another. A fish became a lizard and such. We have no evidence of this and have never observed it.
QUOTE]

The proof for evidence lies in logic:

Individuals have different genes
Different genes might give different chances of survival (eg an animal with fur has an advantage in a cold climate)
These differences are passed on to their offspring

Even if we assume that all the fossils of dinosaurs are either fake or part of gods cruel joke,

There are two examples I will give you:

You treat an infection with antibiotics. Mutant micro-organisms that are not killed by antibiotics have no competition and reprodce until the population reaches a stable size again. This is evolution, the organisms in question have adapted.

Do you beleive that dogs can be bred to have different characteristics? Its the same as evolution but with humans deciding who breeds instead of the more random process of natural selection.


Hence anyone who does not beleive in evolution is either missing the logical regions of their brain, or just hasnt had it properly explained. The bible was written by fallable humans just like all your other bullshit religious texts.

[Lizard]

I dont want to bother prooving that evolution in an actual process, but i will briefly. Look at how the blacks are black for a sunny climate in africa, look at how the the Europeans who wore more clothes against the cold weather were more pretected against the sun and thus developed a lighter skin pigment.

The only thing is science has yet to create a living organism, we can alter them, make them reporduce, harvest them, but we cant take nonliving things and make something living. This is what leads me to say that i belive in a combination of the two, as adacas said; god set the chess board.

Oooo sorry mate but your slightly misunderstanding.

People dont change skin colour for no reason, the lighter skin is essentialy to allow more vitamin D synthesis... but your on the right track.

Id also like to make the point that it IS possible that evolution doesnt exist... but it means that god is evil and planted fossils to mislead us so wed fight each other instead of uniting against him...

[Bjjexpertise@be]

Id also like to make the point that it IS possible that evolution doesnt exist... but it means that god is evil and planted fossils to mislead us so wed fight each other instead of uniting against him...

So then if evolution didn't exist there could be a possibility that God isn't what we think of him as. We think he is an ever loving God, to an extent that is true. So if evloution were proven false then your statement would be thrown into the chessboard as well and it will get even more f*cked up.

[Bjjexpertise@be]

Unfortunately, the beginning of creation is an unknown... In the case of science, one can easily argue what caused a pea of energy to form...And with creationists, who created God? Merely saying God simply exists isn't a reliable answer, since God is a mechanism of cause and effect... What caused God?

Here's another statement i would like to make. If you were in a discussion with someone and you told them you supported evolution, they automatically assume you're atheist. Not all evolutionists are atheists now. You asked what cause the energy to form, maybe God put it there.

[adacas]

I like the whole being descended from great apes thing because then I have an excuse for why i am such a hairy bastard. anyways the only problem with the bible I have is the lack of date keeping. I mean comeon. At least the last testament could have some dates to go with it. If the writers were educated enough to know how to write why couldn't they date it? I know they only wrote enough to get their point across and say what they felt needed saying but comeon throw me a fricken bone here. The bible has to be some of the best reading anyone can do. I mean it has everything from religion to sex to alcohol to deceit to group sodomy. a whole room full of Steven Kings couldn't beat that.

[Bjjexpertise@be]

The thing about the bible is that it has been rewritten so many times that what the text says now isn't what the original writers were trying to say.

[pstevens]

You asked what cause the energy to form, maybe God put it there.

You've missed the point... If God caused energy to form, what caused God? Trivializing doesn't make it true. Hence, I pointed out that the true nature of the Universe is inconceivable because man is limited to his experience as a human being. Therefore, when Man studies the Universe, whatever truths he discovers is relative ONLY to his existence.

The thing about the bible is that it has been rewritten so many times that what the text says now isn't what the original writers were trying to say.

I agree with you 100%... The Jesus of the bible was a Jewish man who only sought reform with his culture, but his idea was taken out of context. There's as much political as well as personal agenda within bible authorship. Constantine used Christianity to fuel his political position and create social reform.

Basically, you've got a lot of Christians going in opposite directions and somebody tried to put it all together in the form of the bible. The oldest and original manuscript concerning Jesus was NOT a narrative, but a few teachings (some of which are also present in religions preceding Christianity). It was called the Quelle. There was no virgin birth, resurrection, etc...

Using the Quelle, the author known as Mark embellished stories that conveniently fall withint he typical hero archtype of the ancient world: 1) Born of unusual circumstances or powers 2) Becomes discovered and revered 3) Comes into the height of his power 4) Is betrayed by a loved one and 5) Becomes vindicated in death. This same equation can be applied to any hero in antiquity: Hercules, Mithra, King Arthur, etc...

But at least Mark didn't say Jesus was born of virgin, or that he rose from the dead in three days... The original Mark ends with simply an empty tomb — a symbolic idea representing spirituality, NOT physical resurrection. Years later, Christian-fanaticism would produce virgin births, physical resurrections and ascending to heaven before people's eyes.

Nearly a century after Jesus, Matthew writes of a virgin birth too conveniently related to Mithras to dismiss. He also makes several errors in geography which signals that he wasn't native to Palestine. Matthew records that Jesus drove some possessed pigs off the cliffs of Garadenes. Garadenes is inland and the closest cliffs are some 50 miles away. Those pigs would have travelled for days, if not weeks to jump off. Not even lemmings can do that! Supposedly, Jesus rose from the dead in three days and nights... Unfortunately, Matthew didn't read his manuscript close enough — he has Jesus dead the evening of Friday and back to life Sunday morning. That's barely 2 nights and a day and a half. There's so much more, but I'm not going to get into it because as I've said, it's all relative to our existence, not the Universe.

[Bjjexpertise@be]

You've missed the point... If God caused energy to form, what caused God? Trivializing doesn't make it true. Hence, I pointed out that the true nature of the Universe is inconceivable because man is limited to his experience as a human being. Therefore, when Man studies the Universe, whatever truths he discovers is relative ONLY to his existence.

According to my religeon teacher back in middle school, God was not created but 'simply' was always there.

[pstevens]

According to my religeon teacher back in middle school, God was not created but 'simply' was always there.

Seriously, I thought I was talking with someone with a college education. But since you failed to realize that I already addressed this issue in my original post, I'll just let myself out.

[jubaji]

Seriously, I thought I was talking with someone with a college education. .

...can't keep up?

[pstevens]

True the bible is full of holes, but what makes something living? We have been unable to make something living, so i am left to assume that god is the only one that can create live which evolves and adapts to survive.

Yeah, and if you paid close attention you would have realized that I addressed that already. The nature of existence and the Universe is inconceivable...Hence, something as conceivable as god is simply our interpretation of "what might be." But, it does not reflect the ultimate truth of the Universe... That's inconceivable remember... Unless ofcourse, you fully understand the meaning of existence.

[Hikage]

Personally, I do not buy into the Bible, because it has more holes than the theory of Evolution and Santa Claus combined... But we can argue that later if you really want to.

I would like to applaud those who are defending the creationists view. IT is a very difficult stance to take because God wants people to believe in him based on faith, and not on waht see's in a microscope.

PStevens, I question you on your statement that the Bible is so full of holes. What you're telling me is that you've never read the Bible to study it (and I don't mean read it in Sunday school, or for a semester of study, I mean really read it) and that you are latching on to some lame argument created by someone who realized a while back that many so-called Christians out there don't read it either. I welcome your challenge and the time is now... where are the holes?

-Hikage

[Hikage]

The thing about the bible is that it has been rewritten so many times that what the text says now isn't what the original writers were trying to say.

Honestly, where do you get this crap? This is just another lame argument that you heard someone else use and you haven't researched it yourself. Where's your proof? You fool, they don't use previous tranlastions to create new translations. To do so would be ridiculous and pointless. No one would read it. Translation teams and their practicies are always placed under heavy scrutiny. For example, there are a number of atheists placed onto these translation teams in order that outsiders could not claim that theists are tainting the story and to ensure an accurate translation.

-Hikage

[Sanitarium]

Evolution.

There is no such thing as God, the concept of a God is a lingering example of 2000 year old human lack of knowledge and should have been phased out of existence.

Everything in the world around us points towards evolution and logical science, nothing points towards God except fairytale books which people are still to this day indoctrinated with from birth.

All the oh so convenient getouts like 'dont take the bible literally' sadly don't make up for the glaring and consistent contradictions, hypocrisy and vagueness in the bible.

95% of religious people are religious (and so defensive and adamant they're right) because their parents taught them to believe in God before they were allowed to think for themselves, mainly in middle eastern countries and Southern America.

Luckily over here in England we're slowly becoming less religious and abandoning the shackles of old, the people you see at churches are mainly in their 60/70/80s. This is because our parents dont fill our minds with rubbish before we're even capable of rational thought, and well we're growing out of it really.

At the end of the day, no (as I'm sure has been/will be asked) we logical people cannot 'disprove' god. But that is irrelevant. Seeing as logic, the world around us, evidence and theory is on our side, the onus is actually on you to prove God. It's like me saying 'I'm Bruce Lee's brother, I can punch 2000 times a second'. Can you disprove it? No. Do you have to? No