RolePlayGateway™

Shané · by **Shané** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:27 am

I know, I know a very heated topic.

I personally am a creationist, and with the help of a site called Creation ministries.com I wanted to start a debate and see if they have alot of the explanations for the things evolutionists beleive are "proven".

Don't worry, I wont become some aggressive, "you must belive my way or else", person, I just want a healthy debate, so here it goes:

How can you believe evolution when Darwin himself claimed his whole theory would fall apart if the cell was complex, and now due to our current level of Science the cell is an extremely complicated organism?

Can't wait to here the replies ;)

Vivalavida · by **Vivalavida** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:02 am

Out of curiosity, How does the cell being a complex organism befoul the evolutionary theory?

Patcharoo · by **Patcharoo** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:29 am

Gnnn...

Rather than get into this conversation, I'ma leave you two videos. Lady and Gentlemen, I present...

Tim
Minchin!

A man who seems to have everything I care to say about creationalism and anything that, y'know, isn't science.

Edit/PS: You might get offended. It happens? Yeah... And some of that language is not safe of work. So, yeah.

Vivalavida · by **Vivalavida** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:48 am

Big love for Tim Minchin.

Fallacy · by **Fallacy** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:40 am

Shané wrote:How can you believe evolution when Darwin himself claimed his whole theory would fall apart if the cell was complex, and now due to our current level of Science the cell is an extremely complicated organism?

Darwin does not own the theory of evolution; just because he was the founder does not mean that everything he says, including his predictions, are automatically true. He was a smart man, but you have to remember that he lived in the 19th century -- everything we know now about cells and DNA would likely blow his mind. Also, I'd like to see your sources for Darwin quotes.

You seem like a young and naive kid instead of stupid, so I'm going to give you a friendly tip: stop looking at places like creation.com for information. They're based on ignorance and religious dogma instead of real science and rationality.

Sciamancer · by **Sciamancer** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 2:43 pm

Darwin is credited with the basis of modern evolutionary theory. He wasn't the first to suggest that creatures evolve, and he didn't get it perfectly right, but he made a gigantic leap for evolutionary biology. Compare to Newton. Just because Newton's laws do not work on a subatomic level does not mean that all of physics is wrong.

Creation has no evidence. Evolution has a buttload of evidence. Which would you believe?

Aniihya · by **Aniihya** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 2:51 pm

I am pretty much both since if I am a creationist (by non-Abrahamic means), then I agree with many aspects of evolution since my belief believes in a platonic (after Plato, not seismic activities) creation: Fireball cools down, aeons later the planet is covered with water, microorganisms and soon also fish form, these are pretty much the forefathers of land creatures since the gods took fish and changed them to the point that they would be able to live on newly formed land. Each creature was then adjusted to its environment. Call it intelligent design (what atheists like to say) but it practically isnt since it is an idea formed before the evolution theory and not after. Many things in the evolution theory are yet to be proven. But until then, no one can prove my belief wrong.
Even saying that gods dont exist is a fallacy since while the atheist and antitheist says: "There is no proof that there is a god/gods", a spiritual/religious person can say: "There is no proof that there isnt a god/gods."

I know that very religious people tend to be unintelligent, stupid or nearly retarded, but I am not a Christian, Jew or Muslim fundie. I am a religious pagan (mushrik), who doesnt live by a book nor by what a preacher says. The gods gave me a free will and intelligence for a reason and that is to furthen technologies/theories, invent, innovate, aid, experience, love, think, doubt, question et cetera. Progressiveness preserves my belief by seeing that everything started by the fart or blow of the gods, who gave each creature their own gifts. Each species has their own goals. Primary is survival. For less intelligent species secondary is to just live. For humans it is to achieve. But obviously many people have lost sight of this goal, slack off in school, are eternally without work, lazy or even forever alone. We have what third world countries dont have and we throw it out the window. Without aiming for the stars and using every bit of stuff available for the mental/physical advancement, we are useless.

PS: Americans, hopefully college with become available for the eager and not the wealthy. Here in Germany, a numerus clausus is require while the government pays for your college education (except for books and registration fees. On campus dormatoriums dont exist here.)

dealing with it · by **dealing with it** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:26 pm

I find that Evolutionary Algorithms are in themselves pretty good evidence that natural selection works both in theory and in practise, even for complex models, and even outside of the domain of biology. Using "Darwinian" principles, you can do everything from optimizing Starcraft 2 Build Orders, to finding the most efficient shape of a car without having to waste money building millions of shapes to test in wind tunnels.

If all the necessary conditions are in place (from random mutations to variable survival rate relative to fitness), natural selection will occur. And, in nature, all the necessary conditions are in place. So, if God designed the world, he inadvertently set up a situation where natural selection happens.

Macabre Legion · by **Macabre Legion** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:47 pm

Creationists- "This is what we have in the bible. Now, lets go find some evidence."

Scientist (Evolutionist)- "This is what I (we) found. Let us test some theories and present it as a whole."

See the difference? Most creationists will try and find proof of what was said in their books, whereas others will find something, then test out several theories brought on by research, discussion, and physical testings to find out what the item is, how it got there, and what the possible history of said item is.

Tea · by **Tea** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:28 pm

Shané wrote:How can you believe evolution when Darwin himself claimed his whole theory would fall apart if the cell was complex, and now due to our current level of Science the cell is an extremely complicated organism?

This is not a debate premise. This is a discussion premise. The question calls to the reader's sense of feelings and emotions rather than presenting some kind of theoretical position which could be responded to. The answer to the question could be anything from, "I don't," to, "Because I feel like it," to, "I studied it myself," to, "It makes me want to eat meat."

My recommendation, Shané, is to...sharpen your debate requests in the future.

But since I have now come so far I will add some discussion material into this post for the purposes of lengthening the thread. It will be intended for information, not debate.

Fallacy wrote:Darwin does not own the theory of evolution;

...what an apt thing to say. I see that the sentiment has been echoed in other places in this thread so I will address it generally, rather than as a reply to a specific post or quote. The general response being: Charles Darwin was a...contributor, worthy or otherwise, into a system of thought that has existed for thousands of years. The theory of evolution is not a new one and predates the Roman republic.

What Charles Darwin did, among other things, was suggest that evolution could be equated to a scientific law. That evolution ( mega or micro, take your pick ) was a function of all biological organisms. This, in essence, was the great contribution of Charles Darwin to the theory of evolution. The postulate that all life was capable, and compelled, to continually change, in other words.

What we see in biology, however, is that there are genes in all organisms which specifically prevent mutation outside of genetic boundaries. Now, what a person chooses to think about that information is their own bias. But it does appear that with such a large number of genes protecting and insulating plant and animal species from alteration outside of genetic boundaries that evolution is, currently, less than feasible.

Patcharoo · by **Patcharoo** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:05 pm

Tea wrote: But it does appear that with such a large number of genes protecting and insulating plant and animal species from alteration outside of genetic boundaries that evolution is, currently, less than feasible.

My favourite part of this argument is that we put Creationism, the belief that an omnipotent being making all life, as more likely than the scientific alternative, because evolution is less likely to be right based off what we presently know?

I mean, if it comes down to it, and I have to rely on either faith in Creationism or Evolution rather than scientific fact, I'll still go in faith in Evolution, just because I find it much more likely that evolution happened over creationism.

Y'know half the problem I have with the theory of Creation? In all proven scientific studies we require energy to do things. I cannot believe in a being that does not require energy to do things. It goes against all scientific proof. It's like saying all science should be invalid, because basic scientific principals, like the conservation of energy and mass, are wrong.

Tea · by **Tea** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:27 pm

Perhaps I should re-state myself: At the present time, [mega/micro] evolution is not valid given the sheer number of biological deterrents. That statement does not speak to the past or future. I offered no evidence that prevented the possibility of human beings evolving in the past or in the future. I suppose that...yes, it might be interesting if someone provided some.

In any case, my intent was to inform and possibly focus the thread.

Fallacy · by **Fallacy** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:37 pm

Tea wrote:What we see in biology, however, is that there are genes in all organisms which specifically prevent mutation outside of genetic boundaries. Now, what a person chooses to think about that information is their own bias. But it does appear that with such a large number of genes protecting and insulating plant and animal species from alteration outside of genetic boundaries that evolution is, currently, less than feasible.

This is a claim I've only heard from creationists before. Care to back it up?

Tea wrote:Perhaps I should re-state myself: At the present time, [mega/micro] evolution is not valid given the sheer number of biological deterrents.

What does that even mean?

Shané · by **Shané** on Tue Sep 27, 2011 7:22 am

Thanks all for the posts, interesting how fiery this can get ;)

I think you all kind of answered the first question, this one was just a teaser. I did kind off come up with the fact that we have come a long way since Darwin, though still was interesting.

And just to Fallacy:

With the naive thing, I suppose I kind of am in the fact that I am reasonably young, though I must say that I do know that Creation ministries is based on Christianity, but fail to see how this fact makes them Scientific.

Sciamancer - You say there is a "Buttload more of evidence for evolution" or something similiar, is it alright to ask you another question? What happens if there is just as much (perhaps more) evidence for Creationism, however it is just not publisised?

Okay another thing I have heard, and myself believe:

The human race seems to be deteriating, not evolving or getting better. More and more people are being subject to genetic disorders and every generation results in a loss of information. For example there are two dogs <> Each has a long haired gene * and a short haired gene #, they give birth to three puppies:

<*#> <**> <##>

They live in a cold climate so, by natural selection, both the short haired dog <##> and the mid haired dog <*#>, do not survive. When the long haired dog breeds he will no longer have the information to have mid or short haired puppies.

Does this help explain how I think we are losing genetic information and therefore degenerating?

Vivalavida · by **Vivalavida** on Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:21 am

I really can't get my head around creationists who have a problem with the evolutionary theory.
Losing genetic information does not indicate a degeneration. Only genes that did not give the organism sufficiency to survive get lost.
That's not a degenerative thing, that's a good thing, it helps the organism adapt and survive.

Am I missing something here? Have I misunderstood what you're getting at?

Fallacy · by **Fallacy** on Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:55 am

Shané wrote:The human race seems to be deteriating, not evolving or getting better. More and more people are being subject to genetic disorders and every generation results in a loss of information. For example there are two dogs <> Each has a long haired gene * and a short haired gene #, they give birth to three puppies:

<*#> <**> <##>

They live in a cold climate so, by natural selection, both the short haired dog <##> and the mid haired dog <*#>, do not survive. When the long haired dog breeds he will no longer have the information to have mid or short haired puppies.

Does this help explain how I think we are losing genetic information and therefore degenerating?

In evolutionary theory, there is no such thing as 'devolving' (or 'deteriorating', as you put it). Losing features and becoming 'more primitive' can be beneficial to a species at times. Anyways, I'd like to see your sources on genetic disorders and 'loss of information', whatever that's supposed to mean.

Sciamancer · by **Sciamancer** on Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:43 pm

Shané wrote:Sciamancer - You say there is a "Buttload more of evidence for evolution" or something similiar, is it alright to ask you another question? What happens if there is just as much (perhaps more) evidence for Creationism, however it is just not publisised?

Theoretical evidence would be a theory theoretically valid. In practice, however, I can see no evidence for creationism, and all we have to go off of is what we can observe. Is there any reason to believe Creationism is true? Evidence?

The human race seems to be deteriating, not evolving or getting better. More and more people are being subject to genetic disorders and every generation results in a loss of information. For example there are two dogs <> Each has a long haired gene * and a short haired gene #, they give birth to three puppies:

<*#> <**> <##>

They live in a cold climate so, by natural selection, both the short haired dog <##> and the mid haired dog <*#>, do not survive. When the long haired dog breeds he will no longer have the information to have mid or short haired puppies.

Does this help explain how I think we are losing genetic information and therefore degenerating?

As it was previously stated, simplification can be good. Like the long-haired dog thing. Although you do have a point with humans. Not sure if this is the point you were trying to make, but because humans have developed ways to bypass many conditions that would otherwise be detrimental (glasses for people with bad vision, hearing aids for people with bad hearing, medication for people with usually-deadly diseases, etc.) those conditions are not naturally selected against like they would without technology. As such, we can expect an increase in these "negative" traits. So long as we have our technology, these negative traits don't matter, but it does cost more and should something bad happen, people will be unfit. That's why I support voluntary eugenics. I have Ulcerative Colitis, bad vision, and horribly, horribly flat feet. I choose not to have children. I might adopt some day, but I'll never make one. Having a child when you know that you have several things wrong with your genes is immoral.

dealing with it · by **dealing with it** on Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:50 pm

Shané wrote:The human race seems to be deteriating, not evolving or getting better. More and more people are being subject to genetic disorders and every generation results in a loss of information.

Natural selection does not occur on the level of species, but on the level of individuals. If an individual is fit, it is more likely to pass on its genes.

"Better" is extremely relahtive. There are organisms on this planet that are nearly identical to organisms that lived billions of years ago. They found a niche and filled it. This technically makes them the best.

NorthernSoul · by **NorthernSoul** on Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:52 pm

Sciamancer wrote:I have Ulcerative Colitis, bad vision, and horribly, horribly flat feet. I choose not to have children. I might adopt some day, but I'll never make one. Having a child when you know that you have several things wrong with your genes is immoral.

This a real shame. UC has a monozygotic twin concordance of around 10% (i.e. the contribution of genetics, uterine environment and any other shared environment between twins). The rest is purely environmental. I would say the genetic contribution to pes planus (i.e. 'flat feet') and bad vision (presuming this is simply due to your bog standard refractive defect) is also fairly minimal. If you're honestly concerned and this is the only reason you wouldn't have children, then please talk to your doctor about this and they will reiterate what I'm saying.

As for the 'debate' about evolution... As a medical student, I'm not even going to bother. Absolutely nothing that we understand about biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. It's like debating the existence of gravity. Completely and utterly pointless.

Fallacy · by **Fallacy** on Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:36 pm

NorthernSoul wrote:Absolutely nothing that we understand about biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. It's like debating the existence of gravity. Completely and utterly pointless.

Announcements	Top Rated Roleplays	Newest Roleplays	Asides
Remæus needs your vote! Official Update Regarding the ... I NEED HELP! Who do I go to?	Fate/Heaven and Earth Arcane Armageddon Merc's of Demortris 2 Altaea Saga: Song of the Ancients The Fall of Azazel	The Royal Ball The Purge Has Begun The Misfit Assassins My Only You Trail of the Wolves

RolePlayGateway™

Announcements

Top Rated Roleplays

Newest Roleplays

Asides

Creation vs. Evolution

Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Re: Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Re: Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Re: Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Re: Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Re: Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Re: Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Re: Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Re: Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Re: Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Re: Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Re: Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Re: Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Re: Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Re: Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Re: Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Re: Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Re: Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Re: Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Re: Creation vs. Evolution ( )

Post a reply

Who is online

Our Sponsors