Evolution or Creation?

[Grunwalder]

As Pratchett said, it takes a certain kind of dedicated athiest to hit their thumb with a hammer and hop up and down shouting "Oh, Random fluctuations in the space time continuum!"

Why can't more of the arguments here be like this?

Nice and jovial.

Now if you want to argue chance, I'll tell you about the slim chance any of my bowel movements actually being solid over the next few days. Damn I hate garlic.

 

[Archonsod]

Just don't go worshipping invisible goblins if they turn out to be solid

 

[Rabid Potatoe]

They've certainly magicked this thread happy.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

Christmas truce I suppose *kicks a football into the fray*

 

[Llew2]

Just don't go worshipping invisible goblins if they turn out to be solid

...Like me. 

 

[The_Invincible_Knight]

How many times do you have to hear "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack" before it actually occurs to you that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack?

@ Everyone: This quote is probably the best one for this thread. I praise Eogan for summing up this whole stupid thread in about 1 sentence.

I call this thread stupid because both sides have been chiefly insulting or arguing pointlessly for so many pages that it's actually kind of sad.

Neither side is going to give in, because both sides believe too strongly in what they believe in. - This also sums up why this thread is idiotic.

I hope I've established why this thread is pointless; we're just arguing or sniping. Fun if you've got that particular argumentative streak, but ultimately a waste of time.

 

[Bulle]

Everyone knows that after you die you go to Nangijala though.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

Stop breaking the Christmas truce :<
*Kicks a football around on himself*

@TIK, The thread isn't pointless, it's a discussion board not a conversion centre.
I actually believe the best reason a creationist could come up with was you can't prove it doesn't exist and that vs Neuroscience doesn't really weigh up to me.

 

[Llew2]

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

I think we're all perfectly aware of that, but just argue for the fun of it. Thats why we should be arguing anyway, I do sometimes get carried away though. 

 

[Archonsod]

The problem is the question pretty much invites only a certain type of Christian worldview. AFAIK The majority of Christians don't believe Genesis is a direct literal account of creation, even if they believe God created the universe. Since this doesn't necessarily conflict with evolution, there's not much reason for them to take an interest.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

Which brings forth the question, why are some parts worth ignoring and some not.
But that's already been discussed at length.

 

[Archonsod]

It's not a case of ignoring it. The Bible isn't exactly clear in itself when it's being allegorical and when it's being literal. There's really no more evidence that Genesis is a literal account than there is for it being allegorical, some denominations claim the former, some claim the latter and others let the worshipper decide (most probably over tea and cake).

 

[Llew2]

The problem is the question pretty much invites only a certain type of Christian worldview. AFAIK The majority of Christians don't believe Genesis is a direct literal account of creation, even if they believe God created the universe. Since this doesn't necessarily conflict with evolution, there's not much reason for them to take an interest.

Which is the funny part; I don't believe in the 6 day stuff and yet I'm arguing about it. 

 

[Yoshiboy]

How many times do you have to hear "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack" before it actually occurs to you that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack?

@ Everyone: This quote is probably the best one for this thread. I praise Eogan for summing up this whole stupid thread in about 1 sentence.

I call this thread stupid because both sides have been chiefly insulting or arguing pointlessly for so many pages that it's actually kind of sad.

Neither side is going to give in, because both sides believe too strongly in what they believe in. - This also sums up why this thread is idiotic.

I hope I've established why this thread is pointless; we're just arguing or sniping. Fun if you've got that particular argumentative streak, but ultimately a waste of time.

Do you know any atheists who have been converted to Christians? You should ask them why, when and how they converted. If any of them say "Because the story of the 6 day creation made more sense to me than evolution" then I will be very very surprised.

 

[The_Invincible_Knight]

Why on earth did you bother quoting me? You didn't respond to anything I said. Quoting me was a waste of time.

Not everything is a waste of time. Most people have at least one way of spending the time that seems enjoyable and/or worthwhile to them.

 

[Yoshiboy]

Why on earth did you bother quoting me? You didn't respond to anything I said. Quoting me was a waste of time.

Not everything is a waste of time. Most people have at least one way of spending the time that seems enjoyable and/or worthwhile to them.

I quoted first to show that I was posing this question to you. In the same way I am quoting you here to show that I am replying to you.

Secondly if you dug a bit deeper I was explaining why I would not simply "give in" and switch to the creationist view, and why no one else does this. On the other hand there are plenty of people who ditch religion because evolution and the rest of science makes more sense.

Also, arguing about things half the time is not about winning - it is about understanding other people's viewpoints and other ways of observing the world. Even if you don't change your own. I'm sure you agree with me because it would be silly to presume you only care about giving your opinion if you can convert someone. Talking about things rationally must be "stupid" and a waste of time if no one is going to "give in".

 

[Atilladahun]

The way I see it, Both are faiths (not religions, but faiths). It takes Faith to believe in something that you've never before seen, in this case evolution and creation. Evolutionsists believe in what they believe by faith, Christians believe in what they believe by faith, and theirs very little to convice oneanother that the other is right.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

One can try to convice, and succeed, but not all will be convinced.

All in all both are leaps of faith.One day we will see which is true and which is false.
As for me I believe in Creation, by faith. I am not some kind of scientist that can give you geographical evidence or anything of the sort, but i place my faith in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit and in his word which he left beind for all his children to read, and that for me is enough proof.

 

[Feerspoir]

The theory of evolution and the concept of a creator divinity are NOT mutually exclusive.

AFAIK, the ONLY guys who actively profess against the said theory are a fringe of Christianity, minor sects located for the most part in the USA (of course ).

Edit: @Attila: no, the theory of evolution is not based on faith...

 

[Yoshiboy]

Faith is defined by a belief in something that cannot be proved. The study of science uses logic, evidence and a naturalistic, scientific approach. On these basis, things can actually be "proven" within reason. Evolution has been proven, it requires no faith.

 

[Llew2]

Evolution has been proven, it requires no faith.

Yes, don't you know that they took a piece of slime and evolved it all the way into a living, breathing, organism in the span of one lifetime? 

In other words, no, they haven't. They have shown that things adapt, (note that word) but so far, nothing has changed from one spices into another. And no, finding fossils that are 30 billion years apart does not consist of evidence. I mean, they even admit there are missing 'links' in it. I'd say it takes a lot of faith to believe in that. Naturally I commend the scientists for their devotion.