Where are you on the Evolution Vs Creationist debate?

[RyanEC]

I have been watching a lot of debates between people who believe in a literal 6 day interaction of the book of genesis and people who believe in evolution based on the scientific findings of the last few centuries.

There are a few different views.

1. Young Earth creationists believe the universe was created in 6 days 6000 years ago.

2. Old earth creationists believe that the universe is billions of years old and that genesis was not meant to be taken literally.
Maybe the 6 days were not days but periods of time that could be millions of years.
They usually reject evolution though.

3. Theistic Evolutionists believe that the universe is billions of years old and evolution is true but God is directing the process of evolution.

4. Naturalistic evolutionists believe In the evolution the Big Bang and don’t believe there is need for a God.

I am a Deist but am undecided.

I am a young earth creationist.

I am an old earth creationist.

I am a Theistic evolutionist.

I am a naturalistic evolutionist.

Unsure.

[dynamicyandere]

I believe in intelligent design.


Whether that be by aliens, an ancient technologically-advanced race, a supreme being, or if we’re all simply in a computer simulation — it just doesn’t make sense for things to have the level of complexity that they do.


The human eye. The DNA transcription process. The existence of interdependent species within complex ecosystems. The ozone layer conveniently shielding us from solar radiation. The very temperature of the earth’s surface, the distance from the sun, and even the tilted axis of the earth.


There are just too many coincidences lined up for these complex processes and systems to be completely random chance.


I believe that it takes more faith to believe that this was all from random chance, than to believe that something or someone has guided the intricate engineering and design that we see.


As to who or what that is, it’s not 100% certain or verifiable by empirical evidence.


But I were to gamble, I’d bet that what we see around us was designed and engineered intelligently, rather than a product of random happenstance.

[DrHobama]

Your logic is sound, your grip on philosophy is not.

[strateguy632]

that technology race HAD eyes, who made THEIR eyes?, the only cause possible is a godly cause.

[Pohjolan]

Human design is pretty flawed when you scrutinise it.
Like we may accidentally kill ourselves by suffocating ourselves with our own puke.
Not a very good design choice.

[zeitgeist057]

It's not "completely random chance" at all, all the things you list, like the earth being the perfect distance from the sun, the perfect temperature for us and all other organisms on it, &c.

But you are looking at it from one end of the "which came first" question. Were humans, chickens, dolphins, great Sequoias, &c, all just floating in the nether with no place, then some omniscient being solved the puzzle of where they all could live together, and create a universe to fit them on a single planet of it?

Or maybe, just maybe, that planet in the universe was one of so many that sure, it makes sense that at least one of them could have conditions necessary for life to start? And that life evolved to fit that planet? The organisms that needed warmer or colder didn't make it. The organisms fit the environment, not the other way around. Also, there is evidence to support this theory, in the form of fossil records and scientific data.

I used to believe as you do, it took a while for me to think about it and realize I was kind of looking at things backward. Though it is a pleasant fantasy to think we have a magical omnipotent/omniscient being looking out for us. I just don't think it's likely.

[dynamicyandere]

@zeitgeist057

I appreciate the time you took to write a thorough response without bashing an alternative view.

I can see that it would be conceivable for coincidence to stack upon coincidence for everything to work together harmoniously — but that would take trillions upon trillions of iterations.

For that to work, m-theory would make sense, where although the laws of physics in our universe are pretty stringent, at least currently, perhaps it wasn’t always that way. Or perhaps there are an infinite amount of universes all stemming from this unstable origin where the laws of physics are unstable, as described in this video: youtube.com/shorts/Go5rXThzyUs?si=Tna7YqfmV2EFiENW

As for an omnipotent or omniscient being to be behind everything, I don’t believe that be 100% necessary.

Elon Musk believes in simulation theory and I believe that could also be a possibility: youtube.com/shorts/etiWMfewLPQ?si=pTsNYrlvV9abTz2h

And whoever is running the simulation could be very much not omnipotent or omniscient. However, they WOULD still be intelligent.

I believe that at the end of the day, nobody can know for certain what the true origin of the universe is. All we can do is speculate and reason based on the limited information we have.

[zeitgeist057]

@dynamicyandere, I appreciate your appreciation. It's nice to have some logical discourse without the mudslinging. :)

"at the end of the day, nobody can know for certain" = true. Which is why I'm agnostic. But I also think in terms of probability/statistics. So I do lean toward evolution and away from creationism. I do also entertain the various theories to some extent or other, monotheism (s), simulation theory, alien terraforming/planet seeding, &c. In simulation theory, we could be in a simulation run by an unthinking/non-sentient reality generator, that runs on some cold fusion or perpetual motion energy source, and the original designers long since gone. Pretty much anything we can imagine can be another possibility. But are they likely?

"that would take trillions upon trillions of iterations." - You put a number on it, though I doubt you were intentionally making an exact number, it's still it's supportive of evolutionary theory rather than dismissive of it. quick google says universe began 13.8 billion years ago. Another quick google says bacteria colonies double every 4-20 minutes. A single bacterial colony must contain millions of individual organisms to be visible to the naked eye (the size of a pin point or speck of visible dust). Fill the oceans with those specks and you are looking at more than a "trillion trillion" in just one generation. A few hours later, you've had your "trillions on trillions" of iterations, and 3.7 billion years to go (the length of time estimated that first life appeared around).

Not that it started off with bacteria, and larger species have longer gestation and generational cycles, but 13.7 billion years is a long time, and there are carbon dated resources that support evolutionary theory.

There was a great bit about fruit flies in "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, which covers this very subject of how species evolve to fit the environment, if you're interested in a good read.

[dynamicyandere]

@zeitgeist057 Thanks. 🙂

Yeah, I didn’t intend to use trillions upon trillions literally — but more of an expression.

You bring up a lot of good points and yeah, that does sound like an interesting read, The Blind Watchmaker.

Even though currently, I lean towards the idea of intelligent design, I’m willing to have that challenged by reading a well-articulated book that supports the contrary. Or at least expand my understanding of the alternative perspective.

I appreciate the book recommendation!

[strateguy632]

@Pohjolan even vomit shows design to pump out stuff either bad stuff or to know we are ill. what you say is rare, probably CAUSED by drunkenness not by the design.
most people have a good system of vomit and everyone has eyes that show engineer skills.

[zeitgeist057]

@dynamicyandere I was reading through some of the other "conversations" on this topic, many of which have devolved to "you're stupid, no, you're stupid and rude", and just want to re-express my gratitude for your civil attitude :)

I thought of another application of the "trillions upon trillions of iterations" theme. Our planet is one of so many in our system and galaxy, and there are so many other galaxies, it's mind boggling. I saw a video showing this (I'll try to post it), and it's just so vast it almost seems like it's made up. That it couldn't possibly be so quasi-infinite. It's a decent argument for the likelihood of other life somewhere out there, simply by the incredible numbers of planets that could potentially be hospitable to life.

This isn't the video, but starts off emphasizing how far away "close" bodies are, like the moon and Mars. Pretty phenomenal.
https://youtu.be/Iy7NzjCmUf0?si=nnsxJaaD6vxCEbt4

From the video: "there are over 100 billion stars, and over 100 billion planets inside of our galaxy"
"54 galaxies in our local group... at least 100 other groups like our local group in the Virgo Supercluster...(which is part of Laniakea Supercluster, which contains other superclusters)...100K other galaxies..."a tiny and insignificant part of everything". So not just on our planet, but billions upon billions of planets in galaxies contained within superclusters within superclusters.

[zeitgeist057]

" over 2 trillion individual galaxies, each containing billions of planets... more planets than there are grains of sand on the entire planet Earth."

[dynamicyandere]

@zeitgeist057 Thanks, and likewise. 🙂

Also, thanks for sharing the video. It really puts things in perspective.

The entire universe as we can detect and see with our technology is only the size of a lightbulb on Pluto, Pluto being the actual size of our universe which we haven’t even seen.

The sheer size of the cosmos compared to the speck of dust, called earth, really makes it seem like extraterrestrial life is inevitable, as there should be numerous habitable planets across the universe and beyond.

[Pohjolan]

@strateguy632
Every human may die of they vomit while being unconscious for whatever reason and that's not the only flaw.
Either we are not designed by god or were released in beta.

[Lliam]

Creationism cracks me up. The evidence for evolution is obvious.

Science doesn't know everything by a long shot, but I still believe in science as knowledge continues to evolve.

I have no idea how the universe got started, but I place zero credibility in the Bible, holy books, or ancient mythology. Show me evidence of supernatural beings or life after death.

I definitely don't believe that any supernatural being created the universe for humans, looks after humans, or shows any favoritism toward humans over other living creatures.

[provokeesmokee]

Not a debate. Evolution is fact. God is unknown but whether or not She exists, evolution directs itself.

[love_conquers_lust]

I like how you coined it is as She. I wouldn't mind meeting a woman at the pearly gates. However, I'd still want to kick he/she in the omnipotent gonads for all the pain and suffering he/she puts us through. Then say "forgive that, dickhead". Since he/she/god has a sense of humor and created us in her/his image, I'd think they'd understand.

[XingQi]

There are problems with evolution and the secular view:
- You cannot prove the beginning of existence itself. Matter cannot be created or destroyed as demonstrated by the laws of physics.
- You cannot prove abiogenesis- creation of life in a sterile environment. They've tried and such doesn't work.
- There is no evidence of single-celled to two-celled evolution. You can take other unproven phenomenons like the eye cell, sexual reproduction, loss of asexual reproduction,
- There are no new species arising. Evolution takes millions if not billions of years to happen. Why isn't it happening today?
- Better yet, why did humans leave absolutely nothing behind for millions of years? It's not consistent considering humans from thousands of years ago leave behind tons.

[DrHobama]

Xing, you’re not going to see this since you’re a coward and you blocked me, but the study of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis nor the “beginning of existence”. They are literally completely different studies. Also humans didn’t exist “millions of years ago”. The human race as we know it is dated as far back as 300,000 years ago, no further, unless you’re referring to a “common ancestor” homo erectus which did, in fact, leave evidence of its existence.

[love_conquers_lust]

@DrHobama I don’t agree with all his points. I agree that Homo erectus did emerge few million years ago. Homo sapiens are relatively new and only a few hundred thousand years old based on what I read. We shouldn’t delve into further speciation by race because that’s a whole ‘nother topic that will piss a lot of people off.

@provokeesmokee put it pretty succinctly. God is an untestable hypotheisis. We can’t design an experiment to disprove it, and we have really zero good evidence supporting it. But the doctrines and codes of ethics centered around it in all religions helped pull us up from primitivity at the advent of the neolithic age which was necessitated by the beginning of warfare.

[strateguy632]

love how you wrote "no debate" when every issue has many sides.
the only evolution that is fact is micro but still the changed fly is still a fly, same chromosome total after change.
find me a witness of a dog mammal hatching from a snake egg... that is what "so called science claims" about history mammals evolved from reptiles?

[KC-Sunbeam]

@DrHobama: Certainly Evolution & abiogenesis are completely different & are different studies. But they're always always always always always linked together & joined at the hip by atheistic evolutionists. So, someone treating them as the same thing makes logical sense if they equally reject them both.

[love_conquers_lust]

@strateguy632 Good point. It is debatable. It is also unknown if everything wasn't set in motion deterministically. The paradox of determinism.

All your other points are explained by evolution. There could theoretically be an infinite number of missing links. At what point do we empirically determine enough of them have been discovered to "prove" evolution? Circling back, we can't prove either God or evolution. We can disprove evolution, we can't disprove God. That makes God untestable, unable to graduate from hypothesis to theory. Evolution has made that leap. Each missing link found that doesn't disprove evolution further reinforces its validity.

[love_conquers_lust]

@KC-Sunbeam I thought the primordial soup experiment would be enough to disprove abiogenesis.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_soup

[Siri137]

@DrHobama "... the study of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis..."
Yes, true, and I've often wondered about that. Don't you think that it's rather odd that something so comprehensive as the theory of biological evolution cannot account for how the entire process it tries to account for got going in the first place?
By the way, I don't blame Xing for blocking you. You're behaving like an insufferable twat here in this discussion.

[DrHobama]

@Siri137 no I don’t, because the two are unrelated. The only people who conflate them are those opposed to evolution because it contradicts their beliefs on the origin of species and therefore attempt to confuse the argument by stating that evolution does not explain the creation and replication of the first strands of RNA, something that is a completely separate concept, because the person denying evolution can’t do so on the merits of the sheer weight on the factual evidence supporting it. It’s a farcical argument.

[DrHobama]

Also I’m being a “twat” because this argument is akin to a bunch of people arguing that 2 plus 2 can’t equal 4, and me, the only person who has ever studied arithmetic, attempting to explain that it does to people too comfortable in their own ignorance to listen.

[Siri137]

@DrHobama How the hell can the two be unrelated? That's analogous to saying that the process involved in manufacturing an item like a car is irrelevant to its final shape, performance and reliability.
The word "abiogenesis" is thrown about a lot as though just saying the word somehow can make up for its deficiencies as an explanation for how it all started. People like you admit that how life got going in the first place is still a mystery, and yet we're told that however it happened it had to be purely physical and couldn't have, for example, been in any way miraculous or metaphysical. We're expected to just accept that on faith. That's not good enough.

[DrHobama]

Literally nothing about evolution states that the cause of life couldn’t be metaphysical. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding most theists have. The reason why most people who understand evolution believe in a physical abiogenesis is because the nature of species evolving naturally inevitably draws the conclusion that life is governed by natural principles and that an intelligent creator is both unnecessary and illogical

[Siri137]

@DrHobama Okay then, the cause was supernatural. :)

[DrHobama]

You can feel free to believe that it has nothing to do with evolution

[Siri137]

@DrHobama Of course. How life started in the first place has nothing at all to do with how it subsequently developed. And I guess you also believe that the characteristics a person develops in the womb and during the early years after birth, play NO role whatsoever in how that person will turn out as a child and adult. Sure. Okay. :)

[DrHobama]

That’s a fascinating analogy. Of course a better one would be akin to stating that because we don’t know if a baby was born conventionally or through a Caesarian section we therefore have no idea if the said baby can turn into an adult or if it suddenly appeared that way. That is the actual argument you’re making here, and it’s as silly as it sounds.

[Siri137]

@DrHobama No, I didn't say that.
And don't send me anymore DM's. Keep your asinine comments here, so everyone can see what an absolute clown you are.

[DrHobama]

You didn’t say it but that is the actual interpretation of your argument. How life began has as much to do with how it evolved billions of years later as how the circumstances of one’s birth has to with whether they physically can become an adult.

[DrHobama]

I really wish you were smarter. It’s honestly sad.

[Siri137]

@DrHobama If I didn't say it, then I didn't mean it. Do you have comprehension issues? Do you know the meaning of words? Your interpretation of my point was exactly that; an interpretation, one no doubt biased.
Oh, and don't be sad, because I'm obviously much smarter than you. At least I don't put my own particular spin on what others say here, and then attack that (the strawman strategy). I'm not so dishonest.

[DrHobama]

My comprehension is fine, your stance made no sense and I revised it to its more literal analogous meaning. Again, if abiogenesis is not independent from evolution, then what could that possibly imply? An adult must have grown into an adult, correct? That’s evolution in your hypothetical. If we can’t prove how the adult you see in your hypothetical was born does that mean it could never or would never have been a baby? Of course not. But you didn’t think very far in your hypothetical because you’re not very intelligent.

[love_conquers_lust]

major typo:
*primordial soup experiment would be enough to SUPPORT abiogenesis.

@siri137 @DrHobama. It’s been perfectly acceptable to me to reconcile intelligent design as answering the “why”, and evolution answering the “how” of life. Both can coexist. For me, entertaining both has had the opposite effect of what some critics have feared. Instead of succumbing to dogma, it has actually driven me to question both, which I believe is what all good scientists would do in the first place.

[provokeesmokee]

@love_conquers_lust God isn't real, or if She is she can correct me if I'm not using the right pronoun. Not that mortal human gender would mean anything to a God - biblically speaking, we wouldn't be able to even comprehend Her should she appear to us.

I agree that God, in the classical "Good Christian View" is supposed to be good and merciful. But that's a lie with evidence: cancer, war, capitalism, genocide, Nazis. If God truly existed and was good, She'd have quelled these. Instead, She does nothing.

I'm agnostic and don't believe in any structured religion's idea of God. But I think if something larger does exist, it is just an observer - perhaps an occasional force of chaos - with no interest in whether we live or suffer.

If you kicked my vision of God in the nuts, I'm pretty sure She'd give you a "thumbs up, well played, enjoy eternity" and go back to watching the shitshow with popcorn, lol.

[love_conquers_lust]

@provokeesmokee. Very astute. It is an arrogant assumption to presume we even have the capacity to comprehend the language of an omnipotent being. The possibilities are so infinitely large it seems folly to even ask such a question.

And you know what, it's probably best that way. I comforted my uncle at a recent funeral I attended after his wife passed. He met her on deployment in Okinawa. Humble, humble woman. I couldn't believe the remarkable life she'd lived until I read her obituary. The stereotype of East Asian women being reserved was very much at work with her. My uncle couldn't stop weeping the entire procession. I told him she was in a better place. We will never hear from her again in this lifetime because she wouldn't want to return. It would corrupt our purpose here to know our fate. Why try or be kind to one another at all if we knew for a fact it was pointless because better things await?

One doesn't have to know God. I think it's enough to believe that He/She speaks to us through our emotions. Through our hearts. That's what preachers talk about with the voice of God. And guess which gender happens to be more in touch with their emotions? Which gender is closer to God than the other?

[provokeesmokee]

@love_conquers_lust You just wrote a beautiful paragraph about the depth of love and affection your uncle has for his late wife and still dare ask which gender is "more in touch with their feelings"?

Gtfo. Men have emotion and are valid for it. I pity that you haven't internalized that - not for you, but for your uncle. Fucks' sake.

[love_conquers_lust]

@provokeesmokee Good observation. My intent is not insult my Uncle OR myself implying we are emotionless invalidating our feelings. It was meant as a compliment to fly in the face of the stereotype of women being called evil. When in fact they are divine.

Here's another truth. My most difficult arguments on here aren't with guys, it's girls. You see why?

[provokeesmokee]

Bruh wow you simpin hard.

[love_conquers_lust]

@provokeesmokee And that response leads me to believe you're not a woman at all.

[Siri137]

None of the above. I don't believe that either group in this debate is correct.

[DrHobama]

Time to throw nearly 150 years of irrefutable scientific evidence out the window folks this random lady thinks everyone except her is wrong.

[Siri137]

@DrHobama Don't be stupid. What "irrefutable evidence"? I've never seen it. Have you? The fossil record? That's fragmentary, has huge holes in it, and doesn't support the notion of a steady progression of complexity.
Then of course there is the fact that mutations do not result in the improvement of any species thus affected, and combined with the fact that Darwinism cannot explain how the whole process got going in the first place (abiogenesis? what a joke), and what we have here is a great, big nothing.
I stopped believing in fairy-tales when I was six. You obviously still believe in them. :D

[DrHobama]

There’s nothing that amuses me more than when some absolutely egotistical person smugly denies something they don’t understand. Yes we have a fossil record. No it’s not the main evidence for evolution, or at least, it is no longer. You’re declaring “facts” you have no familiarity with.

“The fossil record doesn’t support the notion of a steady record of complexity” is a fundamentally incorrect statement. I don’t even know how to approach that one. It’s basically you admitting you have no idea what you’re talking about. It makes no sense as a premise; complexity is not something that can be categorically defined nor does evolution make claims of a steady progression of it, lesser evolved organisms are simply those that have less adaptations to the environment they live in regardless of what you define as “complex”. Early primates for example didn’t possess the same cranial capacity that we do, which was the primary distinction between Homo sapiens and homo erectus. This is not a distinction of complexity but one of adaptation, the brain size developed as mutations caused the occipital crest to get increasingly thinner over hundreds of thousands of years, while in the contrary direction tooth enamel evolved to become stronger as the homo erectus hunted and ate more diverse food, demonstrating an advantage over their ancestors who would often die out quickly due to infections within their teeth. Simply put there’s a logical reason why humans developed as they did from early primates and it was not as you imply, a steady progression. In fact compatible species within the same species of Homo sapiens all went extinct hundreds of thousands of years ago.

[DrHobama]

“Mutations do not result in the improvement of any species affected” might be the most nonsensical lie I’ve ever heard. Not only is this not true, it has been observably demonstrated on a microscopic level. Such tests were done with mosquitoes, but have almost been demonstrated with bacteria. A sample population of mosquitoes was poisoned with a specific chemical and all died save for those who possessed alleles that would allow them to be resistant to the chemical and breed. This gene would pass on to the next generation and so forth until the mosquito population as a whole was immune to the poison. This is a mutation that resulted in the “improvement” (which in this, and all cases, is continued survival) of a species. This is what natural selection is.

[Siri137]

I've just gone over your other responses here, to others who doubt the Darwinian dogma. Are you always so condescending and arrogant? Do you have autism? I ask, because your utter cluelessness would indicate you have that condition.
Now, I'm not judging you. I know how horrible and debilitating the condition can be, but it might be a good idea, when you disagree with someone for whatever reason, to not insult them or make unjustified assumptions about them (ex. in my case, that I'm "egotistical"). I'm not egotistical, I just don't have any good reasons to become a believer in the dogmatic Darwinian paradigm. To me it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

[Siri137]

@DrHobama "... complexity is not something that can be categorically defined..."
Are you sure about that? I'm by no means a mathematician, but I'm pretty sure this has been worked out.

[DrHobama]

I’m condescending and arrogant because I’m condescending and arrogant, not because I have “autism” (an incredibly rude thing to say about those on the spectrum, for the record). I’m not “clueless” not the social implications of insulting you, I’m fully aware I’m criticizing you and not being nice to you, I see no reason to pretend I respect you at all. You don’t know what you’re talking about and yet you’re still talking about it. That’s a different type of arrogance, one that warrants criticism.

Yes you are egotistical. Anyone who says “I personally cannot understand this concept therefore it does not exist” is egotistical. They are unable to view a broader lens of reality beyond their own perspective and fundamentally averse to accepting their own limitations. I can’t understand quantum physics. I’ve tried. It doesn’t mean that I throw my hands up and state that quantum physics mustn’t exist. There’s a world outside of my purview and knowledge that I will never understand, yet I don’t limit the world to my own understanding of it. I assume it’s comforting to a degree to do so.

[DrHobama]

@siri137 how does one mathematically quantify the complexity of one stage of evolution to the next please tell me

[Siri137]

@DrHobama "... an incredibly rude thing to say about those on the spectrum, for the record..."
Actually, no, it isn't.
"Anyone who says “I personally cannot understand this concept therefore it does not exist” is egotistical."
You LIAR! I never said that. So not only are you rude and arrogant, but you're dishonest as well. Why am I even wasting my time with you?

[Siri137]

@DrHobama "I don’t limit the world to my own understanding of it. I assume it’s comforting to a degree to do so."
I wouldn't know, I've never done that.

[DrHobama]

You’re doing that right now. The problem is that you don’t possess the awareness to realize it.

[Siri137]

@DrHobama You don't possess the awareness to realise that you'll forever be an autistic loner with no friends, no hope, and no future. I actually feel sorry for you :'(

[DrHobama]

Well I’m not autistic nor do I have a profile where I do nothing but post my opinions to strangers as a woman in my mid 30s because presumably you don’t have people to talk to under your real name on regular social media.

[XingQi]

Simple: young earth creationism.

I should note that I go by the Septuagint's Chronology rather than the Masoretic Text use in modern day Bibles (KJV, Vulgate, etc.). This means I believe in a ~7500 year creation over the 6000 year model. Why? Josephus Flavius, a Jewish historical figure, proves that the LXX's Genesis 5 and 11 are correct over the modern Rabbinical Masoretic. Now, here's why I go with young earth creationism:

• The chronologies given in Chronicles, Matthew, and Luke simply aren't possible if Genesis isn't literal- Adam is a real person.
• Moses himself directly states the world's creation in 7 days (Exodus 20:11).
• Nothing in the entire Bible states that Genesis is not literal. Even the New Testament cites Noah's flood as literal (1 Peter 3:19-22).
• Adam is stated to be a literal person (1 Corinthians 15:22).

In conclusion, there is no workaround to Bible literalism here.

[XingQi]

And in case any smug person wants to try mocking me, consider the following:
- You cannot create matter out of nothing or prove how the beginning of everyone came to be.
- You literally hold no evidence of a single-celled organism evolving into a two-celled organism.
- You cannot prove the mutation of a mitochondria becoming part of a cell (let alone prove the common theory it was once its own organism), mutation of the eye cell, the beginning of sexual reproduction, and organisms today still don't evolve into new species despite being supposedly around for millions if not billions of years.

Blind faith is not "science."

[DrHobama]

I love this response because it really does demonstrate that you can do a substantial amount of research into a subject and be wholly and totally incorrect about every aspect of it.

[XingQi]

@DrHobama Go ahead and correct me then. I'll be waiting. I'll believe I am wrong when I see it. :)

[DrHobama]

You won’t ever believe you’re wrong. You’re extremely indoctrinated

[XingQi]

@DrHobama You could've tried showing me theories within evolution, anatomy, biology, cosmology, mathematics, physics, morality, but you choose to play the smug Internet Atheist.

You idiots are beyond help.

[strateguy632]

i also prefer septuagint numbers over rabbi version.
assuming genesis is literal still doesn't prevent old earth.
the "first" day was not called first in hebrew words in hebrew bible.
"second was from day one" but implies before that a different first day.
another hint is the hebrew word tohu used for destruction in other books so it hints to something got destroyed "before the new count of day one" that wasn't called first. compare leviticus 23:5 to genesis 1:5.

[XingQi]

@strateguy632 That is an interesting note, I shall keep it in mind :)

[DryGermanGuy]

There is no debate. There is science and there are people that want to take an old book literally.

[Siri137]

Actually, there is a debate about this, because neither theory can account for the facts. A third explanation is called for.

[DrHobama]

So when I pointed out that mutations were factually observed within a closed system in a community of mosquitoes and you conveniently ignored that fact, was there a better third explanation for that phenomenon?

[strateguy632]

about 4 , there IS a logical need, because anything that got caused had a cause therefore logically must be a godly starter of causes.

[strateguy632]

also the founder of real evolution was darwin who specified "many species originated from a few or one species that had "life breathed in" to it" referencing a creator so evolution did not replace creationism.

[KC-Sunbeam]

I'm a solid unwavering Creationist. However, I'm not that way because of the Bible, and I definitely accept micro-evolution. I arrive at my position based on logic.

[DrHobama]

“I accept micro evolution” therefore you accept macro evolution. It is impossible to accept one and reject the other unless you somehow believe that all forms of evolution started at the absolute end of the earths history, which makes no sense.

[KC-Sunbeam]

@DrHobama: You are ***absolutely wrong***. Do more research on micro-evolution.

[DrHobama]

Im not. Macro evolution is literally micro evolution over a longer period of time. You will not find a biologist who supports one and not the other, they are identical processes

[KC-Sunbeam]

@DrHobama: I'm not a biologist, & don't care if they have a consensus on this issue. I'm telling you what *** I *** believe & do not believe. I believe that God started with some crude forms, such as Homo habilis, which later evolved into modern Homo sapiens. Crude man into advanced man = micro-evolution. Macro-evolution = fish into advanced man. That I reject.

[DrHobama]

That’s fine. You can choose not to believe in evolution just like you can choose not to believe in gravity. It won’t make you sound any less stupid by affirming it.

So you don’t know what macro evolution is. Macro evolution is a morphological or functional change over a long period of time that represents a substantial shift within the species. The homo habilis evolving into Homo sapiens is an example of macro evolution. What you’re describing is speciation, which likewise has a significant amount of evidence and is a fundamental tenant of evolutionary biology.

[KC-Sunbeam]

@DrHobama : I just read what Wikipedia has to say about microevolution & I agree with it. But I oppose neo-Darwinian macro-evolution. And sadly, someone who's not even old enough to be my child has every right to arrogantly assert that denying neo-Darwinism is akin to denying gravity.

[strateguy632]

@DrHobama consider the number of chromosomes. in micro they don't change so micro cannot suggest a change in species.
also we know how fertilization works parents cannot have a child with different chromosomes total. a reptile with 50 cannot parented a dog with 30.

[DrHobama]

@strateguy632 what do you think Down syndrome is champ

[DrHobama]

@KC Congrats on glancing over a Wikipedia article on the subject I’m sure that will be sufficient for you

[KC-Sunbeam]

@DrHobama: No. What's sufficient for me is knowing that micro means on the small scale while macro means on the large scale. So, if micro-evolution is not currently defined the way I define it, then it should be. I'm using common sense.

[DrHobama]

The issue is that logic is only good so far as a person’s understanding of the subject that they are trying to apply logic to. For example, if you were to sit down and attend a lecture on quantum mechanics, and try to use your own logic to understand what was being said without knowing the fundamental principles or terminology being applied, you will fail. If you think otherwise then you are simply ignorant. “Micro-evolution means small while macro means large”. That is true, but the implication of what you’re saying makes no sense if you understand what evolution is. Evolution is an immutable biological process through which a species changes due to environmental changes and mutation. If we assume micro-evolution exists, which is evolution over a small period of time, then macro-evolution, which is evolution over a large period of time, must exist. The only way it cannot exist if micro evolution exists is to assume, completely irrationally, that evolution only began as a biological process recently, which, given the facts of nature as we understand them and the sheer amount of time our ecosystem has existed in various forms, makes no practical sense. It’s like saying “I believe in gravity, but I don’t believe gravity existed a million years ago”. It doesn’t make sense.

[KC-Sunbeam]

@DrHobama: Okay, I'm not very good with the terms. But here's what I'm *trying* to say: I do NOT believe in neo-Darwinian Evolution over a small period of time, let alone large. I DO believe in an evolution within the parameters of the gene pool only. For instance, Eohippus becomes modern horse, Homo erectus becomes modern man. But no such one-celled microorganism becoming a horse, man, bird, or whatever. My focus is on God. I have a saying: God is everything. That's what I care about, not man-made terms that are designed to overly complicate things & eliminate the idea of God. Nothing within quantum mechanics, biology, astronomy, or any other scientific discipline demonstrates abiogenesis or neo-Darwinian Evolution (evolution with a capital E).

[DrHobama]

Define neo Darwinian evolution because I don’t think you know what it is.

[KC-Sunbeam]

@DrHobama : What I'm about to say won't match the definition in your books but will be true regardless: neo-Darwinian Evolution is the taking of Darwin's original theory & modifying it to reflect more modern ideas. It's the acceptance of the idea that creatures can develop from the very simplest possible life forms (one-celled) into the most complex lifeforms possible, regardless of any supposed genetic parameter & which can supposedly cross over from one genus or higher classification. I only accept the idea of transforming of one species into another or the modifying of the same species, as these things can be demonstrated. Call it speciation? Okay. But where I stand should be perfectly clear, despite the terms.

[DrHobama]

Well now I’m more confused because you admitted that you believe that Homo sapiens came from homo erectus and homo habilis and so forth. Do you also believe that we came from Australopithecus? Those are not the same species.

[KC-Sunbeam]

@DrHobama : Don't be confused! I don't cause confusion. No, not Australopithecus. That's a *different genus*. The various Homos = same genus. Simple! by the way I'll probably be kicked off GaG soon by nasty spoiled brat crazy moderators. So just in case you want to understand more of what I say, please see my YouTube channel K C Sunbeam or my K C Sunbeam Wordpress channel. But if not, that's your prerogative. Take care.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

God created the heavens and earth, Adam and Eve and the original animals at the beginning.

God also set in order evolution of certain animal species sometime or immediately after He flooded and destroyed the earth.

[DrHobama]

This is a contradictory belief, though I’m sure you don’t know enough about evolution to know that.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@DrHobama: No it isn't. But believe whatever you want. I don't care.

[DrHobama]

It absolutely is. Evolution as a process is either universal or it’s not a process of nature at all. And you know how I know you know you’re full of shit? You say *certain* species evolved but refuse to state which, because doing so requires enough working knowledge of evolution to elaborate on its historical processes that you don’t have. You’re talking out of your ass.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@DrHobama: For example God created a feline but he didn't create 5 or 6 species of felines like Lion, Tiger, Jaguar, Cheetah, leopard or dozens of different bird species as some of them evolved through natural selection.

[DrHobama]

A-scientific gibberish. Do you have any idea how long it would take for those animals to evolve from a common ancestor independently?

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@DrHobama: It happend. Get over it. Stay atheist or whatever. I told you I don't care.

[DrHobama]

It happened? Because you said so? You literally know nothing of science. Why should anyone listen to you? You’ve never read a word on the subject.

[slatyb]

There evidence for evolution is overwhelming. No one shared what people who insist that some religious writing must be true.

[Joshydavid25]

I lean towards Young Earth Creationist personally, but I do believe Old Earth Creation being plausible as well..

[jshm2]

It's just stupid white people arguing over which myth makes them feel better.

[KC-Sunbeam]

What's this racist garbage?

[QuietRunner]

Surah Al-Anbya 21:30

Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and then We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?

[Pterodon]

I believe in creation but the Bible never really mentions how he created and I believe he uses evolution to do so

[Chewy______]

Evolution. And I have no idea if God exists.

[jahaims]

Evidence vs. Zero evidence

[cadams111_5]

Evolution and God are not incompatible.

[strateguy632]

so c?

[cadams111_5]

@strateguy632 what? Just tell your pastor to explain why.

[BarryLiverstone]

Rather not debate

[YAsQuen]

flat earth anyone?