Jump to content

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
  • Announcements

    • Dowin

      =ADK= Discord Link   04/24/2017

      Come join us in =ADK= Discord To download the Discord app go here: https://discordapp.com/   Discord is going to have a small learning curve over teamspeak so be prepared, but the fellow members as well as the Admins will gladly help you if you have any issues with installing or using the app. Once you have Discord installed all that's left to do is click the button below.   Welcome to the future of the =ADK= Community.   Click Here To Join! 
HansJob

The Evolution debate

Recommended Posts

This is a video debate between Bill Nye and Ken ham.

Bill Nye is quite well known but this specific debate, maybe not so much

 

I found it very interesting, but also quite sad. It's a debate between Evolution and Creationism where Bill Nye presents almost nothing but facts and Ken Ham sort of just, uh, babbles on about some random shit.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

 

 

As much as i like Bill Nye i really don't think he should waste time debating Creationists as it just gives these people credabilaty and interest.

 

I know it's not fit for the Politic's forum but i wanted to share and see if anyone has any thoughts about it,

as it is a touchy subject...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The typical one or the other.

 

I am religious, but I do believe in both the evolution and creation of man... If you think about it in a different perspective than the two that are always present, you can see that it could be quite possible that both could possibly be one.

 

It is hard to explain, but think about this whole thing long and hard while keeping your mind open to every single possibility. You could even come up with your own idea of these two combined.

 

Yet I tend not to talk about it because every time mention it IRL to some friends, I tend to get lectured for not being decisive and not agreeing with one or the other...

 

I had this problem in my history courses in school since I chose both sides, yet I had to choose only one.

 

I honestly just skimmed through the whole thing, since it is always debated whether publicly or in a small group privately.

 

One major suggestion is when posting topics like this, try not to be biased or offensive to one group. As I was reading it, it felt like there was hostility being directed toward the people who might believe in creationism. Though, there are some people in ADK who will speak their mind and don't care about everyone else's feelings. I just don't want this topic to be filled with someone flaming someone else.

 

You just have to honestly view this like viewing the debate between Mac and Windows... People always references Windows as being PC, but both are PCs. Heck even Linux, Raspberry Pi, and other operating systems do not determine what is a PC or not. Yet there are those people who are completely biased to one side or the other.

 

I believe the debate will last a long time and most likely will never end, just like Mac vs Windows and CoD vs Battlefield (very popular in debates).

 

~ Jinfusakei

 

P.S.: Please tell what show or movie your signature is from. I am trying to figure it out or remember, I keep seeing it everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I guess its time to let people know some things about who I am. I am a former pastor. Prior to being a pastor I was a Mechanical Engineer. I pastored for several years then decided I missed the engineering. So now I work for a National Laboratory as a Mechanical Designer on one of the accelerator rings. Best and funnest job I have ever had. I just share that as it may show insight as to the position I hold.

 

I am a Christ follower and I believe all things were created by God. However with that said I accept Evolution and that the Universe is 13-15 billion years old. (Note: I ran across an article where they think the Universe is maybe older but I forgot what they were basing that on and what the time frame was.) I accept therefore that Evolution was a process God created to evolve all life on earth, and probably throughout the universe.  For a better presentation on this position if you are not familiar with it I refer you to the BioLogos website: [url]http://biologos.org/[/url]. There are some very top notch scientists who are part of the BioLogos movement: namely Francis Collins the director for the project to map the human genome.

 

Okay with all that said. I have not listened to the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate. Mainly because I knew Ken Ham was a fundamentalist creationist of the type that is not scientific. I don't want to listen to a debate that is one side scientific and the other fundamentalist juxtapositioning. (ooh I used a big word.)

 

The problem with Creationism is it is not based on a scientific emperical analysis of data. It is based on the fundamentalist belief that the Bible is inerrant; that is without error, it cannot have any falsehoods in it. So as a result the view commonly taken by fundamentalists is that the Genesis creation story has to be a statement of fact. However the Genesis creation story is not a scientific factual accounting. It is a poem in fact. In the English translation we do not see it as poetry because of the translation, however in the original Hebrew it is very must a poetic piece of literature. It was not written to be a scientific detailed step by step account of how God created the universe. However both Evolutionists and Creationists in debates treat it as such.

 

It is simply an ancient peoples literature that developed from telling stories around the camp fire at night. It was not meant to teach a scientific detailing of creation but simply that God is the creator and to be a display of the beauty of creation.

 

So I don't get into an Evolution vs. Creation debate anymore. I get into a debate about the misrepresentation of the Bible by people.

 

Side note: There is actually two creation stories in the first couple of chapters in Genesis. If one tries to use them to show the order of creation they have a problem as the two differ.

 

With that said I encourage you to open your mind to the possibilities of a God and that the divine has not hidden the mysteries of creation, but they are out there for us to discover through scientific study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with some of your points, I have not found any substantial proof tying the creation stories as a pure fact... Yet I also believe that the big bang is possible also, but it too cannot really be a fact; a mere theory like Genesis.

 

Now I can say that maybe both the history written later on in the Bible and the footprints left by our greatest ancestors could be tied as not one, but possibly two different true histories occurring at the same time. It is truly possible, just both sides have to deny it all the time... A restless debate that will never end, like Mac vs Windows as I once said before.

 

I stand more on the lines of believing in God, but I will not state it as a true fact. I sometimes have to laugh at those who get aggressive while attempting to prove it as a fact for whatever type of god or gods they believe in.

 

~ Jinfusakei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with some of your points, I have not found any substantial proof tying the creation stories as a pure fact... Yet I also believe that the big bang is possible also, but it too cannot really be a fact; a mere theory like Genesis.

Jin there is the mistake being made right there. Genesis is not a theory or a detailed account of facts, period. It is a story meant to convey a truth that is all. As for the Big Bang it is a theory based on evidence. Don't make the mistake of mixing the two together - Genesis is a story about how creation happened from God. The Big Bang is a scientific theory based on empirical evidence. One conveys truth - the other explains what we observe. They are not the same.

Edited by LxixDude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That there is a debate, haha. I see your point. Maybe I just need to dedicate myself more to science, but I am more of a car and techy type of guy. Sorry, I tend to speak before I think in most cases. (My own little world, haha.)

 

~ Jinfusakei

Edited by Jinfusakei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no debate.  The continued ignorance of religious extremists to push for creationism to the point of ignoring cold hard scientific fact is pure stupidity.  Evolution and God work very very easily with one another. There is no claim in Evolution that states, "God did not create the universe, in effect he did not create evolution."

 

Went to private Catholic school for 8 years and I'm a major in Secondary Education with a dual comprehensive in Biological and Physical Sciences.  I'm becoming a well versed high school science teacher.  I was a government major for 2.5 years, but switched to science.  I'm in my 5th year of college now.  That's my background for anyone that's wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no debate.  The continued ignorance of religious extremists to push for creationism to the point of ignoring cold hard scientific fact is pure stupidity.  

 

 

I am by no means a "religious extremist", but I do believe in creative design.  I guess it all boils down to this for me....all of these organisms and animals allegedly evolved from other organisms and animals, If evolution was true, we should have millions of transitional fossils.  

 

I have yet to see any "transitional fossils".  "In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p.95.

 
The reality is that the "missing links" have always been missing.

 

I am not any kind of teacher, but I don't consider myself ignorant, only a pragmatist, and former leo professional who dealt with evidence.... both arguments are based on faith, not evidence, faith in science on one hand and faith in a creative designer on the other.  I guess time will tell who is correct, and it won't be while we're on this earth.   The answer will come after we depart these earthly bonds, and will have no relevance to us anyway.....so why the debate?...Believe what you believe....

 

Cheers!

Edited by KnightsX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One major suggestion is when posting topics like this, try not to be biased or offensive to one group. As I was reading it, it felt like there was hostility being directed toward the people who might believe in creationism. Though, there are some people in ADK who will speak their mind and don't care about everyone else's feelings. I just don't want this topic to be filled with someone flaming someone else.

 

You just have to honestly view this like viewing the debate between Mac and Windows... People always references Windows as being PC, but both are PCs. Heck even Linux, Raspberry Pi, and other operating systems do not determine what is a PC or not. Yet there are those people who are completely biased to one side or the other.

 

I believe the debate will last a long time and most likely will never end, just like Mac vs Windows and CoD vs Battlefield (very popular in debates).

 

~ Jinfusakei

 

P.S.: Please tell what show or movie your signature is from. I am trying to figure it out or remember, I keep see

Yes i understand that you should consider and respect eachother beliefs. That's why i sort of, well, held back.

But i also don't think you should be cautious about something that has absolutely no merit.

 

If you were talking in a forum and someone commented saying "Ya the bible says the earth doesn't spin or move and i believe that, cuz if it did then if we jumped we would fly really fast backwards and land in Australia" Any person with half a brain would go "Are you fucking stupid?" the same goes with denying a lot of other things.

Yet if someone says " I don't believe in evolution since it's only a Theory and it goes against the bible" everybody's reaction is "Oh, uh.. well ok that's fine you can believe whatever you want..."

 

Really, we should react the same way since both statements are almost equally ignorant. Yet for some reason we don't because the majority of earth's population believes in the second statement.

 

I don't want to be mean against other peoples beliefs, but i also think we should be more denying to people who think like this without any rational reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@[member='KnightsX'] the point of the debate is why we 're who we are, if we don't argue and hope to understand where we came from we're nothing and we're a disgrace to our ancestors.

Now I'm not putting down on your beliefs I'm just stating mine. Ok the missing links, we find missing links all the time, I'm not putting a link to a paper because I'm lazy I have the utmost confidence that you can google something, if you think we're going to find every little tiny change in a species in the very short period of time we have actually understood this field you are sorely mistaken. I don't understand your statement on the missing links being missing...I mean they're called missing for a reason.

Now I understand where you coming from when you say we both have faith in our stances, I don't like your statement on science not having evidence. We have empirical evidence, carbon dating, and what fossils we have discovered.

While I'm sorry but you have a book, that you blindly believe because your parents, peers, and mentors told you to.

I'm sorry this is nothing against you, I just have a deep seeded hatred of religion, mainly based off of what the few "bad apples" in your group have done in the past centuries. Yes I know we have those people that have made our stance just as unlikable....I shouldn't have said anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am by no means a "religious extremist", but I do believe in creative design.  I guess it all boils down to this for me....all of these organisms and animals allegedly evolved from other organisms and animals, If evolution was true, we should have millions of transitional fossils.  

 

I have yet to see any "transitional fossils".  "In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p.95.

 
The reality is that the "missing links" have always been missing.

 

I am not any kind of teacher, but I don't consider myself ignorant, only a pragmatist, and former leo professional who dealt with evidence.... both arguments are based on faith, not evidence, faith in science on one hand and faith in a creative designer on the other.  I guess time will tell who is correct, and it won't be while we're on this earth.   The answer will come after we depart these earthly bonds, and will have no relevance to us anyway.....so why the debate?...Believe what you believe....

 

Cheers!

I've been trying to tell myself not to push so much on other peoples beliefs, but i wanted to clear something.

 

There are plenty of Transitional fossils out there, really all one has to do is research it a bit. This is the one thing that many Creationists and Evolution deniers have come back to "Missing link" and "No transitional fossils" when in reality there are plenty. Often times this has to do with Creationists who look up pictures on transitional fossils between man and Ape etc and simply go "No, that's not a transitional fossils it's simply an ape. Not that one either... or that one... or that one..."

You say that there should be millions of transitional fossils, but, we would only need one to prove that animals can evolve and that they change over time.

 

Even Wikipedia has records of transitional fossils, six prominent examples. I can assure you that there are plenty more transitional fossils that just aren't recognized as one because of correlations between Creationists and Paleontologists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i understand that you should consider and respect eachother beliefs. That's why i sort of, well, held back.

But i also don't think you should be cautious about something that has absolutely no merit.

 

If you were talking in a forum and someone commented saying "Ya the bible says the earth doesn't spin or move and i believe that, cuz if it did then if we jumped we would fly really fast backwards and land in Australia" Any person with half a brain would go "Are you fucking stupid?" the same goes with denying a lot of other things.

Yet if someone says " I don't believe in evolution since it's only a Theory and it goes against the bible" everybody's reaction is "Oh, uh.. well ok that's fine you can believe whatever you want..."

 

Really, we should react the same way since both statements are almost equally ignorant. Yet for some reason we don't because the majority of earth's population believes in the second statement.

 

I don't want to be mean against other peoples beliefs, but i also think we should be more denying to people who think like this without any rational reason.

I get what you mean, sorry... I was working on replacing some old dusty computers and I was kind of out of it when I posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay..........lol.........

 

Good luck with that!......

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

 

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive

 

But who cares.  Who cares that we can watch evolution in bacteria take places in seconds.  Who cares that we can literally watch parts of our DNA change from organism to organism.  Because simply put, we can't dumb down the genetic code of DNA for the common man enough so that they can understand that evolution is not proof of history, it is proof of existence.  For your FYI, there is a reason why we can't map out our fossils to connect to oceanic organisms that did not hit land.  It's called metamorphic rock.  Look it up.  That's the only gap.

 

The theory of Evolution does not threaten the existence of God, for all intensive purposes it reinforces the idea of God.  Determinism and Creationism would have us believe in a regimented life.  One with so much structure, nothing can be changed.  One where God's unwavering destiny for the universe and Laplaces Demon live lovingly together.  Is it such a terrible idea to believe that God created the universe with everything in mind?  That the existence of such a place would be a pretense for life?  That the creation of the atom has the things required in it to make life possible and that's all that was needed?

 

Buy you can't hear it all can you?  Your already looking up Google in search of, "Why gene sequencing can't prove evolution?"  You'll find all the evidence you need to not believe in anything today.  How correct a point is does not effect how loud it is presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I guess its time to let people know some things about who I am. I am a former pastor. Prior to being a pastor I was a Mechanical Engineer. I pastored for several years then decided I missed the engineering. So now I work for a National Laboratory as a Mechanical Designer on one of the accelerator rings. Best and funnest job I have ever had. I just share that as it may show insight as to the position I hold.

 

I am a Christ follower and I believe all things were created by God. However with that said I accept Evolution and that the Universe is 13-15 billion years old. (Note: I ran across an article where they think the Universe is maybe older but I forgot what they were basing that on and what the time frame was.) I accept therefore that Evolution was a process God created to evolve all life on earth, and probably throughout the universe.  For a better presentation on this position if you are not familiar with it I refer you to the BioLogos website: http://biologos.org/. There are some very top notch scientists who are part of the BioLogos movement: namely Francis Collins the director for the project to map the human genome.

 

Okay with all that said. I have not listened to the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate. Mainly because I knew Ken Ham was a fundamentalist creationist of the type that is not scientific. I don't want to listen to a debate that is one side scientific and the other fundamentalist juxtapositioning. (ooh I used a big word.)

 

The problem with Creationism is it is not based on a scientific emperical analysis of data. It is based on the fundamentalist belief that the Bible is inerrant; that is without error, it cannot have any falsehoods in it. So as a result the view commonly taken by fundamentalists is that the Genesis creation story has to be a statement of fact. However the Genesis creation story is not a scientific factual accounting. It is a poem in fact. In the English translation we do not see it as poetry because of the translation, however in the original Hebrew it is very must a poetic piece of literature. It was not written to be a scientific detailed step by step account of how God created the universe. However both Evolutionists and Creationists in debates treat it as such.

 

It is simply an ancient peoples literature that developed from telling stories around the camp fire at night. It was not meant to teach a scientific detailing of creation but simply that God is the creator and to be a display of the beauty of creation.

 

So I don't get into an Evolution vs. Creation debate anymore. I get into a debate about the misrepresentation of the Bible by people.

 

Side note: There is actually two creation stories in the first couple of chapters in Genesis. If one tries to use them to show the order of creation they have a problem as the two differ.

 

With that said I encourage you to open your mind to the possibilities of a God and that the divine has not hidden the mysteries of creation, but they are out there for us to discover through scientific study.

I wish everyone (especially those so closely involved in a religion) could be so open-minded as this. For those like me, it is a breath of fresh air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What debate? Multiple popes are on the record saying they believed in evolution and that it doesn't clash with the bible.

http://biblelight.net/darwin.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-447930/Pope-Benedict-believes-evolution.html

 

Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19956961/ns/world_news-europe/t/pope-creation-vs-evolution-clash-absurdity/#.U8CGuWNtwSU

/thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah, exactly. That's kinda the point. Who says Evolution can't go along with the bible? The bible can count as a holy book but sort of be "Poetic" not factual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The bible can count as a holy book but sort of be "Poetic" not factual.

Well that's a whole nother debate. The bible is the worlds oldest history book and events in it get proven correct time and time again. Ultimately its a mix of history, mythology and prophecy. Let's take for example the great flood, evidence found by Robert Ballard (who found the titanic) points towards it being true. Now was it a flood that encased the whole world? No, but when you're noah you don't know there's a north america and a flood comes in and wipes out 150,000 square kilometers of land it seems the whole damn world got flooded.

 

 

"We went in there to look for the flood," he said. "Not just a slow moving, advancing rise of sea level, but a really big flood that then stayed... The land that went under stayed under."

Four hundred feet below the surface, they unearthed an ancient shoreline, proof to Ballard that a catastrophic event did happen in the Black Sea. By carbon dating shells found along the shoreline, Ballard said he believes they have established a timeline for that catastrophic event, which he estimates happened around 5,000 BC. Some experts believe this was around the time when Noah's flood could have occurred.

"It probably was a bad day," Ballard said. "At some magic moment, it broke through and flooded this place violently, and a lot of real estate, 150,000 square kilometers of land, went under."

The theory goes on to suggest that the story of this traumatic event, seared into the collective memory of the survivors, was passed down from generation to generation and eventually inspired the biblical account of Noah.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533

Then we have this:

 

 

"Hebrew speakers were controlling Jerusalem in the 10th century, which biblical chronology points to as the time of David and Solomon," ancient Near Eastern history and biblical studies expert Douglas Petrovich told FoxNews.com.

"Whoever they were, they were writing in Hebrew like they owned the place," he said.

 

First discovered near the Temple Mount in Jerusalem last year, the 10th century B.C. fragment has been labeled the Ophel Inscription. It likely bears the name of the jug's owners and its contents.

http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/3000-year-old-text-sheds-light-on-biblical-history-130731.htm

Nebuchadnezzar was regarded as a mythological being for a long time and then it was discovered he to was a real person:

 

A clay tablet recently deciphered in the British Museum contains a receipt issued by a high official of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.1 The receipt is for gold donated to a temple in Babylon. The full translation reads:

 

 ‘(Regarding) 1.5 minas (0.75 kg) of gold, the property of Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, the chief eunuch, which he sent via Arad-Banitu the eunuch to [the temple] Esangila: Arad-Banitu has delivered [it] to Esangila. In the presence of Bel-usat, son of Alpaya, the royal bodyguard, [and of] Nadin, son of Marduk-zer-ibni. Month XI, day 18, year 10 [of] Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.’

http://creation.com/new-archaeological-find-affirms-old-testament-historicity

Now did Jonah really get swallowed by a whale? Probably not. Did moses part the red sea? I doubt it but there are people claiming to have found chariot wheels on the submerged land bridge in it: http://www.wnd.com/2003/06/19382/ So could there have been some kind of earthquake that temporarily raised it? Maybe but odds are we would have found evidence of such a catastrophic event, and the earthquake itself would be mention.

 

Now there are also a lot of archeologists naysaying and the chariot wheels haven't been proven, but the scientific community has proven itself time and time again to be extremely close and narrow minded when it comes to changing the mainstream interpretation even when being proven false. Another thing to remember is old testament stories would have been passed down generation after generation before being transcribed, and any good story teller is going to embellish a story.

 

Anyway sorry for the thread jack, back to the main subject evolution and creationism, well, we know earth is more then 6,000 years old, we know humans have been around for more then 6,000 years so that gets rid of the entire subject of new world creationism. It's an ideology and not a science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know of this Black sea theory, but, the Bible does claim that there was a World flood. A flood that covered the earth for 40 days and 40 nights. Finding evidence for a large flood that covered one area doesn't give the Bible any credibility. Prophecies... that's one of the hardest things to "disprove" as people make correlations between things and just draw assumptions. Of what i know the bible has never proven any prophecy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know of this Black sea theory, but, the Bible does claim that there was a World flood. A flood that covered the earth for 40 days and 40 nights. Finding evidence for a large flood that covered one area doesn't give the Bible any credibility. Prophecies... that's one of the hardest things to "disprove" as people make correlations between things and just draw assumptions. Of what i know the bible has never proven any prophecy.

And like i said for Noah a 150,000 km squared area being flooded would be the known world. I mean that's 57,915 miles squared. The US is 3,000 miles long. Its roughly equivelant to 1/6th of the US being flooded, and I gave more then one example. Nebuchadneezer was considered to be fake...until they found that pottery shard that proves otherwise, and like I said is every story in the bible true? I doubt it. The base of what happened might be but its been embellished through centuries of orally being passed down, then vatican cherry picked what it wanted to be told, then a bunch of guys had to translate it into latin from aramaic. As for prophecies being proven or disproven yeah...since they don't give an exact time something is going to happen it makes them difficult to disprove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

This website uses cookies to provide the best experience possible. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use