Creationism vs Evolution live debate tonight

[Chinook]

He jumped a bit from the fish to a rat.

Obviously going through all the stages would take a few billion years... Ain't nobody got time for that!

[Two10Whitey]

Science vs religion is becoming played out tbh. I'm sure most Christians aren't even familiar with the deities that predate Christ. Modern Christians need to explain their messed up history before debating science.

[apalisoc_9]

As I've posted before in this thread, fossils aren't sufficient to prove human evolution. A theory can only be a scientific theory with proper evidence, Bones and Fossils are not..For example, there are bones and fossils aged million years ago that were of both current existing animals and extinct animals..To consider Evolution a scientific theory is to consider Guess a theory..

In recent years, Dinosaurs are starting to get re-studies because apparently scientist then came up with the wrong biological structure for certain specific species..Heck, I don't even think they're certain in accurate measure how a Trynasourars looked...

Human Evolution is imagination.

[apalisoc_9]

I imagine you've never done so yourself, then? It's not even that advanced of stuff. You just and to look at two skeletons and match them up. A coelacanth's skeleton is pretty similar to ours.

Humans have a lot in common with other animals with their bones today..1000 years from now, should people consider us evolving from them?

[Rogue]

humans didn't evolve from monkeys imho, but humans and monkeys evolved from the same species of primates. In which sense, monkeys are like our siblings rather than parents or forebears

[Chinook]

As I've posted before in this thread, fossils aren't sufficient to prove human evolution. A theory can only be a scientific theory with proper evidence, Bones and Fossils are not..For example, there are bones and fossils aged million years ago that were of both current existing animals and extinct animals..To consider Evolution a scientific theory is to consider Guess a theory..

In recent years, Dinosaurs are starting to get re-studies because apparently scientist then came up with the wrong biological structure for certain specific species..Heck, I don't even think they're certain in accurate measure how a Trynasourars looked...

Human Evolution is imagination.

I wasn't talking about proof; I was talking about why it makes sense. That's a much lower burden. Tons of false theories make sense.

[Chinook]

Humans have a lot in common with other animals with their bones today..1000 years from now, should people consider us evolving from them?

What? A coelacanth is still alive, and we still consider it the sibling to our ancestor.

[Chinook]

humans didn't evolve from monkeys imho, but humans and monkeys evolved from the same species of primates. In which sense, monkeys are like our siblings rather than parents or forebears

Yes. Every living thing on Earth has been evolving for the exact same amount of time.

[apalisoc_9]

I wasn't talking about proof; I was talking about why it makes sense. That's a much lower burden. Tons of false theories make sense.

How is not having proof, makes sense?

You can match a thousand similar looking animals and you would still know they're biologically different...

Did Bears evolve from Pandas?

No.

So unless otherwise, Science can come up with a much more convincing Proof...Human Evolution should never be equated to Gravity or any other Scientific theories.

It's absolutely delusional to equate that two.

[Chinook]

How is not having proof, makes sense?

You can match a thousand similar looking animals and you would still know they're biologically different...

Did Bears evolve from Pandas?

No.

So unless otherwise, Science can come up with a much more convincing Proof...Human Evolution should never be equated to Gravity or any other Scientific theories.

It's absolutely delusional to equate that two.

Human evolution isn't the same as gravity. General evolution however is. Anyways, you're looking at it the wrong way, and definitely demonstrating that you don't understand the argument evolutionists make. Humans share an ancestor with great apes. They didn't evolve from them. Evolution is a series of binary splits.

Anyway, human bones look more like chimp bones than they do baboon bones. More like baboon bones than they do lemur bones. Lemur to rats, to reptiles, and so forth. It's not even looks like in the sense you think of it. We pretty much have the same bones that a coelacanth does. But how those bones are shaped and function changes ina very well-ordered gradient as you move from them to us.

[Rogue]

I believe that human scientists will finally find some clues or proofs of evolution by the means of genetics. It's like, a crime suspect may keep lying to and ting with the investigators, until the DNA test results come out.

[Chinook]

I believe that human scientists will finally find some clues or proofs of evolution by the means of genetics. It's like, a crime suspect may keep lying to and ting with the investigators, until the DNA test results come out.

That's already happened. Cladistics is already been rewritten and reinforced by DNA evidence.

[apalisoc_9]

Human evolution isn't the same as gravity. General evolution however is. Anyways, you're looking at it the wrong way, and definitely demonstrating that you don't understand the argument evolutionists make. Humans share an ancestor with great apes. They didn't evolve from them. Evolution is a series of binary splits.

Anyway, human bones look more like chimp bones than they do baboon bones. More like baboon bones than they do lemur bones. Lemur to rats, to reptiles, and so forth. It's not even looks like in the sense you think of it. We pretty much have the same bones that a coelacanth does. But how those bones are shaped and function changes ina very well-ordered gradient as you move from them to us.

Yeah sorry, my post wasn't directed to you in general..It was directed to other posters in this thread.

I don't believe we're arguing about a similar matter. Although you seem to be confident enough with Fossils, functions etc to convince you that human evolution ever happened..

Genetic study is an absolutely necessity with human evolution...None of these great scientist can come up with DNA evidence..

[apalisoc_9]

That's already happened. Cladistics is already been rewritten and reinforced by DNA evidence.

Scientist are aboustely delusional.

Caldistics being a study of Characteristics can not be sufficient..There is abosutely no way to connect to DNA's without having the DNA of the so called "Ancestor".

A scientist can and will make the mistake of considering red pandas as Racoon ancestors if red pandas ever lived a billion years ago..

Not enough Chinook.

[Rogue]

Yeah sorry, my post wasn't directed to you in general..It was directed to other posters in this thread.

I don't believe we're arguing about a similar matter. Although you seem to be confident enough with Fossils, functions etc to convince you that human evolution ever happened..

Genetic study is an absolutely necessity with human evolution...None of these great scientist can come up with DNA evidence..

they don't come up with any evidence imho, all they need to do is discover the evidence that is always existing but hasn't been decoded yet

[Leetonidas]

The problem with debates about creationism is that if you are on the science side, you have to debate at least two types of creationism.

The first type of creationism is one that states that if something exists than something/someone must have created it. This is an extremely reasonable conclusion that people who believe in science have a hard time admitting, but that is mostly because of the second type of creationism that always seems to find its way into this first type. An admission of this first type of creationism unfairly admits defeat to the second kind of creationism.

This second type of creationism is the one that states the world is only thousands of years old. While we have scientific evidence that this is not the case, it simply cannot be proven. Creationists, who argue this point, use that lack of proof as proof for their own argument.

This leads to the question “What is proof?” We can never actually prove anything. As someone who believes in the power of science, this is a difficult but true thing to say. The scientific method leads us to conclusions that we can reasonably assume. For example, eating healthy foods leads to a healthy body and a longer life is a conclusion that many scientist can only reasonably assume. We see how the human body’s cells react when proper nutrition is applied to these cells, but how do we actually know that it is the nutrition that causes this? We only assume this. There are at least some examples where we see people who eat poorly and live long lives. While it would be better to err on the side of healthy eating, these anomalies show that nutrition is a dynamic phenomenon that scientists are continuing to try to understand. That is the complexity of science. This complexity, however, is sometimes perceived as ambiguity.

This ambiguity, unfortunately, does not do well in arguments, especially against a creationist, who supposedly knows the truth.

[Chinook]

Scientist are aboustely delusional.

Caldistics being a study of Characteristics can not be sufficient..There is abosutely no way to connect to DNA's without having the DNA of the so called "Ancestor".

A scientist can and will make the mistake of considering red pandas as Racoon ancestors if red pandas ever lived a billion years ago..

Not enough Chinook.

Cladiastics used to be based on phyiscal characteristics, but now genetic characteristics. And it's actually pretty easy to tell the age of a gene reliably by looking at its radiation.

Anyway, you continue to misunderstand how evolution is supported. And until you actually take a comparative anatomy class, you'll continue to not understand. Things aren't considered ancestors simply because their older. It's because of how similarities and differences are. Even if people get it wrong at times, the method s still strong. Even if a time-warped raccoon fossil were discovered and labeled a red panda ancestor, that wouldn't prevent the fact that the red panda ancestor likely looked like both a racoon and red panda.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Scientist are aboustely delusional.

Caldistics being a study of Characteristics can not be sufficient..There is abosutely no way to connect to DNA's without having the DNA of the so called "Ancestor".

A scientist can and will make the mistake of considering red pandas as Racoon ancestors if red pandas ever lived a billion years ago..

Not enough Chinook.

Lol the incredulity by blanket dismissal. When you don't want to believe it then you just say 'no way.' Do you happen to even be a geneticist to make a claim as to what is possible and what is not?

[Chinook]

The problem with debates about creationism is that if you are on the science side, you have to debate at least two types of creationism.

The first type of creationism is one that states that if something exists than something/someone must have created it. This is an extremely reasonable conclusion that people who believe in science have a hard time admitting, but that is mostly because of the second type of creationism that always seems to find its way into this first type. An admission of this first type of creationism unfairly admits defeat to the second kind of creationism.

This second type of creationism is the one that states the world is only thousands of years old. While we have scientific evidence that this is not the case, it simply cannot be proven. Creationists, who argue this point, use that lack of proof as proof for their own argument.

This leads to the question “What is proof?” We can never actually prove anything. As someone who believes in the power of science, this is a difficult but true thing to say. The scientific method leads us to conclusions that we can reasonably assume. For example, eating healthy foods leads to a healthy body and a longer life is a conclusion that many scientist can only reasonably assume. We see how the human body’s cells react when proper nutrition is applied to these cells, but how do we actually know that it is the nutrition that causes this? We only assume this. There are at least some examples where we see people who eat poorly and live long lives. While it would be better to err on the side of healthy eating, these anomalies show that nutrition is a dynamic phenomenon that scientists are continuing to try to understand. That is the complexity of science. This complexity, however, is sometimes perceived as ambiguity.

This ambiguity, unfortunately, does not do well in arguments, especially against a creationist, who supposedly knows the truth.

Pretty much. Great way of summing up why neither side seems to get the other. They each keep slipping to the conservative aspect (your first definition of creationism and the general concept of evolution) and taking the very reasonable base those aspects give as support for the more-radical aspects.

[Jacob1983]

Why do people care about this ? I mean this is like people ing about abortion or gay marriage. Just agree to disagree and move on. Does anyone really know how old the Earth is? Can you definitively say what happens when you die and whether or not you go anywhere when you die? And what about alien life? Maybe some questions are just meant to stay questions.

[Leetonidas]

That just sounds lazy

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah sorry, my post wasn't directed to you in general..It was directed to other posters in this thread.

I don't believe we're arguing about a similar matter. Although you seem to be confident enough with Fossils, functions etc to convince you that human evolution ever happened..

Genetic study is an absolutely necessity with human evolution...None of these great scientist can come up with DNA evidence..

Pardon DNA for decaying over millions of years.

[ChumpDumper]

Why do people care about this ?

Why are you posting incessantly about it?

[Jacob1983]

To annoy you, dumper. To annoy you.

[Chinook]

Why do people care about this ? I mean this is like people ing about abortion or gay marriage. Just agree to disagree and move on. Does anyone really know how old the Earth is? Can you definitively say what happens when you die and whether or not you go anywhere when you die? And what about alien life? Maybe some questions are just meant to stay questions.

I agree metaphysically. But practically there needs to be some limits to "agree to disagree". It's fine to believe what you want believe on god and heaven, but you can't let people have their own science. Little-e evolution actually does have a large bearing on many social, medical and agricultural issues. It's not harmless for people to dismiss teaching it to kids in school.