Creation vs. Evolution

[AV1611VET]

You shouldn't underestimate a determined creationist. Often they'll dig up a bunch of really obscure quotes or scientific papers ...

Those who don't become targets of fake indignation.

 

[Strathos]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[jax5434]

I think psychosarah is running scared.

God Bless
Jax

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think psychosarah is running scared.

God Bless
Jax

No, just packing for my dorm

 

[VProud]

May I just offer something:

Neither evolution nor the Big Bang particularly contradict the existence of God.

The Big Bang has nothing to do with the ultimate creation of the universe (probably the most common misconception I've ever come across), while it does explain the state of the early universe, and does makes some prediction we have exactly and preciously zero information as to what the universe was like before expansion started (the start of the Big Bang.)
Before the Plank Epoch (Planck epoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) things simply cease to make sense, although we do believe that there was a universe before the Big Bang, just not in a way we particularly understand. Unless you believe something like this: (Big Bounce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

As for evolution, there's no reason that couldn't have been 'overseen' by God, if that's your sort of thing.

Anyway, may I pose some questions?

-The Big Bang theory goes something like this: "We see space expanding, therefor it was smaller in the past, therefor it was very small in the very early universe." From that we simply do the relevant mathematics and such to attempt to define things about our early universe. The Big Bang is usually the name given to the start of expansion. If the Big Bang were not to have occurred, that means you are (albeit indirectly) refuting the expansion of space.
What alternatives could you offer to what we observe?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I viewed the debate more as being about whether or not the Big Bang of evolution actually occurred/occur than the existence of deities, which is why early on I stated a condition of the debate had to be that my opposition couldn't just claim a deity was involved in those events.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

i meant i would take con and you pro, i should have phrased that differently. and i am perfectly ok with keeping it to the realm of purely scientific.

so our debate would be
"the theories of creationism vs. evolution"
and we would both stick solely to science for our proof

...same page so far?

Look, I want to debate you, not massacre you, there is no scientific evidence for creationism or intelligent design, that whole deal is done.

Realistically, it would be a fairer fight if we made this more about the Big Bang than about evolution, as evolution is one of if not the most well supported theories in all of science. As in literally you would have a better chance of questioning prevailing theories on gravity than evolution if you were only going by scientific evidence.

I just don't see how you could possibly even form a position against evolution by using creationism when you can't scientifically provide evidence for any creator or even mention deities.

then this debate should be very interesting for you!!!

i understand how you feel, but i promise you, i can support my side of this equation scientifically. creationism vs. evolution. scientific proof only.

if you dont think its feasible, then you can go first, and allow me to rebut your arguments with sound science.

Sarah, Austin;

Since you both seem equally confident in your positions; I would say give it a go.

You guys game?

 

[theobvioushero]

AustinMiles89, Since it looks like psychosarah has decided not to debate, I would be willing to do it instead. Before we begin with establishing the details of what the debate will entail, let me know if you are still interested.

 

[BobRyan]

Pro or con would be too opinionated for an issue already prone to inciting subjective arguments. Also, if it was solely science, you wouldn't be able to use anything not scientifically testable, which includes deities.

And also includes blind faith evolutionism - just hoping that abiogenesis might happen some day is not "testable" is not "observable" and just "hoping" that Archeopteryx is the transitional ancestor of all birds is not observable it is merely "hope" --sorta like Osborn's hopeful "Nebraska man"

 

[BobRyan]

You shouldn't underestimate a determined creationist. Often they'll dig up a bunch of really obscure quotes or scientific papers that seem to support their position, and take a lot of research to actually refute, thus making it so you have to to through a lot more effort than they do.

We say that about evolutionists all day long.

 

[jj3pa]

The scientific papers backing evolution are not obscure, and there is a preponderance of them.
Most evolutionists are also believers in God - Christians, Jews, etc.
The biggest defender of evolution lately is also a devote Catholic.

I personally think it God gave us the intelligence to understand the context a book written 2200 years, ago a book that no one has seen in its original version (The OT and NT of the King James Bible were translated from Latin). However he has given us the intelligence to discover how the world started. It does not mean God didn't have anything to do with it.

And Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution ... you can have evolution with out it.