Creation vs Evolution Deathmatch

DeletedUser

Since the PP vs JC thread has devolved into this anyway I figured we might as well do it up right.

Opening Salvo:
The Theory of Evolution is widely regarded as cannon among the scientific community. It is the basis for most modern biological study and medical advancement (especially in regards to genetics and hereditary diseases and such.)

Creationism is based off the literal interpretation of a set of myths that were codified into the Text currently referred to as the Bible. When masquerading as science (as a way to push a certain groups moral/magical code into public education) it is referred to as "Intelligent Design".

If you wish to teach "science" based off religious scripture then you should be able/willing to take into account ALL creation myths and present them as fact. The tribes of the American Southwest have a flood story as do the Chinese and Sub-Continental Indians. Why should their creation myth be shunned in favor of the Semitic one when trying to present fairy tales as fact?

Discuss
 
nashy19

nashy19

Nashy (as himself)
Before anyone says anything [stupid], a myth is a religion that has stopped being worshiped.
 

DeletedUser

myth   [mith] Show IPA
–noun
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
Origin:
1820–30; < LL mȳthos < Gk mŷthos story, word

I stand by my usage
 

DeletedUser

nashy19 said:
Before anyone says anything [stupid], a myth is a religion that has stopped being worshiped.
Click to expand...

That is false in this context nashy, David Crocket is right, and his dictionary isn't all bad either :p
 

DeletedUser

evolution: writen down billions of years after it might have happened

Creationism: writen down hundred of years after happened.


now from a history stand point if you were to interview someone who was around that time would you want to interview someone billions of years after the event happened or hundred of years after.

now I know you are going to try and point out that the story could change in 100 years but if you change those numbers from hundreds to 5 and billions to 20 which would be more accurate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

gizmo501 said:
evolution: wroten down billions of years after it might have happened

Creationism: writen down hundred of years after happened.


now from a history stand point if you were to interview someone who was around that time would you want to interview someone billions of years after the event happened or hundred of years after.

now I know you are going to try and point out that the story could change in 100 years but if you change those numbers from hundreds to 5 and billions to 20 which would be more accurate.
Click to expand...

Capt%20Obvious%20flying%20version%201%20finished.jpg
 

DeletedUser

So because it's been around longer, it must be better? We'd better tell the AMA so they'll stop using anesthesia and sterilization during surgery.
 

DeletedUser

Elmyr said:
So because it's been around longer, it must be better? We'd better tell the AMA so they'll stop using anesthesia and sterilization during surgery.
Click to expand...

I did not say it was better I am saying it is more accurate
 

DeletedUser

gizmo501 said:
evolution: writen down billions of years after it might have happened

Creationism: writen down hundred of years after happened.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that both are true. Except Evolution was only discovered to be true a little later.

Clearly, what you are actually saying is that Creationism must be correct because it was invented nearer to when it was supposed to happen. But that is awful logic:

1. The whole point of science is that we get more accurate as time goes by.
2. Older theories are generally incorrect. Especially when a newer theory replaces them.
3. It is equally impossible to interview someone who lived hundreds of years ago than it is to interview someone who lived millions of years ago.
4. Evolution was theorized by a scientist.
5. Creationism was theorized by a bunch of unverifiable theologians.

To tell the honest truth, I cannot explain how bad your line of logic is. It is too bad for words.
 

DeletedUser

oisinallen said:
To tell the honest truth, I cannot explain how bad your line of logic is. It is too bad for words.
Click to expand...

Oisin is correct. You cannot apply the logic of history and the value of primary source documents (which these wouldn't be anyway) to science.
 

DeletedUser

Societies arose in similar time frames in China the Indus valley in india and the Fertile Crescent (the middle east) around the same time. Why is the Middle Eastern Myth more Accurate than the other two? (according to Gizmo's theory)
 

DeletedUser

David Crocket said:
Societies arose in similar time frames in China the Indus valley in india and the Fertile Crescent (the middle east) around the same time. Why is the Middle Eastern Myth more Accurate than the other two? (according to Gizmo's theory)
Click to expand...

Because logic does not apply to his random opinions about everything.
 

DeletedUser8950

I'm not gonna bother getting too involved in his arguement, I'm not 100% certain, but I do personally believe in creation.
Just a few things things I'd like to point out:
1) Why have we evolved a conscience, as it hinders our ability to survive? Isn't evolution meant to increase your chance of survival?
2) Neither side can as such prove themselves ( Evolution takes so long to happen we can not see it (don't post captain obvious JR:p) thus it is hard to prove, also an invisible God isn't exactly easy to prove either)
3)I'm aware of tests with fruit flies and stuff, just aren't willing to accept that as hard evidence.
 

DeletedUser

Err... a conscience helps the whole species survive, as we are less likely to kill eachother.

The idea is that the whole species becomes better at surviving, not the individual.
 

DeletedUser

oisinallen said:
Err... a conscience helps the whole species survive, as we are less likely to kill eachother.

The idea is that the whole species becomes better at surviving, not the individual.
Click to expand...

Correct.
It is impressive ow this is repeated over and over again without creationists grasping it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top