Creation-Evolution debate jumps the ocean to Europe (1 Viewer)

Previous Next
Actually, no, not really. The point I poorly was tying to make was that neither side can be proven. So it seems rather illogical to stand on a pulpit ( I don't mean you, JJ) and proclaim that one or the other is correct. I believe in God and that he created all matter. I also beleive he was sharp enough to allow things to evolve as they have. I believe he created the matter that made it possible for the Big Bang to take place. I also believe he takes a hands off approach to things. I can't prove squat on any of these beliefs, though, and I don't care to. Anywho, how 'bout dem Hornets?
 
Doobsdemons said:
Actually, no, not really. The point I poorly was tying to make was that neither side can be proven.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not, but one side can come a lot closer to being proven than the other. One can never prove or disprove that God didn't create the universe five minutes ago with our memories intact. Evolution, on the other hand, if it cannot be absolutely proven or disproven (since it's kinda hard to reproduce in a lab, after all), can at least be supported from a hell of a lot of evidence and through natural selection that we can observe.

And now, as science is not my strong point, I'll give place to others who are more qualified.
 
Well that's the trick isn't it? Observing a micro ecology and applying it to a macro ecology. In essence, that is what Darwin did. He went to that island, observed thousands of species and how they adapt slowly over time and then applied that to the rest of creation. I'm not saying he was wrong, in fact it sounds logical, I'm just saying just because one's observations seem to fit one's models doesn't mean it is correct.

But I do agree with you, science can be proven more readily that creationism.
 
Doobsdemons said:
Well that's the trick isn't it? Observing a micro ecology and applying it to a macro ecology. In essence, that is what Darwin did. He went to that island, observed thousands of species and how they adapt slowly over time and then applied that to the rest of creation. I'm not saying he was wrong, in fact it sounds logical, I'm just saying just because one's observations seem to fit one's models doesn't mean it is correct.

But I do agree with you, science can be proven more readily that creationism.
Click to expand...

Observe enough micro-sets and you have the macro.

Darwin also visited South America and noted fossilized remains of sloths nine feet long. No nine-footers in evidence anymore, so, he asked, "Where'd they go? All we have now are these little sloths. And, oddly enough, down where we find the big sloths, we don't find any little ones. Why might that be?"
 
Well sloth is one of the seven deadly sins. Maybe God's angered at them and segregates them as a form of punishment. Me, I wanna see the wholly mammoth be genetically engineered and make it's triumphant return. Might feed on the sloths.
 
Prove the Big Bang or a black hole. We have strong evidence of it more so than that of a God but it cannot be proven yet. If we can build a vessel that can reach a black hole or go to the beginning of the universe, maybe. Right now it's all theories. At one time science concluded the earth was the center of the universe and the world was flat. Who's to say what will be proven correct in a thousand years?
 
Doobsdemons said:
Prove the Big Bang or a black hole. We have strong evidence of it more so than that of a God but it cannot be proven yet.
Click to expand...

Are you assuming that the Big Bang theory is incompatible with a creator?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Previous Next

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

    Share this page

     

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom