Creation VS Evolution

To be fair, it's not like the evolutionists are willing to change their mindset, either.
Both sides have a failsafe against any possible argument or evidence, be it "it was created that way" or "there must be a scientific explanation, even if we haven't found it yet".

The purpose of these debates, in their many incarnations, is not to sway the other side. That's impossible. It's to sway the undecided members of the audience, or strengthen them in the beliefs they already hold but don't know how to defend.

Yet when I say something similar, I get pom'd for it
Your way with words must be better.

Evolution has been proven, creationism has not.

Viruses and bacteria evolve at a rate fast enough for the changes to be visible in recent history.


How do you think antibiotic resistant strains happen?

Yet when I say something similar, I get pom'd for it
Your way with words must be better.

The difference is that the way your post was written it came off as though this debate in itself was pointless and they should just agree to disagree and stop the debate.
Sapta pointed out that the purpose isn't for the two debaters to persuade eachother but to persuade the undecided or people who aren't completely certain what they think is the truth.
And to me, such debates most definitely have value and are worth having.

To be fair, it's not like the evolutionists are willing to change their mindset, either.

I'm going to have to disagree here.
If you find evidence against evolution, evolutionists will not keep blindly defending it. Like with science in general paradigms can change.
And even though it might be hard to change the opinion of scientists all over the world because you found proof that the current paradigm is wrong, it is most definitely possible, you can see this video to see an example of just that:

[video=youtube;EZRTzOMHQ4s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZRTzOMHQ4s[/video]

That is where science and religion really stand apart, that science is willing to give up on things that have been proven to no longer hold true.
It just so happens that even 150 years later the theory of evolution is still by far the best scientific explanation available. However to bring up a fun example, if you were to find rabbits in the pre-cambrian era you would shoot an absolutely enormous hole in the theory of evolution since certainly no mammals should exist in the pre-cambrian era.

Of course, if evolution was some grand prank by a superior entity, we would probably never know.

That is where science and religion really stand apart, that science is willing to give up on things that have been proven to no longer hold true.
It just so happens that even 150 years later the theory of evolution is still by far the best scientific explanation available. However to bring up a fun example, if you were to find rabbits in the pre-cambrian era you would shoot an absolutely enormous hole in the theory of evolution since certainly no mammals should exist in the pre-cambrian era.

If you were to find rabbits in the pre-cambrian era, the first thing that would be called into question would not be evolution, but the methods you used to establish that the findings are, in fact, pre-cambrian.

And even if it were proven without a shadow of a doubt, what would happen would be an adjustment to the theory. The principles of evolution would not have been refuted: mutation and selection are observable phenomena, not a theory, so they can't really be refuted. What would change is the timeline: someone would come up with a new tree, a new sequence, a theory that explains how life did start with unicellular organisms and evolve to what we have today, but in a way that allows for rabbits in the pre-cambrian, perhaps with a few more "missing links" than the current timeline has.
Yes, science has abandoned discredited theories before, and will do so again. But the paradigm of evolution is flexible enough that I don't see how it could ever be completely discredited.

Don't get me wrong, I am an atheist and a firm believer in the scientific method. But I am also aware that the basic premise, which I phrased earlier as "there must be a scientific explanation, even if we haven't found it yet," has to be taken on faith.

The difference is that the way your post was written it came off as though this debate in itself was pointless and they should just agree to disagree and stop the debate.
Sapta pointed out that the purpose isn't for the two debaters to persuade eachother but to persuade the undecided or people who aren't completely certain what they think is the truth.
And to me, such debates most definitely have value and are worth having.

If I thought the debate was pointless, why would I say that it's interesting?

It's interesting to hear both sides.

However on topics such as this, I think it's best to just agree to disagree.

I highly doubt that Billy Nye will be persuaded to believe creationism or vice-versa.

I'm pretty sure that's what got you pom'd because debates like these should be had more often so that we don't get circumstances where buddhists don't get told "Move out of the bible belt to other asians or convert your religion" from an unapologetic super intendent.

You don't see scientists knocking over churches but you see religious teachers ruining education

I'm pretty sure that's what got you pom'd because debates like these should be had more often so that we don't get circumstances where buddhists don't get told "Move out of the bible belt to other asians or convert your religion" from an unapologetic super intendent.

You don't see scientists knocking over churches but you see religious teachers ruining education

Perhaps, but at the end of the day, in general ' I think it's best to just agree to disagree'. No need to get your (well, not you) panties in a bunch and dig deeper into my post than meant to be.

From a debating standpoint, I think it's good to discuss such things because it encourages critical thinking.
I can't really comment on your last comment as I went to a private school through 7-12, although I did hate a majority of those teachers

The fact that dna exists and can mutate from generation to generation proves evolution exists. If evolution wasn't a thing selective breeding of various animal species for desired traits wouldn't be s thing.

Ken Ham-ism acknowledges micro evolution and heredity. Just not macro-morphological changes such as adaptations that produced man as a species.

the only reason people don't want to outright declare evolution as scientific fact is because it completely rapes one of the basic tenets of most religions

god created man in his own image

the only reason people don't want to outright declare evolution as scientific fact is because it completely rapes one of the basic tenets of most religions

god created man in his own image

The interpretation behind that statement is not really a huge contention with Christians because God himself is seen as a metaphysical sort of deity allowing the verse to be an open interpretation rather than one they are forced to accept literally. When it comes to Christianity, I always found Genesis 2:7 to be a harder struggle than Genesis 1:27 for Christians trying to compromise between a scientific and a religious approach to the beginning of mankind.

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

I miss Hitchens so much. People like Nye are cool and all, but they are focused too much on educating the other side and not enough on subtly but completely belittling them to the extent that, if they have even half a brain, they will want to commit suicide after the debate. Neither side is going to budge anyway, why not make the best of it and run a mental marathon around them while they struggle to form a coherent sentence? I've seen almost all of Hitchens' debates and in every one, you can just see the other person slowly deflate until, by the end, they just look like a harried shell of a person, and I enjoy that immensely.

the only reason people don't want to outright declare evolution as scientific fact is because it completely rapes one of the basic tenets of most religions

god created man in his own image

How so?
Much like Scientific Law merely states a refined, distilled collection of observations and doesn't go into the how or the why (to do so would be a Theory), this too can't be disproven.
Evolution could still be a means to an end in "creating man in his own image".

How so? Much like Scientific Law merely states a refined, distilled collection of observations and doesn't go into the how or the why (to do so would be a Theory), this too can't be disproven. Evolution could still be a means to an end in "creating man in his own image".

A literal interpretation of Genesis which is part of the greater belief of Ken-Hamism is incompatible with our current scientific theories on how the Earth was formed. Note that incompatible doesn't designate that all aspects of science conflict with the Ken-Ham spin of making science fit into religion, but that the current theories formed of the creation of the earth along with evolution both conflict with his belief that dogs make dogs, horses make horses, and humans make humans. Again highlighting that he doesn't sign off on macro-evolutionary changes, but doesn't deny concepts like mutations and hereditary when it comes to life as we know it.

A literal interpretation of Genesis which is part of the greater belief of Ken-Hamism is incompatible with our current scientific theories on how the Earth was formed.

Then what we need to do right now is rename the thread to "Young Earth Creationism VS Evolution".

Then what we need to do right now is rename the thread to "Young Earth Creationism VS Evolution".

Ken Ham v. Bill Nye.

god created man in his own image

God is pretty messed up in that case.

Creationists and evolutionists [...] all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same. The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions; these are things that are assumed to be true without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events

#wow #whoa

God is pretty messed up in that case.

Christians use the Fall of Man i.e. disobedience in the Garden of Eden as a root theory explaining that our disobedience resulted in failures on many other levels including moral, mental, physical, and genetic failures resulting in the problems and diseases we face today.

#wow #whoa

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a “time machine.” They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

 Spoiler

Published on August 9, 2013 in Current Issues in the World.

Recently, I saw a headline that caught my eye. The secular journal Nature published an article titled “Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time.” Now, secularists (and even some Christians) propose the idea that there was “Y-chromosome Adam” and “mitochondrial Eve”—basically the supposed ancestors of human beings.

According to the article in Nature, secular scientists have redated when they believe these two ancestors existed. But you know, these evolutionary scientists have the entirely wrong starting point on this issue, which the opening line of the article makes clear:

The Book of Genesis puts Adam and Eve together in the Garden of Eden, but geneticists’ version of the duo—the ancestors to whom the Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA of today’s humans can be traced—were thought to have lived tens of thousands of years apart.

Did you catch that—the “geneticists’ version of the duo”? From the outset, Nature’s report shows that these scientists have lifted man’s fallible ideas above God’s Word. Similarly the article later concludes that the Bible’s reference to “one man . . . is a bit of a misnomer because this Adam was by no means the only man alive at his time.”

Scripture tells us that Adam and Even were historical figures. In fact, together they were the progenitors of the entire human race. Genesis 2 recounts the special creation of Adam from the dust of the earth:

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7)

Eve was later formed from Adam’s side (Genesis 2:21–22). God completed both of these creative works on Day Six of Creation Week (Genesis 1:27, 31). So Adam and Eve were the first couple, according to the Word of the One who was there. The entire human race is related to them in some way (Genesis 3:20), just as we’re all related to Noah in some way, as he and his family repopulated the earth following the global Flood:

Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated. (Genesis 9:18–19).

Sadly, it isn’t just secularists who reject this biblical history—many professing Christians do, too! When I began my teaching ministry over 35 years ago, I said then that if compromise on Genesis continued to spread in the church, then the church would eventually give up an historical Adam. Well, today we’re seeing more and more Bible scholars and church leaders denying a literal Adam and Eve as they attempt to mix evolutionary ideas with Scripture. In fact, the topic of their historicity is such a major one in the church today that it made the cover of a 2011 Christianity Today magazine:

So, why is it so important that the account of Adam and Eve be true? Because their existence is foundational to the gospel! Now, I want to make very clear that belief in a historical Adam and Eve is not a salvation issue per se, but it is a biblical authority issue and a gospel issue. When we deny the existence of Adam and Eve, then how do we explain the origin of sin and death in the world? And if we cannot explain how sin and death came into the world, or if we believe that it was always here, then what was the purpose of Christ’s death and Resurrection? Why was the atonement even necessary?

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. . . . For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:12, 17)

The problem with mixing evolution with Scripture is that it undermines the very foundation of the gospel. Can a person still be a Christian even while denying the existence of a literal Adam and Eve? Thank God, salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ:

That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)

Rejecting a literal Adam and a literal Fall makes Genesis chapters 1–3 untrustworthy. In other words, it’s an authority issue—it undermines the authority of the Word of God. And from there, it’s a slippery slope to making even the gospel message untrustworthy. Personally, I just don’t see how someone truly and fully understands what it means to be saved if they don’t believe in a historic Adam and a historic Fall!

Of course, I do not want to have a person think that I question the legitimacy of their faith if they reject a literal Fall. But I do need to point out the inherent contradiction in such a compromise as it relates to the gospel message. Again, salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ (cf. Ephesians 2:8–9). But, to deny a literal Adam and a literal Fall is to deny the origin of sin, isn’t it? So for such a person who denies the literal historicity of Adam and the Fall, what does Romans 10:9 mean to them anyway? Only God knows our hearts and the nature of our faith.

We can trust God’s Word when He tells us that Adam and Eve were the first humans.

For more information on mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam, as well as many other genetics questions, I encourage you to visit our genetics topics webpage.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Double post, sorry. Please delete it possible.