There is going to be a Creation vs Evolution Debate at my College.

[Azwed]

I am debating whether I should go or not. It is supposed to be about 3 hours long on a sunday which really cuts into my main "get studying done that I have put off" time.

I just have this odd feeling that it may turn into a bashing session by the end.

Here is the webpage for one of the sponsor groups.

http://fbox.vt.edu/org/cbf/index.htm

If you poke around there some you can find more info about the debate and see all the quotes they have put up to support creationism.

Oh my those quotes are just so precious.

 

[SINthysist]

What's evolution?

 

[Calamity Jane]

It's a good bet that by the end, both sides will be taking potshots and the spirit of the debate will be lost. You've got two groups of people who refuse to acknowledge a middle ground.

I'd still attend though.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

I have heard this creationist speak, the evolutionist in this case will win hands down.

Dr. Randy, the creationist, can't or won't stay on track he loves to rabit trail all over the place nothing to do with science or creation.

it the evolutiotist sticks to a game plan he'll win the debate

 

[alltherage]

Perhaps the evolutionist will win because he is correct.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Perhaps the evolutionist will win because he is correct.

*snickers*

 

[sexy-girl]

i dont want to get into a big debate here ... but im just curious do creationists believe in any kind of evolution ... i mean do they believe that god placed animals on the earth and they will stay like that forever or do they believe that god created those animals and gave them the power to evolve too

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

i dont want to get into a big debate here ... but im just curious do creationists believe in any kind of evolution ... i mean do they believe that god placed animals on the earth and they will stay like that forever or do they believe that god created those animals and gave them the power to evolve too

creationist believe in the only kind of evolution that is provable and is in the bible 'micro evolution'

micro evolution is to say a dog will make a dog, a bird will make a bird, a human will make a human, a fish will make a fish. Variants within a kind{species}.

 

[sexy-girl]

thanks todd ... well in that case i dont think it would be SOO impossible to present a believeable arguement for creation theory even though i dont believe it

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

thanks todd ... well in that case i dont think it would be SOO impossible to present a believeable arguement for creation theory even though i dont believe it

its not really

pure breed evolutionist won't listen to a creationist when he expounds the values of microevolution, which by the way agrees with the evolutonist, cause he would rather fight over dates, times and macros

as someone said once science should be observable, testable, repeatable micro evolution is just that.

Macro evolution isn't those three, noone ever seen a fish become a dog, a human become a cat, a bird become a tree, etc.

 

[RawHumor]

creationist believe in the only kind of evolution that is provable and is in the bible 'micro evolution'

micro evolution is to say a dog will make a dog, a bird will make a bird, a human will make a human, a fish will make a fish. Variants within a kind{species}.

I'm not sure if I'm a creationist or not... or maybe an 'assisted evolutionist', but I have to say, I've never seen a bird hatch a puppy.

Just for debate, let me ask these questions against pure evolutionism:
1. Somewhere during the Big Bang, life was created from non-life. Have we ever been able to do that again? Or to prove the possibility of it happening "randomly"?

2. Given that the vast majority of mutations result in a negative feature (i.e. an extra limb being difficult to control), that many mutations are recessive traits, and that many mutuations result in sterility, what kind of percentages are there for ONE "good" mutation to happen that will be passed on to future generations?

3. Have we ever witnessed one species mutating into a completely different species?

4. How many times will I be flamed for asking these questions? LOL

 

[Calamity Jane]

Macro evolution isn't those three, noone ever seen a fish become a dog, a human become a cat, a bird become a tree, etc.

Toddles, it's statements like this that make you lose credibility. When was the last time you've heard someone who believes evolutionist theory say that trees evolved from birds? Or that cats evolved from us?

Can you come up with a rational argument to explain why it's impossible for random and/or environmentally induced genetic mutations to result in a member (or group) of a species being radically different from preceding members of the same species? Afterall, god created us with DNA that is pretty susceptible to mutation. Right?

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

4. How many times will I be flamed for asking these questions? LOL

probably as many times as I have and will continue to be {after all I am the boards token white, fundamentalist literalist creationist christian}

as for why we have never seen it happen or why there is no chain well there willbe a guy around her to soon show up and say well evolution isn't a staright line and differnet things popped up out of the blue at different times and sometie the same time

my question is what are the odds that the first human male evolved and the first human female evovled close enough together and the knowledge that they had to get it on to further the race?

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Toddles, it's statements like this that make you lose credibility. When was the last time you've heard someone who believes evolutionist theory say that trees evolved from birds? Or that cats evolved from us?

Can you come up with a rational argument to explain why it's impossible for random and/or environmentally induced genetic mutations to result in a member (or group) of a species being radically different from preceding members of the same species? Afterall, god created us with DNA that is pretty susceptible to mutation. Right?

micro evolution

breed a pit bull and a husky you get a dog that is radically different that the pitbull or husky but its still a dog

micro evolution

breed a cacausion and a oreintal you get a human that is radically different than the cacausion and the oreintal but its still a human.

macro evolution

everything/nothing was all compressed into a spot in space as small as a periond '.' and from that you get today

 

[RawHumor]

The evolution theory looks like a big bush, with everything starting out with the single-celled amoeba and branching off one way or another. So a cat wouldn't evolve into a human, but somewhere down the line we'd both have the same "great grandparents".

Looking purely at statistics with respect to mutations and other factors, it just doesn't seem probable to me that evolution could have "just happened".

I wonder if the creationist will mention the problems that have been brought up with the accuracy of the carbon-dating method.

 

[Calamity Jane]

my question is what are the odds that the first human male evolved and the first human female evovled close enough together and the knowledge that they had to get it on to further the race?

since when did 'getting it on' require knowledge? We're animals darlin, don't intellectualize reproduction.

 

[MidnightAngel]

Don't want to get into this debate, but....

I once heard someone who was definitely a "creationist" {Ok, he was a Catholic Priest} say something that I thought made a lot of sense (especially for a priest): His idea/theory/view was that God had created life. Period. Not that God had created humans as such. But that however it is that humans came into being, (either just "poof" and there they were, or thru evolution) that God caused it to happen.

Not saying that it's something I support, just saying that I thought it was a very interesting viewpoint.

 

[Calamity Jane]

micro evolution

breed a pit bull and a husky you get a dog that is radically different that the pitbull or husky but its still a dog

micro evolution

breed a cacausion and a oreintal you get a human that is radically different than the cacausion and the oreintal but its still a human.

macro evolution

everything/nothing was all compressed into a spot in space as small as a periond '.' and from that you get today

breed a horse to a donkey and you get something radically different than both, and belonging to neither species. same if you breed a dog to a wolf... or a house cat with a bobcat... a coyote and a dog. with the exception of the mule, all of these animals are fertile, all of them capable of breeding with either species, and none of them fit in with the species belonging to either parent.

 

[Sorsha]

oh yeah

i would just like to sit in the back of this debate and laugh my ass off.

 

[Thumper]

That's because

Macro evolution isn't those three, noone ever seen a fish become a dog, a human become a cat, a bird become a tree, etc.

That has never happened and never will and has never been proposed by any credible evolutionist or archaeologist.

3. Have we ever witnessed one species mutating into a completely different species?

No human will ever be on this planet long enough to witness a change that takes place so gradually or even recognize that a change is taking place. Has anyone ever noticed when a continent moved an inch east or west? Come back in a 12 million years and see where it has gone. It will have moved a million feet by then.

Evolution is based on mutation. Mutation that occurs over many millions of years. Most mutations are detrimental and they die off. Any that render the individual with the mutation an advantage usually are passed to the offspring and hence are eventually incorporated into the species.

Apes do not become humans..apes and humans are different branches of the same tree.

As for being unable to witness mutation advancing a species just take a look at microbiology and virology. Our overzealous use of antibiotics are causing bacteria to mutate into resistant strains.

How?

Antibiotic kills all bacteria except a few that are "different"(resistant). Those that survive carry the genetic code of this resistance and they pas this code on to their progeny. A new strain of bacteria is born.

All creationists have is a book....just a book. A book written by man. No more credible than Greek mythology.

 

[Weevil]

I'm not sure if I'm a creationist or not... or maybe an 'assisted evolutionist', but I have to say, I've never seen a bird hatch a puppy.

Just for debate, let me ask these questions against pure evolutionism:
1. Somewhere during the Big Bang, life was created from non-life. Have we ever been able to do that again? Or to prove the possibility of it happening "randomly"?

2. Given that the vast majority of mutations result in a negative feature (i.e. an extra limb being difficult to control), that many mutations are recessive traits, and that many mutuations result in sterility, what kind of percentages are there for ONE "good" mutation to happen that will be passed on to future generations?

3. Have we ever witnessed one species mutating into a completely different species?

4. How many times will I be flamed for asking these questions? LOL

Here are some answers

1. I'm not sure what your point is. We haven't done so, but no one is actively seeking to recreate the big bang.

2. The popular evolutionist theory states that "good" mutations are besides the point. Mutations happen. If that mutation is beneficial(Sharp teeth or what not) and can be passed on then it will be. It only needs to happen once

3. The concept is that it takes millions and millions of years. So no, we don't see it happening like we might see the Transformers turn into robot dogs or what have you but we see it gradually.

4. Not many. You're not being that controversial.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

breed a horse to a donkey and you get something radically different than both, and belonging to neither species. same if you breed a dog to a wolf... or a house cat with a bobcat... a coyote and a dog. with the exception of the mule, all of these animals are fertile, all of them capable of breeding with either species, and none of them fit in with the species belonging to either parent.

donkey = Equidae, horse = Equidae
same family{bible word kind}

dog = canine, wolf = canine
same family{bible word kind}

house cat = feline, bobcat =feline
same family{bible word kind}

care to give it another example or two

 

[Thumper]

Huh?

The Transformers weren't real!!!

Autobots Transform!

 

[RawHumor]

Here are some answers

1. I'm not sure what your point is. We haven't done so, but no one is actively seeking to recreate the big bang.

2. The popular evolutionist theory states that "good" mutations are besides the point. Mutations happen. If that mutation is beneficial(Sharp teeth or what not) and can be passed on then it will be. It only needs to happen once

3. The concept is that it takes millions and millions of years. So no, we don't see it happening like we might see the Transformers turn into robot dogs or what have you but we see it gradually.

4. Not many. You're not being that controversial.

1. I wasn't asking for the big bang to be reproduced - but
producing life from non-life.
2. It's NOT true that the mutation only needs to happen once for it to be passed on to future generations for the following reasons: not all mutations are dominant genes, some mutations result in sterility, some muations may result in that specemin being avoided by the opposite sex or even killed by others of the same species either for jealousy or other reasons.
3. I hear that argument a lot - but millions and millions of years becomes billions and billions until it fits in with however long it should take to that person. Statistically, I still don't think it washes.

 

[Weevil]

1. I wasn't asking for the big bang to be reproduced - but
producing life from non-life.
2. It's NOT true that the mutation only needs to happen once for it to be passed on to future generations for the following reasons: not all mutations are dominant genes, some mutations result in sterility, some muations may result in that specemin being avoided by the opposite sex or even killed by others of the same species either for jealousy or other reasons.
3. I hear that argument a lot - but millions and millions of years becomes billions and billions until it fits in with however long it should take to that person. Statistically, I still don't think it washes.

1. Again, are there people out there trying to produce life from non-life? This is like someone claiming that all of christianity is hogwash because to date none of us have been able to come back from the dead.

2. It, in fact is true. If the mutation occurs and the right factors line up(It's a dominant gene, it doesn't inadvertantly cause you to get killed, etc) then it only needs to happen once. Especially if it gives that creature such an advantage that his genes are more likely to be passed on.

3. This, as a professor of mine once called it, is the "big numbers don't exist" theory. The whole process does take billions of billions of years. I mean, statistically it does wash.