If Evolution, why care?

[cryptobranchus]

If we evolved from lower life forms, into what we are now, and there was no God why are there debates about creation and devolution?



If evolution is true there would be no need to debate about creation vs. evolution. If evolution is true, the creationist would simply be wrong, and if the creationist is unwilling to believe what difference would it make? There would be no reason to try to "educate" someone if they are unwilling to learn. The evolutionist would simply let willingly ignorant people stay ignorant, or the evolutionist would waste his or her time trying to convince an un-convincible person. So every evolutionist on this web site would be wasting their time. If the Christian becomes a convert (which I think is impossible, but that's another topic) then all he or she has is another fact crammed into his or her head, and of what help is another fact along with the thousands of others? What would it benefit?



If Christianity is true there is a need for creation vs. evolution. If Christianity is true, the evolutionist is damned to Hell (because he doesn't believe and accept Jesus as savior). The job of the Christian is to educate the ignorant so they will know. Because of sin, there is another option besides Heaven, which is Hell. The Christian (the person going to heaven) is to tell the unbelievers about the Gospel. So the former unbelievers in turn can take part in heaven. If the unbeliever is unwilling to hear, then that would be their own fault. So as long as there are people switching from unbelieving religions to Christianity, the Christians are not wasting their time because there would be one more happy soul in Heaven.



Also, if evolution is true, Christianity would be just a mechanism for emotions. It would be a mechanism that has basically evolved with humans for thousands of years. So Christianity and every other religion would be apart of evolution. The evolutionist would not have this mechanism because they believe in "science." So basically a Christian and anyone else that believes in a religion would be better evolved than an evolutionist.

 

[David Gould]

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.
Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.
Evolution does not equal atheism.

 

[Jet Black]

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.
Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

in case he missed it the first time.

 

[cryptobranchus]

Nice job of being repetitive J

Let me correct myself.

In topic above evolution= non-Theological and atheistic

I almost always use the term evolution to mean atheistic evolution.

 

[David Gould]

Nice job of being repetitive J

Let me correct myself.

In topic above evolution= non-Theological and atheistic

I almost always use the term evolution to mean atheistic evolution.

Then why do you bother using the term 'evolution' at all? There is nothing about evolution in the above post. It is all about atheism.

 

[Mistermystery]

Evolution does not....


damn, beaten

 

[cryptobranchus]

Because atheistic evolution is evolution,



atheism by itself means

a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Some people that don’t believe in God or gods,

can believe that there was an original organism that fathered us all

as long as they don’t believe in God or gods.

 

[David Gould]

Because atheistic evolution is evolution,



atheism by itself means

a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Some people that don’t believe in God or gods,

can believe that there was an original organism that fathered us all

as long as they don’t believe in God or gods.

Sigh. I still do not see that you are saying anything at all about evolution. It seems all about atheism.

 

[felix102]

Evolution vs Creation is a void argument.

Both are supported by nothing but faith alone. Believing in evolution is faith and so is believing in Creation.

Before you even get into saying "Well, evolution is supported by science" let me stop you because you need to take a look at this:

There are 2 branches in evolution:
1)macro evolution
2)micro evolution

Macro evolution is the theory that we evolved from simple life forms into complex lifeforms. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence to support this. There is no link between the apes and humans though there have been countless frauds. Apes and humans are similar, yes; but there is no evidence that apes came from something nor a human evolving from an ape. Macro evolution also explains life as an impossible phenomenon: spontaneous generation. There is scientific evidence on this aspect that proves that life spontaneous existing is simply IMPOSSIBLE.

Micro evolution is the theory that establishs adaptation, genetic mutation, survival of the fitness...and you know the rest. This IS supported by scientific evidence yet this is not the argument in Evolution vs. Creation.

Evolution vs. Creation is refering to the conflict "Did we come to life by chance?" or "Did a God create us?"
Thus, the argument Evolution vs Creation should be restated as:

Macro Evolution vs Creation
Both stances would require that each believe in faith.

 

[Hydra009]

Evolution vs Creation is a void argument.

Both are supported by nothing but faith alone. Believing in evolution is faith and so is believing in Creation.

Evolution is not faith.

Before you even get into saying "Well, evolution is supported by science" let me stop you because you need to take a look at this:

There are 2 branches in evolution:
1)macro evolution
2)micro evolution

Macro evolution is the theory that we evolved from simple life forms into complex lifeforms. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence to support this. There is no link between the apes and humans though there have been countless frauds. Apes and humans are similar, yes; but there is no evidence that apes came from something nor a human evolving from an ape. Macro evolution also explains life as an impossible phenomenon: spontaneous generation. There is scientific evidence on this aspect that proves that life spontaneous existing is simply IMPOSSIBLE.

Micro evolution is the theory that establishs adaptation, genetic mutation, survival of the fitness...and you know the rest. This IS supported by scientific evidence yet this is not the argument in Evolution vs. Creation.

Evolution vs. Creation is refering to the conflict "Did we come to life by chance?" or "Did a God create us?"
Thus, the argument Evolution vs Creation should be restated as:

Macro Evolution vs Creation
Both stances would require that each believe in faith.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

 

[Mistermystery]

Evolution is not faith.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

* makes whipping sounds*

*khutstsssh!*

 

[Arikay]

"If we evolved from lower life forms, into what we are now, and there was no God why are there debates about creation and devolution?"

Evolution says nothing about God. But I think others have said that.
Last I heard a lack of God doesn't prevent debate on scientific issues.


"If evolution is true there would be no need to debate about creation vs. evolution. If evolution is true, the creationist would simply be wrong, and if the creationist is unwilling to believe what difference would it make? There would be no reason to try to "educate" someone if they are unwilling to learn."

Sure there is a reason to debate,
•Creationism hurts christianity (Yes, us atheists care about christianity. False arguments are false arguments whether they are good or bad for our positions and should be fixed.)
•Creationist groups try to push the falsified theory of creationism into our schools.
•Creationist groups try to push false understandings of evolution and science into our schools.
•What is taught in our schools can be up to popular vote, and thus fighting what appears to be a pointless battle can have more of a point than we think.


"If the Christian becomes a convert (which I think is impossible, but that's another topic) then all he or she has is another fact crammed into his or her head, and of what help is another fact along with the thousands of others? What would it benefit?"

Sure christians can accept evolution, they are called theistic evolutionists. Sure it would benefit things, it would fix the problems listed above.


"If Christianity is true, the evolutionist is damned to Hell (because he doesn't believe and accept Jesus as savior)."

Evolution is not atheism, christians can accept evolution.
(it will be repeated till its understood )


"So basically a Christian and anyone else that believes in a religion would be better evolved than an evolutionist."

I am an evolutionist with a religion (Druid Taoist), I guess I am now better than myself.



Felix: Read the forum more before posting stuff like that.
Your definitions are wrong, your assumptions are wrong and your facts are wrong.

If we evolved from lower life forms, into what we are now, and there was no God why are there debates about creation and devolution?



If evolution is true there would be no need to debate about creation vs. evolution. If evolution is true, the creationist would simply be wrong, and if the creationist is unwilling to believe what difference would it make? There would be no reason to try to "educate" someone if they are unwilling to learn. The evolutionist would simply let willingly ignorant people stay ignorant, or the evolutionist would waste his or her time trying to convince an un-convincible person. So every evolutionist on this web site would be wasting their time. If the Christian becomes a convert (which I think is impossible, but that's another topic) then all he or she has is another fact crammed into his or her head, and of what help is another fact along with the thousands of others? What would it benefit?



If Christianity is true there is a need for creation vs. evolution. If Christianity is true, the evolutionist is damned to Hell (because he doesn't believe and accept Jesus as savior). The job of the Christian is to educate the ignorant so they will know. Because of sin, there is another option besides Heaven, which is Hell. The Christian (the person going to heaven) is to tell the unbelievers about the Gospel. So the former unbelievers in turn can take part in heaven. If the unbeliever is unwilling to hear, then that would be their own fault. So as long as there are people switching from unbelieving religions to Christianity, the Christians are not wasting their time because there would be one more happy soul in Heaven.



Also, if evolution is true, Christianity would be just a mechanism for emotions. It would be a mechanism that has basically evolved with humans for thousands of years. So Christianity and every other religion would be apart of evolution. The evolutionist would not have this mechanism because they believe in "science." So basically a Christian and anyone else that believes in a religion would be better evolved than an evolutionist.

 

[Mistermystery]

Sad part is that I need to step in for theistical evolution ever so often because they all shove it under the header of "atheistic herretics". It's true that creationism hurts Christianity

 

[felix102]

excerpt from webpage...
<H2 class=c>Claim CB901:

No case of macroevolution has ever been documented

This above preceded what were to be claims defending macroevolution in the webpage refer to by Irish(I'm not able to post it here). The claims do not account as scientific documents. This is a CLAIM. These are claims refering to more scientific endeavours into the research of macro evolution. The results are the same, there IS NO DOCUMENTED CASE OF MACRO EVOLUTION. These are claims to reinforce what evidence they do have to support macro evolution. It has already been established from within this research that the evidence is simply insufficient. If you want me to individual refer to each claim I will upon request.

Even this is not the major point in the argument Evolution vs Creation. The major point is the proposal of spontaneous generation which by calculations is simply impossible. The chances of spontaneous life is a ridicuously small ratio.

To be honest and maybe a little mean, you do not know what science is. I am currently studying in the college of engineering and if you dont know what engineering actually is (as you dont know what science really is)...it is the application of science. Also considering a doctorate in physics if I choose to teach. This is just to show some credentials that I have some backing to what I am declaring. I will have a debate with anyone who disagrees that faith precedes science. Here is something to think about. The brilliant scientist, Albert Einstein said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." If you can tell me what he was refering to, you will know the true essence of science. BTW that's a great quote from Carl Sagan Irish.

 

[Praxiteles]

Oh goody!

A new crop with some brand new arguments!

Oh, wait. No.

 

[Praxiteles]

Even this is not the major point in the argument Evolution vs Creation. The major point is the proposal of spontaneous generation which by calculations is simply impossible. The chances of spontaneous life is a ridicuously small ratio.

There is no such thing as Evolution vs Creation. That argument was settled 150+ years ago.

Further to that, what you talk about above is not Evolution, but abiogenesis. Separate. Different topic. Evolution says *nothing*, (that is, NOTHING) about where life originated.

This is especially galling since you go on below saying that someone else doesn't know what science is! You aren't being mean below - just making yourself look silly.

To be honest and maybe a little mean, you do not know what science is. I am currently studying in the college of engineering and if you dont know what is engineering actually is (as you dont know what science really is)...it is the application of science. I will have a debate with anyone who disagrees that faith precedes science. BTW that's a great quote from Carl Sagan Irish.

Hah, this is funny. Engineering is science, yeah? What scientific theories do engineers develop? What research do they do? And since this is specifically about evolution, what research do they carry out in biology?

 

[Arikay]

Felix, we have many scientists here, including at least 1 Ph.D in biology, Geologists, Physicist, Astronomers, chemists etc. I would recomend learning from them before you start claiming that because you are taking engineering, you know more about their fields than them.

but thats just what I suggest, you can go the PRATT list route if you want, just don't expect people to take you as seriously.


Edit:
Abiogenesis is not part of evolution and Modern abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. These are basic things to know before starting the debate.

Its like if I came up to you and said that engineering is when a mechanic fixes my cars engine and charges me too much. Would you take me seriously?

 

[Jet Black]

The results are the same, there IS NO DOCUMENTED CASE OF MACRO EVOLUTION.

what'c macroevolution? can you give an hypothetical example that would say, result in birds.

 

[felix102]

There is no such thing as Evolution vs Creation. That argument was settled 150+ years ago.

Further to that, what you talk about above is not Evolution, but abiogenesis. Separate. Different topic. Evolution says *nothing*, (that is, NOTHING) about where life originated.

This is especially galling since you go on below saying that someone else doesn't know what science is! You aren't being mean below - just making yourself look silly.

You obviously didnt understand what I said in an earlier post. I said that the argument of Evolution vs Creation was VOID basically meaning it does not exist. Or was that too high of a vocabulary for you to comprehend?

Also I know that macro evolution does not involve the origins of the universe but the evolutionists' stance implicates that they do not agree with intelligent design but rather spontaneous generation. That is pertainent to the argument which was also a major point.

Hah, this is funny. Engineering is science, yeah? What scientific theories do engineers develop? What research do they do? And since this is specifically about evolution, what research do they carry out in biology?

Engineering has nothing to do with science?! You do not know what science is and you are making yourself look stupid and I will prove that also. Science is applicably pure science and technology. Pure science is what you call "coming up with scientific theories" and technology is the application of science which is engineering. The both exist together.

 

[Arikay]

"Or was that too high of a vocabulary for you to comprehend?"

4 posts here and already condecending.
It makes it even funnier because he keeps claiming evolutionists believe in spontaneous generation.

Your going to go far.

You obviously didnt understand what I said in an earlier post. I said that the argument of Evolution vs Creation was VOID basically meaning it does not exist. Or was that too high of a vocabulary for you to comprehend?

Also I know that macro evolution does not involve the origins of the universe but the evolutionists' stance implicates that they do not agree with intelligent design but rather spontaneous generation. That is pertainent to the argument which was also a major point.

Engineering has nothing to do with science?! You do not know what science is and you are making yourself look stupid and I will prove that also. Science is applicably pure science and technology. Pure science is what you call "coming up with scientific theories" and technology is the application of science which is engineering. The both exist together.