Bull Ring Another Evolution vs Creationism Debate

Discussion in 'The Bull Ring' started by Coloradomtnman, Jan 12, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Coloradomtnman
    Offline

    Coloradomtnman Rational and proud of it.

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,385
    Thanks Received:
    879
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +1,547
    S.J.

    Do you want to debate The theories of Evolution vs Creationism with me?

    Moderation Note:

    When you START a bull-ring thread -- you need to clearly specify the participants in the OP. AND -- you need to limit the thread either by time or number of posts. I will do that for you this time by editing the OP.

    Other please refrain from posting.. (your certainly invited to set up YOUR OWN matches. :2up:)

    In the future --- Use the BullRing Discussion forum to set up the terms --- and THEN put the gloves on and dive in.

    Edit -- This thread will limited to 150 posts. And the "judges" can appointed at any time prior to reaching that limit -- if you'd like..

    S.J. Coloradomtnman

    Thanks..
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2016
  2. S.J.
    Offline

    S.J. Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    34,343
    Thanks Received:
    6,799
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    Ratings:
    +31,341
    Sure, if you think you can refrain from personal attacks and childish insults. I won't be online too much longer though, but if I leave, I'll come back later. I DO work.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. S.J.
    Offline

    S.J. Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    34,343
    Thanks Received:
    6,799
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    Ratings:
    +31,341
    One other thing...I want to hear you make a case for evolution in your own words. I don't intend to read volumes of somebody else's writings. I want YOU to be able to make the case, not somebody else. It's easy to copy and paste but that's a lazy way of arguing and it doesn't show that you know what you're talking about. If you really believe in it and understand it, you should be able to argue the theory on your own, without help from a book.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. S.J.
    Offline

    S.J. Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    34,343
    Thanks Received:
    6,799
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    Ratings:
    +31,341
    Oh well, looks like he wasn't serious. I'll check back later on just in case.
     
  5. Coloradomtnman
    Offline

    Coloradomtnman Rational and proud of it.

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,385
    Thanks Received:
    879
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +1,547
    Sorry, had an appointment.

    I fully agree to those terms.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Coloradomtnman
    Offline

    Coloradomtnman Rational and proud of it.

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,385
    Thanks Received:
    879
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +1,547
    First, let me define some terms and parameters about evolution.

    The theories of evolution do not address the origins of life, only speciation. There are a number of working hypotheses regarding how life came to exist, but nothing with sufficient work or success to be considered a scientific theory. These hypotheses are primarily the work of evolutionary chemists.

    On the subject of scientific theories: these are not "guesses" or baseless speculation and neither are they proved. No scientific theory will ever be proved as that is not how science works.

    Scientific theories are the best explanation and description of natural phenomena which fits the currently available data and with which accurate predictions are made.

    Scientific theories are rigorously tested, none more so than the theories of evolution. The theories of evolution are supported by data and evidence from many different fields of science: biology, geology, chemistry, physics, and sub-disciplines within these fields such as genetics.

    Evolution is an accepted fact, except by a loud minority. The theories are what explains the fact i.e. evolution through natural selection (which is only one theory of evolution and a non competing theory with the others like sexual-selection, genetic drift, etc.). Germs are an accepted fact. Gravity is an accepted fact. Relativity is an accepted fact. And atoms are an accepted fact. The theories are ways in which to better understand these facts. Germ theory, atomic theory, the theories of Relativity, and Gravity have been less challenged than the theories of evolution.

    Lastly, science can not test for the immaterial. Science is inherently materialistic philosophically. God can not be tested for, put under a microscope, seen through a telescope, etc.

    This is the #1 reason why creationism and Intelligent Design are not valid scientific theories.

    I leave it there for now and let you address those arguments. I'll counter argue and then we can move on to the actual evidence which supports the theories of evolution.

    Sound okay?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2016
  7. S.J.
    Offline

    S.J. Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    34,343
    Thanks Received:
    6,799
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    Ratings:
    +31,341
    I'm not here to prove creation, I've never claimed I can. I'm here to have some questions about evolution answered that so far have been met with comments like "I would explain it to you but you're too stupid" or "Here, read this book" or "Well, at least I don't believe in a sky fairy" etc.

    I WILL address creation but I'd like to have my questions on evolution answered first and I'd like to hear logical answers.

    And can we take one point at a time instead of several, so we don't have to spend a lot of time on each post?

    Just one point about your post, I think in order to make your case for evolution you have to address the origin of life. If the claim that all creatures came from one (the common ancestor), then you have to be able to tell me where the common ancestor came from. Otherwise, you can't dismiss creation. I'll be back in a while.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Coloradomtnman
    Offline

    Coloradomtnman Rational and proud of it.

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,385
    Thanks Received:
    879
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +1,547
    That's fair. I understand that we don't live on USMB, and other things in real life are more important than you and I debating this topic. We can start with evolution and then move on to creationism.

    The theories of evolution don't encompass origin of life, the same way the theories of relatvity don't encompass the origin of the universe. The theories of evolution have to do with why life changes (evolves), not why life exists in the first place.

    However, the origin of life and the origin of the universe, if or when these are discovered or theorized, had either fit with evolution and relativity, respectively, or we're wrong about origins or evolution or relativity or all of it. We aren't wrong about relatvity, at least not very wrong, as it is continuously tested: GPS satellites have to be re-calibrated constantly because of the effects of relativity.

    No one knows the origin of life. It could be that it was seeded by extraterrestrials, that God did it, or that the early conditions of the planet were such that carbon-based, organic molecules spontaneously began to self-replicate. Either way, that does not have to do with how life evolves.

    The theories of evolution are attempts at explaining bio-diversity, cancer, why species seem to fit their natural environments and adapt to new environments (like laboratories), why bacteria develop resistances to anti-biotics, fossils of life forms which no longer exist, why animals have certain forms and characteristics and are different not only to other species but between genders (beards, antlers, breasts, etc.) and yet have so much in common (fetal forms, organs, nervous systems, DNA, etc.).

    When Darwin (and others at the time) came up with the theory of natural selection, it wasn't to explain how life came to be but how life forms came to be so different from eachother and yet so alike (Darwin's famous finches) and also seem to fit into their environments so well.

    I don't dismiss creationism when it comes to a potential source for the spark of life. And if life was created, evolution undeniably happened to that life. That is a fact.

    The theories of evolution, when examined, at this point seem very much on the right track if not 100% accurate. And they probably aren't 100% accurate. Even if they are, we will never know and it will never be proved to be.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. S.J.
    Offline

    S.J. Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    34,343
    Thanks Received:
    6,799
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    Ratings:
    +31,341
    Ok, it sounds like you're talking about adaptation. Correct me if I'm wrong but most people who push the theory of evolution claim that ALL creatures evolved form a common ancestor. Am I wrong?
     
  10. S.J.
    Offline

    S.J. Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    34,343
    Thanks Received:
    6,799
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    Ratings:
    +31,341
    I'm not here to debate either one of you two trolls, so kindly fuck off.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page