Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


New Britain
February 17, 2025, 11:51 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 15, 2025, 04:00 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 14, 2025, 08:00 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 13, 2025, 10:07 PM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
February 13, 2025, 08:20 PM

German nationalist party ...
February 13, 2025, 01:15 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
February 13, 2025, 01:08 PM

Russia invades Ukraine
February 13, 2025, 11:01 AM

Islam and Science Fiction
February 11, 2025, 11:57 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM

Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Debating a creationist - help!

 (Read 8911 times)
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Debating a creationist - help!
     OP - April 24, 2011, 03:29 AM

    I know, it's a futile exercise, but he raised a few points about evolution:

    He asked to explain how the evidence proves NS & RM meachanics to the extent one phylum changes to another.

    and

    In what way creationism contradicts evolution (not darwinian evolution)

    Thanks in advance thnkyu

  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #1 - April 24, 2011, 03:32 AM

    RM?

    What do you mean 'not darwinian evolution'?
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #2 - April 24, 2011, 03:41 AM

    NS &RM = Natural selection & Random mutation

    By Darwinian evolution he means = How one species evolves through natural selection and random mutation.
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #3 - April 24, 2011, 03:44 AM

    What's the alternative kind of evolution, Lamarckian? Huh? Or 'god did it'?
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #4 - April 24, 2011, 03:54 AM

    He says darwinian evolution is just a theory, so it could be as valid as his (god did it).  Cheesy

  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #5 - April 24, 2011, 03:57 AM

    Theory of gravity.  It's just a theory. 

    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #6 - April 24, 2011, 04:17 AM

    He says darwinian evolution is just a theory, so it could be as valid as his (god did it).  Cheesy



    "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."

    A common mistake is to think theories become laws once there's enough... evidence... or some sort of proof. But the difference between a scientific theory and a law is just, in the simplest terms, that the latter is... shorter. Theories tend to describe complex phenomena... and laws tend to deal with a very specific occurrence under certain conditions. Hence you don't really find them outside of physics.
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #7 - April 24, 2011, 10:23 AM

    He asked to explain how the evidence proves NS & RM meachanics to the extent one phylum changes to another.

    I usually go on like this:
    no evidence is needed Cheesy

    It's simply a logical consequence of what "speciation" is.

    Basically: what is the difference between two given species/genera/families/orders/classes/phyla/whatever?
    The only answer to it is that such difference is nothing but a set of traits that makes those 2 given organisms different "enough" to classify them as different species/genera/families/etc.
    (Such "enough" is completely arbitrary and depends on how we humans decide to classify them)

    So: since such taxonomic difference is the result of an arbitrary classification by a collection of traits, and since those traits (like any trait) are coded by DNA/mDNA... what sort of "magic thing" would have prevented mutation and selection to work on those traits that we humans have picked a posteriori to discriminate between taxonomic groups?

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #8 - April 24, 2011, 11:35 AM

    He says darwinian evolution is just a theory, so it could be as valid as his (god did it).  Cheesy




    I'm slowly going crazy by hearing that argument every time. Get that asshole to read this one page website: www.notjustatheory.com

    He asked to explain how the evidence proves NS & RM meachanics to the extent one phylum changes to another.


    Random mutation can increase information in the genome, thus different phylum? I don't know, I'm just guessing here, but here's a great video on information increase
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsP0qSkCHbk
    but I'm not sure if such changes lead to change in phylum...but it does answer the next question he'll probably ask, as the video responds to creationist propaganda Smiley

    In what way creationism contradicts evolution (not darwinian evolution)


    In the way that "God did it"? :/
    Well let's say that if creationism is true, then it contradicts evolution because 6000 years would not be enough for all the species to evolve.
    I have no idea what you mean by non darwinian evolution

    <dust>: i love tea!!!
    <dust>: milky tea
    <three>: soooo gentle for my neck (from the inside)
    <dust>: mm
    <three>: it's definitely not called neck
    <dust>: lol
    <three>: what's the word i'm looking for
    <dust>: throat
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #9 - April 25, 2011, 06:04 AM

    Guys seems like it worked, the guy is nowhere to be seen. Alhamdulillah   bunny

    Btb, excellent vid man.
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #10 - April 25, 2011, 09:42 AM

    He asked to explain how the evidence proves NS & RM meachanics to the extent one phylum changes to another.

    Can you ask him what exactly he means by one phylum (or why not - species) changing into another?

    Is he talking about Starfish evolving into a vertebrate fish for example?
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #11 - April 25, 2011, 01:46 PM

    Hello

    I have registered to participate in this discussion about evolution.

    I have a few points to raise:

    > Can you any of you deny the existence of a creator?
    > If you agree to a creator, can you consider him not powerful?
    > If the universe were not to be 'designed' than how would it look like?




  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #12 - April 25, 2011, 02:01 PM

    Quote
    Can you any of you deny the existence of a creator?
    If you agree to a creator, can you consider him not powerful?
    > If the universe were not to be 'designed' than how would it look like?

    1. It seems odd to " deny" a creator when no one can prove that their " creator" is the one that did it or how they it was done.  No one knows exactly how matter came to be, so I can say perhaps that matter began existing at some point ( maybe ) but a creator? No idea what that is.
    2.  A creator does not have to be all powerful to create something.
    3. Design is an arbitrary designation.  What is a designed universe? What isn't a designed universe? Designed for what? How? And by whom? Until someone can clarify those questions a designed universe can't really be determined in any certain way.

    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #13 - April 25, 2011, 02:04 PM

    Hello

    I have registered to participate in this discussion about evolution.

    I have a few points to raise:

    > Can you any of you deny the existence of a creator?

    Hi. I hope you are not a troll.

    By 'deny' do you mean prove that it doesn't exist?
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #14 - April 25, 2011, 02:28 PM

    Quote
    1. It seems odd to " deny" a creator when no one can prove that their " creator" is the one that did it or how they it was done.  No one knows exactly how matter came to be, so I can say perhaps that matter began existing at some point ( maybe ) but a creator? No idea what that is.
    2.  A creator does not have to be all powerful to create something.
    3. Design is an arbitrary designation.  What is a designed universe? What isn't a designed universe? Designed for what? How? And by whom? Until someone can clarify those questions a designed universe can't really be determined in any certain way.


    1.Simple 1-2-3 reason tells you that for every creations there must be a creator. Something is either bring from its own essence or is externally bright. It can't be bright by neither essentially or externally. Same thing, if something exists, its existence is either essentially or externally.

    2. We are talking about the creator of everything. Are you still on your old stance?
    3. Answer the question. Don't get tedious.

    Quote
    Hi. I hope you are not a troll.

    By 'deny' do you mean prove that it doesn't exist?


    If troll means to reason, than I am.
    By deny i mean deny.

  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #15 - April 25, 2011, 02:35 PM

    Quote
    Can you any of you deny the existence of a creator?


    Yes.

    Quote
    If the universe were not to be 'designed' than how would it look like?


    Like it does at the moment.


    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #16 - April 25, 2011, 02:36 PM

    If troll means to reason, than I am.

    The reason why I feel you might be a troll is precisely your 'reasoning'.

    It's a textbook example of a logical fallacy therefore it's kinda hard for me to believe that anybody would even try and use the sort of argument you did.  


    By deny i mean deny.


    'deny' is usually defined as "to declare untrue"

    Therefore you are probably asking if 'creator' can be disproven.

    Which is a logical fallacy.

    The burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim because it is always impossible to prove something (anything) doesn't exist.
    That's why, in a court of law, in formal debates, and in science, the burden of proof is always on those who assert that anything (including God) actually does exist.

    Can you prove that Leprechauns do not exist? Unicorns? The Loch Ness Monster? An invisible porcelain teapot orbiting around the Sun that answers prayers?
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #17 - April 25, 2011, 02:43 PM

    Its only so in your regard that you think God doesn't exist, like Unicorns. For a person who is in doubt of His existence, there is probability of existence and not existence.  The question was simple, do you deny the existence of a Creator? Do you believe there is no creator? Why be tedious and not answer so the argument flows properly.
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #18 - April 25, 2011, 02:46 PM

    @ Cheetah:

    How could there be creation and not creator?

    Typo: If the universe were to be 'designed' than how would it look like?
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #19 - April 25, 2011, 02:49 PM

    Quote
    How could there be creation and not creator?


    The question pre-supposes that everything in existence is a creation.  Obviously if I'm denying the existence of a creator, I am disputing that notion too.

    Quote
    Typo: If the universe were to be 'designed' than how would it look like?


    Dpends on the designer, I suppose.  It would be a lot less empty and wasteful for a start, and if the designer were merciful and compassionate I would think nature would be a lot less red in tooth and claw.

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #20 - April 25, 2011, 02:56 PM

    @ Cheetah:

    Do you agree with the fact that if an entity exists, it either exists essentially (by its own essence) or externally?

    So you consider the current universe wasteful and not pleasing to your eye?
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #21 - April 25, 2011, 02:57 PM

    Quote

    1.Simple 1-2-3 reason tells you that for every creations there must be a creator. Something is either bring from its own essence or is externally bright. It can't be bright by neither essentially or externally. Same thing, if something exists, its existence is either essentially or externally.

    2. We are talking about the creator of everything. Are you still on your old stance?
    3. Answer the question. Don't get tedious.


    You are right Kenan I smell a repeat troll talking about "my old stance", nut ill answer the same.

    1. Correct.  Which is why I said matter seems to have been created at some point.  It may have been self created or it might have had a creationary force behind it.  Notice I said creationary force and not creator because there are an unlimited amount of possibilities of what that creationary force is.  I see no need to imbue this force with any specific characteristics to call it a creator.

    2. Creating something or everything does not entail all powerful.  A creator could have the power to create all matter but not the power to control it once created or create all matter but not have the power to read minds etc.  

    3. Hardly tedious those questions are very salient to the issue.  Until we know questions we can't say the universe was ' designed" at all.  You question does not have enough information to answer one way or another.

    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #22 - April 25, 2011, 02:59 PM

    Quote
    Do you agree with the fact that if an entity exists, it either exists essentially (by its own essence) or externally?


    Yes, but externally does not equal a supernatural creator.

    Quote
    So you consider the current universe wasteful and not pleasing to your eye?


    Parts of it, yes. 




    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #23 - April 25, 2011, 03:05 PM

    Quote
    1. Correct.  Which is why I said matter seems to have been created at some point.  It may have been self created or it might have had a creationary force behind it.  Notice I said creationary force and not creator because there are an unlimited amount of possibilities of what that creationary force is.  I see no need to imbue this force with any specific characteristics to call it a creator.

    2. Creating something or everything does not entail all powerful.  A creator could have the power to create all matter but not the power to control it once created or create all matter but not have the power to read minds etc.  

    3. Hardly tedious those questions are very salient to the issue.  Until we know questions we can't say the universe was ' designed" at all.  You question does not have enough information to answer one way or another.


    1. You said self create. Creation is an effect. How could effects becomes their own causes for existences when effect means to be in need of a cause to exist. I only talked about creator, not what or who that creator was, so don't be tedious.

    2. If something is the creator of everything, hence the cause of all the effects, how could the effect be more powerful than its First Cause when all that power came from that cause, making the cause not be able to control its effect.


    Quote
    Yes, but externally does not equal a supernatural creator.


    Who said it did. So you accept some sort of being that gave existence?

    Which parts are wasteful?
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #24 - April 25, 2011, 03:22 PM

    Its only so in your regard that you think God doesn't exist, like Unicorns. For a person who is in doubt of His existence, there is probability of existence and not existence.  The question was simple, do you deny the existence of a Creator? Do you believe there is no creator? Why be tedious and not answer so the argument flows properly.

    I am not being tedious. I quite clearly expressed my position.

    I do not deny the existence of a 'creator' (which one btw; are we talking about Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli or about The Great Cthulhu here?) because as I explained - it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist. It is up to the person making the positive assertion to provide proof for the said assertion.

    As an atheist I find god completely irrelevant - at least when it comes to morals.

    When it comes to the question of 'creators' physical existence I simply do not know if there is or there isn't such a thing as a creator of this Universe. There is simply no accurate data available.
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #25 - April 25, 2011, 03:24 PM

    Quote
    1. You said self create. Creation is an effect. How could effects becomes their own causes for existences when effect means to be in need of a cause to exist. I only talked about creator, not what or who that creator was, so don't be tedious.

    2. If something is the creator of everything, hence the cause of all the effects, how could the effect be more powerful than its First Cause when all that power came from that cause, making the cause not be able to control its effect.


    1. Yes it could have self created, or sprung out of nothing, or been caused by an external force.  All are possibilities.  Even if we take the last possibility the permutations in that sub category are almost limitless too.  I don't see a need to call that force a creator.  

    2.  That still doesn't give an answer.  You spoke of a creator, not all powerful creator.  You are now tacking on additional characteristics.  You spoke of a creator that can create matter not continuously manipulate it or read minds.  If you want to add those things on you'll have to start talking about a specific creator and not a generic creative force.

    3.  For what purpose was the universe designed? By who? and how?

    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #26 - April 25, 2011, 03:32 PM

    Can you ask him what exactly he means by one phylum (or why not - species) changing into another?

    Is he talking about Starfish evolving into a vertebrate fish for example?


    That moron has no clue what he's on about. I've stopped debating him. I should have seen this coming.

    PS: If he continues to debate, I'll ask him.
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #27 - April 25, 2011, 03:46 PM

    Hi. I hope you are not a troll.


     

    I don't mind tbh. In fact I found this site by one of that alsaeed dude's post. What a legend.  parrot
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #28 - April 25, 2011, 03:58 PM

    Quote
    I am not being tedious. I quite clearly expressed my position.

    I do not deny the existence of a 'creator' (which one btw; are we talking about Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli or about The Great Cthulhu here?) because as I explained - it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist. It is up to the person making the positive assertion to provide proof for the said assertion.

    As an atheist I find god completely irrelevant - at least when it comes to morals.

    When it comes to the question of 'creators' existence I simply do not know if there is or there isn't such a thing as a creator of this Universe. There is simply no accurate data available.


    As i said before, you already assume He doesn't exist. You talk about accurate data and have abandon the faculty of your reason which states if something exists, this existence must've come from somewhere. You simply deny this rationalism with what you have said.

    Quote
    1. Yes it could have self created, or sprung out of nothing, or been caused by an external force.  All are possibilities.  Even if we take the last possibility the permutations in that sub category are almost limitless too.  I don't see a need to call that force a creator.  

    2.  That still doesn't give an answer.  You spoke of a creator, not all powerful creator.  You are now tacking on additional characteristics.  You spoke of a creator that can create matter not continuously manipulate it or read minds.  If you want to add those things on you'll have to start talking about a specific creator and not a generic creative force.

    3.  For what purpose was the universe designed? By who? and how?


    1. I explained before the impossibility of self creation. It means an effect being the cause of itself, which is impossible by definition.

    2. My context was clear. I make it clearer now. Can the Creator and giver of existence to all beings be less powerful than them?

    3. Such great universe and creation cannot be created without a purpose. It sounds ridiculous the notion of 'for nothing, from nothing, by nothing, towards nothing'. The universe has a creator, who is Wise, hence He designs in a Wise manner. The Wisdom is nothing unseen in the creation. The 'how' becomes a mean of you and i to discover to gain knowledge of the Power, Knowledge and Existence of that creator.

    Although I raised multiple issues, i request that we continue with point number one, than come back to others so there is structure in the discussion.
  • Re: Debating a creationist - help!
     Reply #29 - April 25, 2011, 04:29 PM

    Quote
    So you accept some sort of being that gave existence?


    No, I don't.  An external cause for existence does not mean a "being" that gives existence.

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »