WTF FINALS?!

[JoshKlaz]

No, I believe the first part, I'm Reformed Christian… Read the article when you're more awake ;)

Again, I can't give you all the answers. Just as you can't give me all the answers were I to ask about the big bang and evolution, or whatever you believe. I can only say what I know.

And don't think I'm some authority on Christianity or anything lol, if you really want a good discussion, you should do some face2face with a pastor or youth pastor or something.

[AdrianC]

Well I'm not a scientists yet, so I probably wouldn't be very good at that, however, evolution has been tested, and proved to be likely over and over again.

Religion has not.

I've yet to see an evolution vs creationism debate where the creationism side won. Its either a tie or the evolution side won. The problem is you cannot argue religion, because its all about believing, science is about hard proof.

Anyway, so you believe in the first thing I quoted?

Doesn't that say that if God feels like it, he'll grant you salvation, but if he doesn't he won't?

[JoshKlaz]

Can you point me to some of these debates please? I'd like to see what I can make of them. Because I've researched both sides a little bit, and creation makes more sense than evolution to me, and I've never actually seen a proper debate where the evolutionists won.

And it isn't so much about proving creation, because there is a lot of faith involved, and some people will simply never accept that. To me, it is also about defying evolution, which has too many problems with it to be legit.. I'd rather believe in something that I cannot fully understanding (accepting a higher deity), than believe in something that apparently can be seen but is still full of flaws (too many to make it worth believing in IMO). But I, like you, am no scientist.

Although I guess there are three kinds of people in the world. Those who need hard proof, those who think faith is good enough, and those who don't care, lol.

As to your last question, you didn't exactly use the most elegant phrasing, but I guess that is the gist of it. But if God (a supreme being) exists, don't you think you should trust His judgment and His grace? After all, He would be all-powerful and all-knowing, so what you're saying shouldn't really matter, because He would know best. Hope you understand what I'm getting at here! =/

[AdrianC]

Well, I can give you as a debate example this one.

You have done nothing to disprove my arguments, and yet you kept calling me ignorant.

I'll quote myself:

> He knows that people will sin, he created humanity to be imperfect. So because he created us to be imperfect, those who sin (God knew they would sin when he created them) will burn in hell forever. Does that seem fair to you? If that is true, then his heaven is not one I would like to be part of.

Nothing you have said disproves that.

> As to your last question, you didn't exactly use the most elegant phrasing, but I guess that is the gist of it. But if God (a supreme being) exists, don't you think you should trust His judgment and His grace? After all, He would be all-powerful and all-knowing, so what you're saying shouldn't really matter, because He would know best. Hope you understand what I'm getting at here! =/

Why should I trust him if he intentionally creates humans and sends them to hell?

O yeah, before I forget. Please mention a few problems with evolution. You keep saying its full of flaws, however you haven't mentioned any whatsoever.

[Anna Comnena]

@AdrianC:

> Well I'm not a scientists yet, so I probably wouldn't be very good at that, however, evolution has been tested, and proved to be likely over and over again.
>
> Religion has not.

Religion is a concept, not a natural phenomena. Also, religion is NOT creationism.

[AdrianC]

Maybe I used the word incorrectly, but that does not infulence my argument whatsoever.

Not sure what you mean by "Religion is a concept". Concept as in imaginary, or what?

[Darknisss]

Why talk about religion?  Obama wins!

[JoshKlaz]

Ok, one quick thing for you to answer. If evolution is true, where are the missing links?

I am ending this debate until you actually read the page at the link I gave you.

[AdrianC]

For something to fossilize, you need an enormous amount of luck. When you dig in your back yard, do you find fossils? No? Well, even if we consider that the earth is only 10 000 yrs old (that's the catholic belief right? Although quite a few Catholics don't believe it, I'll assume its 10 000 yrs) then we would definitely find a ton of bones buried in our yards. But we don't and why is that?

I'm not going to explain right now all the crap required for something to fossilize, but you must understand that for this to happen certain conditions need to be fulfilled. Most of the time, they aren't.

As for the rest of your post, I'm going to say this:

Please stop countering my arguments with "Go read the Bible" or "Go read that link I gave you" .  If you want to say something, say it, and stop sending me to other resources.

Nothing you said has countered any of my arguments. You just say go read this, go read that.

[JoshKlaz]

Ok, how about any of these reasons?

1\. Information 
The instructions for how to build, operate, and repair living cells represent a vast amount of information (estimated at 12 billion bits). Information is a mental, non-material concept. It can never arise from a natural process and is always the result of an intelligence. Just as a newspaper story transcends the ink on the paper, life’s DNA itself (like the ink) is not the information, it is simply a physical representation or housing of the information (the story). Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information to drive upward evolution, just as spilling coffee on the newspaper, thereby modifying the distribution of the ink, will never improve the story.

2\. Formation of Life
Dead chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of “protoplasm” as believed in Darwin’s day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some “warm little pond” will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The “Law of Biogenesis” states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere.

3\. Design of Living Things
Design is apparent in the living world. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation book The Blind Watchmaker admits “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” The amazing defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle is a classic example of design in nature, seemingly impossible to explain as the result of accumulating small beneficial changes over time, because if the mechanism doesn’t work perfectly, “boom” – no more beetle! This is also another view of the core issue of information, as the design of living things is the result of processing the information in the DNA (following the blueprint) to produce a working organism.

4\. Irreducible Complexity
The idea that “nothing works until everything works.” The classic example is a mousetrap, which is irreducibly complex in that if one of its several pieces is missing or not in the right place, it will not function as a mousetrap and no mice will be caught. The systems, features, and processes of life are irreducibly complex. What good is a circulatory system without a heart? An eye without a brain to interpret the signals? What good is a half-formed wing? Doesn’t matching male and female reproductive machinery need to exist at the same time, fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place? Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit.

5\. Second Law of Thermodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to “mix” with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state. A glass of hot water becomes room temperature, buildings decay into rubble, and the stars will eventually burn out leading to the “heat death” of the universe. However, the evolutionary scenario proposes that over time things, on their own, became more ordered and structured. Somehow the energy of a “Big Bang” structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law. It is sometimes said that the energy of the Sun was enough to overcome this tendency and allow for the formation of life on earth. However, application of energy alone is not enough to overcome this tendency; the energy must be channeled by a machine. A human must repair a building to keep it from decaying. Likewise, it is the machinery of photosynthesis which harnesses the energy of the Sun, allowing life to exist, and photosynthesis is itself a complex chemical process. The maturing of an acorn into a tree, or a zygote (the first cell resulting from fertilization) into a mature human being does not violate the Second Law as these processes are guided by the information already present in the acorn or zygote.

6\. Existence of the Universe
By definition, something must be eternal (as we have “something” today and something cannot come from “nothing”, so there was never a time when there was “nothing”). Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal. We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion). Therefore, God (the something/someone outside of the universe) must exist and must have created the universe. Einstein showed that space and time are related. If there is no space there is no time. Before the universe was created there was no space and therefore no concept of time. This is hard for us to understand as we are space-time creatures, but it allows for God to be an eternal being, completely consistent with scientific laws. The question “who created God” is therefore an improper/invalid question, as it is a time-based question (concerning the point in time at which God came into existence) but God exists outside of time as the un-caused first cause.

7\. Fine-tuning of Earth for Life
Dozens of parameters are “just right” for life to exist on this planet. For example, if the Earth were just a little closer to the Sun it would be too hot and the ocean’s water would boil away, much further and it would be covered continually in ice. Earth’s circular orbit (to maintain a roughly constant temperature year-round), its rotation speed (to provide days and nights not too long or short), its tilt (to provide seasons), and the presence of the moon (to provide tides to cleanse the oceans) are just some of many other examples.

The presence of large amounts of water, with its amazing special properties, is also required. Water is a rare compound in that it is lighter in a solid state than in a liquid state. This allows ponds to freeze with the ice on the surface allowing the life beneath to survive. Otherwise bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up and become solid ice. Water is also the most universal “solvent” known, allowing for dissolving/mixing with the many different chemicals of life. In fact, our bodies are 75-85% comprised of water.

8\. Fine-tuning of Physics
The fine-tuning of the physical constants that control the physics of the universe - the settings of the basic forces (strong nuclear force constant, weak nuclear force constant, gravitational force constant, and electromagnetic force constant) are on a knife’s edge. A minor change in these or any of dozens of other universal parameters would make life impossible.

The “multiverse” idea that there may be many universes and ours “just happened” to have these proper values is outside of science and could never be proven. Even then we would have to ask “what was the cause of all these universes?”

9\. Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record
The oldest fossils for any creature are already fully-formed and don’t change much over time (“stasis”). The “Cambrian Explosion” in the “primordial strata” documents the geologically rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals. There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a “half-scale/half-wing”. A reptile breathes using an “in and out” lung (like humans have), but a bird has a “flow-through” lung suitable for moving through the air. Can you even imagine how such a transition of the lung could have taken place? Abrupt appearance and stasis are consistent with the biblical concept of creation “according to its kind”, and a world-wide flood that scoured the earth down to its basement rocks, depositing the “geologic column” and giving the appearance of a “Cambrian Explosion”. Smarter, more mobile creatures would escape the flood waters longer, becoming buried in higher-level strata, leading to a burial order progressing from “simpler” forms to more complex/higher-level forms, which people now wrongly interpret as an evolutionary progression.

10\. Human Consciousness
A person is a unity of body + mind/soul, the mind/soul being the immaterial part of you that is the real inner you. Chemicals alone cannot explain self-awareness, creativity, reasoning, emotions of love and hate, sensations of pleasure and pain, possessing and remembering experiences, and free will. Reason itself cannot be relied upon if it is based only on blind neurological events.

11\. Human Language
Language is one of the main things that separates man from the animals. No animal is capable of achieving anything like human speech, and all attempts to teach chimpanzees to talk have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language. However, the Bible does. It says that the first man, Adam, was created able to speak. The Bible also explains why we have different human languages, as God had to "confuse" the common language being used in Babel after the flood, in order to force people to spread out around the world as He wanted. This was only a "surface" confusion though, as all languages express the same underlying basic ideas and concepts, enabling other languages to be learned and understood.

12\. Sexual Reproduction
Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why would animals abandon simpler asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is a very complex process that is only useful if fully in place. For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination.

13\. The Bible's Witness
The Bible is true. The history of the Bible is true. The words of the Bible concerning our origins were given to men to write down, by God, who was the only living being present. We were not there! God said He created the universe. God said He created all living things. We know that life is much more than chemicals. God put His life into Adam and that life has been transferred from generation to generation all the way down to us!

Oh, and I said that once. I don't understand why you couldn't simply read the short paragraph there, instead you carry on arguing as if I had never even shown you the link. I can copy & paste the paragraph if you'd like. The Genesis reference was simply for your own benefit.

[AdrianC]

None of those are facts. They are opinions. They could be right, and they could be wrong however, none were proven,

I don't have time to talk more right now, because I have to leave for school in about 10 min, but I'll continue when I come back.

[JoshKlaz]

Um… Are you for real?

How are they not facts? Sure, they aren't as simple as "that tree is green", but they are still facts!

[Gwen]

same thing can be said for evolution facts.

where is the proof that we evolved from monkies? is there a half man half monkey running around? why did the evolution of monkies stop? where are the monkies that are still evolving? why didnt all the monkies evolve into humans?

as for where did god come from?….. well in the evolutionist big bang theory..... where did the first atom come from?

It all comes down to faith and belief. yes the people that dont believe in god have a faith that there is no god, just like the people that do believe in god have faith that god exists.

[JoshKlaz]

Well said Gwen :)

As to where did the first atom come from, I have a theory. You know how there is the first dimension, and the second dimension, and we are living in the third dimension? I know they already have theories about other higher dimensions, but say there is a higher dimension that we are unaware of that is outside time and space that we cannot comprehend, and say that is where God is. And he worked outside of time and created us. Or something like that. It's only a theory, discuss if you wish XD

[Gwen]

just for the record I do believe in god, but I don't believe in organized religion. Most church goers are hiprocrits.

I was raised Christian, but I don't know what sect… I guess baptist.

I don't try to force my belief on others, and respect others ideas.

We won't know for sure until we die.

[AdrianC]

*sigh*

I told you that if you want to say something, say it, instead of making me read stuff written by others… You don't seem to want to do that however.

I'll answer most of your points, but honestly, if you wake me read so much stuff again, I'm going to stop debating.

1\. You can't prove that. I'm not going to talk more about it because its just an opinion. This message will be copy pasted from time to time, whenever your "facts" are just opinions.

2\. While in our current environment it would be impossible for life to be created, 6 billion years ago, the conditions would have been entirely different. I read an article, maybe a year ago. Somebody had managed to created proteins from inorganic materials. While we do not fully understand how exactly happened, there isn't anything really that says 100% that in those conditions, life could not have been created from inorganic materials.

3\. I had no clue what that beetle was, so I had to look it up. This is what I found:

The defense mechanism uses features which are common in other beetles and have evolved as variations have been subject to natural selection. Various quinones are commonly produced by cells in the skin of insects to harden their skin into a cuticle, and as they taste bad to predators many insects secrete this to deter predators. Where there are indentations in the cuticle, these can vary to form little sacs which store the deterrent quinone. Where predators develop resistance to this chemical, other related chemicals such as hydroquinone can develop, and in many beetles specialised cells secreting hydroquinone form glands connected by ducts to a reservoir sac which can be closed off by muscles to stop leakage. While all carabid beetles have this sort of arrangement, in some cases Hydrogen peroxide which is a common by-product of the metabolism of cells can become mixed in with the hydroquinone, and some of the catalases which exist in most cells can make the process more efficient. The chemical reaction can produce warmth and pressure which pushes out the discharge when the insect is attacked, as in the beetle Metrius contractus which produces a foamy discharge, while a flap forms a valve to ensure that the pressure pushes the discharge out. In other bombardier beetles, muscles controlling the outlet have developed nozzles that can direct an increasingly explosive reaction to squirt the deterrent chemicals at an attacker. More detailed scenarios have been developed showing a series of small changes that could have led to this mechanism.[1][2]

And:

It has been claimed by some creationists such as Duane Gish that the various components needed to make the system work could not have evolved, as the components appeared to him to provide no benefit in themselves and therefore the entire system would have to be created at once. His presentation mistakenly stated that the hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone would explode on contact, and that the beetle adds an inhibitor to keep this from happening, when in practice catalysts are used to cause the reaction to start. Gish blamed a problem of translation leading him to misunderstand his German source, but continued to use his description in debates.[1] A similar argument is set out in the children's book Bomby the Bombardier Beetle (ages 4–8), published by the Institute for Creation Research in June 1984, and still on sale as of July 2007.[3][2][4] Its arguments have been described as riddled with errors.[5]

In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box the intelligent design creationist Michael Behe reviewed the same argument as "irreducible complexity" which he claimed to have found in various organisms, but he agreed that Darwinian evolution may possibly have been responsible for the formation of the Bombardier Beetle defensive system, as well as creationism.[4] Another creationist analysis published by Answers in Genesis accepts much of the scientific view, but contends that complexity could suggest an origin by design.[4]

4\. What I wrote for #3 kinda applies here.

5\. Again, we do not know the exact environmental conditions that were on earth 6 billion years.

This pretty much says "You guys don't understand this, so you must be wrong."

Scientists don't claim to know everything, we just want the truth. Just because we (well scientists, I'm not one yet) don't understand something, it doesn't mean its not true.

6\. You can't prove that. I'm not going to talk more about it because its just an opinion. This message will be copy pasted from time to time, whenever your "facts" are just opinions.

7\. That's why we haven't found life on other planets yet. Many parameters would have to be "just right" and that's why, for now, we are the only known planet which has life on it.

8\. Same as seven. I don't see your point. Something is not very likely to happen so it doesn't? Its not very likely to get hit by a car when you're walking on the sidewalk, but it happens.

9\. I already talked about fossil records.

10\. You can't prove that. I'm not going to talk more about it because its just an opinion. This message will be copy pasted from time to time, whenever your "facts" are just opinions.

11\. Again, you're using the "You guys don't understand this so its not true."

12\. And now you're using the "Its not likely to happen, so it won't."

13\. Umm… yeah....

Show me where in that paragraph it says that my argument is wrong?

You even admitted that God is all powerful and all knowing. So he must have known that certain people he created would be evil, and that he would send them to hell. I don't even know why I keep repeating this. You're just ignoring it.

@Gwen:

> same thing can be said for evolution facts.
>
> where is the proof that we evolved from monkies? is there a half man half monkey running around? why did the evolution of monkies stop? where are the monkies that are still evolving? why didnt all the monkies evolve into humans?
>
> as for where did god come from?….. well in the evolutionist big bang theory..... where did the first atom come from?
>
> It all comes down to faith and belief. yes the people that dont believe in god have a faith that there is no god, just like the people that do believe in god have faith that god exists.

*sigh*sigh*sigh*

No evolutionist believes we evolved from monkeys. Get your facts straight.

[Gwen]

gee sorry APE'S

[AdrianC]

We didn't evolve from apes either. Seriously…

I'll give you one more chance.

[Gwen]

enlighten me…

[Khachaturian]

Spiders?

[AdrianC]

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

And you people said I had no clue what I'm talking about…

[Gwen]

well what's the point of evolving into an ape if you can evolve into a human? Seems pretty stupid for natural selection to pic that route when it has a better route to choose from.

[AdrianC]

Environment.

Cmmon people, some common sense.

EDITEDITEDIT

Also, being human in terms of survival is not a better route.

[Khachaturian]

Common sense?
Environment?

So their environment decided that they should not posses humans intelligence?

/agree with Gwen

[AdrianC]

Lol, cmmon Bone, you know I respect you, but seriously?

Depending on the geographical area, depending on whatever needs they had, the species had to adapt. Our ancestor might have been better equipped to survive in a certain environment, while the apes ancestor was better equipped for another env. The differences grew larger and larger when these ancestors were separated.

EDIT

They did not need human intelligence. They were stronger and faster. They could fight their enemies. Our ancestors were weaker physically, so they had to adapt, creating tools, etc.