Your stance on the existence of everything , be it religious , scientific , or both

Note: I have been banned for this kind of thread before , and I would appreciate it if people didn't swear or start debates on religion.
In fact , I haven't even used the word "God" in all of my posts , yet I was banned.

There are no right or wrong answers , just dumb and smart answers.
But scientific debates are encouraged.
Creation (If it is your scientific standpoint) does count as your point of view within science , so you can also debate that.
But first , I would like to just know what you believe.




Personally , I believe in Creation .
You may think I am against the evolutionist standpoint , but I also believe that animals can evolve , both, into breeds , and into species.
There is nothing wrong with believing that Noah took lions on his ark , that evolved into tigers , or wolves that evolved into dogs and hyenas (If I got that taxonomy right).

Existance I take from pure science due to its nature of theories backed up by proof or dismissed threw lack of proof, moreso then faith which is based on faith with little proof of how it came to really be.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

Note: I have been banned for this kind of thread before , and I would appreciate it if people didn't swear or start debates on religion.
In fact , I haven't even used the word "God" in all of my posts , yet I was banned.

There are no right or wrong answers , just dumb and smart answers.
But scientific debates are encouraged.
Creation (If it is your scientific standpoint) does count as your point of view within science , so you can also debate that.
But first , I would like to just know what you believe.




Personally , I believe in Creation .
You may think I am against the evolutionist standpoint , but I also believe that animals can evolve , both, into breeds , and into species.
There is nothing wrong with believing that Noah took lions on his ark , that evolved into tigers , or wolves that evolved into dogs and hyenas (If I got that taxonomy right).

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or the origin of existence. Don't confuse the two.

I don't believe we have anywhere near the information necessary to see very far beyond our own cosmological back yard.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or the origin of existence. Don't confuse the two.

OKAY........

I didn't really confuse the two.
Infact , a lot of people regularly do confuse evolution with abiogenesis.

Evolution suggests change.

Genesis suggests an origin of all life and matter , through an intelligent cause.
Abiogenesis suggests an origin of all life and matter , through explained causes.

I was just saying that I believe in creation , while also believing in the theory of evolution.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

OKAY........

I didn't really confuse the two.
Infact , a lot of people regularly do confuse evolution with abiogenesis.

Evolution suggests change.

Genesis suggests an origin of all life and matter , through an intelligent cause.
Abiogenesis suggests an origin of all life and matter , through explained causes.

I was just saying that I believe in creation , while also believing in the theory of evolution.

Well, this is a topic regarding origins, you said you were a creationist, and disagreed with the 'evolutionary standpoint'. This suggests that you associated evolution with origins. That's why I said it.

Well, this is a topic regarding origins, you said you were a creationist, and disagreed with the 'evolutionary standpoint'. This suggests that you associated evolution with origins. That's why I said it.

Oh. ok then.
I don't disagree with the evolutionary standpoint , but rather , I agree with it.

Animals can evolve.
Most people on Earth think evolution means that I evolved from an ape , but it just simply means that life Can evolve.

If I were to believe that God created all animals , but Noah only brought a few animals , then it wouldn't be blasphemy to say that all animals on noah's ark evolved all of the known species we have today.

Tsall im sayin.
Ya no wat i meen?

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

Oh. ok then.

Most people on Earth think evolution means that I evolved from an ape

Its amazing how wrong most people can be. The theory of evolution is we have a common ansester, A.K.A The missing link, not that we -are- evolved from apes.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

Oh. ok then.
I don't disagree with the evolutionary standpoint , but rather , I agree with it.

Animals can evolve.
Most people on Earth think evolution means that I evolved from an ape , but it just simply means that life Can evolve.

If I were to believe that God created all animals , but Noah only brought a few animals , then it wouldn't be blasphemy to say that all animals on noah's ark evolved all of the known species we have today.

Tsall im sayin.
Ya no wat i meen?

I do, but it's a clear distortion of the evolutionary theory.

I do, but it's a clear distortion of the evolutionary theory.

A clear distortion of the theory of evolution , would be to say that I evolved from an ape because evolution is fact.

Evolution is fact.
But evolution is just change , and has nothing to do with the origin of life.

"I evolved from an ape , because abiogenesis is fact" is more accurate , because abiogenesis involves everything BUT genesis.

"I evolved from Adam and Eve (Breed wise)" is also accurate , because evolution (Change) can happen.


Whether or not you are religious , Evolution will have nothing to do with history , as it is a process.

Abiogenesis (Anti biological genesis) is a historical idea that may or may not involve the evolutionary process.

Genesis is a historical idea that may ot may not involve the evolutionary process.

Evolution through natural selection is how it is , and anyone can believe in it along with their religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

A clear distortion of the theory of evolution , would be to say that I evolved from an ape because evolution is fact.

Applying evolution to Biblical stories is a distortion because it is incompatible with various other theories and disregards the way the world functions, as well as ignoring the fact evolution takes millions of years to occur.

"I evolved from Adam and Eve (Breed wise)" is also accurate , because evolution (Change) can happen.

No, this disregards the length of evolutions processes, rendering the two incompatible.

Whether or not you are religious , Evolution will have nothing to do with history , as it is a process.

It has to do with literal, or metaphorical interpretations of Biblical stories.

Abiogenesis (Anti biological genesis) is a historical idea that may or may not involve the evolutionary process.

It doesn't. Evolution is separate.

Genesis is a historical idea that may ot may not involve the evolutionary process.

This also does not.

Evolution through natural selection is how it is , and anyone can believe in it along with their religious beliefs.

Not if you are a Biblical literalist, but otherwise I agree with you.

The pre-Abram stories of the Book of Genesis are not taken literally by scholars due to their conflict with scientific evidence.

Applying evolution to Biblical stories is a distortion because it is incompatible with various other theories and disregards the way the world functions, as well as ignoring the fact evolution takes millions of years to occur.

Not if you are a Biblical literalist, but otherwise I agree with you.

Noah could have brought only 2 dogs for all I care.
Those 2 canines would evolve into the wolves , hyenas , foxes , and other creatures that are closely related to dogs.

Creation doesn't exclude evolution.

You keep saying evolution isn't a historical process , yet you keep contradicting yourself.

Applying evolution to Biblical stories is a distortion because it is incompatible with various other theories and disregards the way the world functions, as well as ignoring the fact evolution takes millions of years to occur.

radiation is the cause of mutation within animals.
If you were to somehow over-radiate an animal , the offspring of the animal would come out deformed or different.
If you bred those ones that were deformed , then it would allow for higher biodiversity , because the amount of mutations that happened within the animal.

If a massive flood happened , it might affect the atmosphere that keeps us from dying of radiation , and might cause many mutations along animals.

These mutations would change , in what would have taken millions of years , to happen over a few 100 years or so.

A global flood would cause many earthquakes and volcanos to erupt , that it could shift continents within mere hours.
And it might explain why we have a bunch of animals underground.

Do you know what inbreeding is?

Incest among plants and animals , basically.
Incest will result in various ways.

The offspring might get deformed (If inbred too much) , which happens in humans alot.

The offspring's traits will become more dominant , like an inbred puggle dog will probably have genes that dominate another dog breed's genes if mated.

A puggle that has been inbred 60 times , has mated with a pitbull.
The puggle's genes will appear more in the offspring , than the pitbull's genes.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

Radiation is the cause of mutation within animals.

Not at all. Mutations can be very random.

Not at all. Mutations can be very random.

One of the main factors of genetic mutation , is radiation.
But yes , there can be other ways of mutation.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

The offspring might get deformed (If inbred too much) , which happens in humans alot.

What do you think would happen if only two of every animal in the world were alive and one human female were left alive?

What do you think would happen if only two of every animal in the world were alive and one human female were left alive?

Deformities would most likely occur , mostly in humans.

But as far as that goes , my deformed kittens that I had , they mated with eachother and then had normal looking kittens.


Anyway... im goin to bed... nighty night , don't let the redeads bite.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

Noah could have brought only 2 dogs for all I care.
Those 2 canines would evolve into the wolves , hyenas , foxes , and other creatures that are closely related to dogs.

Creation doesn't exclude evolution.

You keep saying evolution isn't a historical process , yet you keep contradicting yourself.

Evolution is a process that take millions of years to occur. I never said it isn't a historical process.

Depending on the creation, it does.

From Noah onward, that isn't enough time to account for both evolution, speciation, and migration.

radiation is the cause of mutation within animals.
If you were to somehow over-radiate an animal , the offspring of the animal would come out deformed or different.
If you bred those ones that were deformed , then it would allow for higher biodiversity , because the amount of mutations that happened within the animal.

If a massive flood happened , it might affect the atmosphere that keeps us from dying of radiation , and might cause many mutations along animals.

These mutations would change , in what would have taken millions of years , to happen over a few 100 years or so.

A global flood would cause many earthquakes and volcanos to erupt , that it could shift continents within mere hours.
And it might explain why we have a bunch of animals underground.

So simply don't understand the evolutionary theory. The primary source of mutation, is cause by genetics through mistakes in DNA replication, and genes. Radiation can have effects, but isn't near the majority.

If the Flood actually distorted or removed the atmosphere, life would have died. Life has adapted to life under the protective blanket that is our atmosphere, if it was removed, life would likely perish or many species would be wiped out. Compound this with your 'flood' and how did anything survive?

Most of the theories you have mentioned are pseudo science.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

Note: I have been banned for this kind of thread before , and I would appreciate it if people didn't swear or start debates on religion.
In fact , I haven't even used the word "God" in all of my posts , yet I was banned.

I don't think you can be banned if other people start debates in your thread but we'll see.

There are no right or wrong answers , just dumb and smart answers.
But scientific debates are encouraged.
Creation (If it is your scientific standpoint) does count as your point of view within science , so you can also debate that.
But first , I would like to just know what you believe.

I believe everything exists because...

actually I don't know.

Personally , I believe in Creation .
You may think I am against the evolutionist standpoint , but I also believe that animals can evolve , both, into breeds , and into species.

that's a step above most Creationists at least.

There is nothing wrong with believing that Noah took lions on his ark , that evolved into tigers , or wolves that evolved into dogs and hyenas (If I got that taxonomy right).

yes there is. There are a lot of things wrong with that. First of all, it suggests that Noah didn't evolve. If all the other animals evolved, then there's no reason to think that humans didn't either. Secondly, how long ago do you think the great flood took place? Because, as it so happens, evolution takes millions of years to make significant changes.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

OKAY........

I didn't really confuse the two.
Infact , a lot of people regularly do confuse evolution with abiogenesis.

yes, they do, and they also get it confused with the Big Bang somehow.

Evolution suggests change.

evolution is change.

Genesis suggests an origin of all life and matter , through an intelligent cause.
Abiogenesis suggests an origin of all life and matter , through explained causes.

abiogenesis explains the origin of life, not matter.

I was just saying that I believe in creation , while also believing in the theory of evolution.

you can do that.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

Oh. ok then.
I don't disagree with the evolutionary standpoint , but rather , I agree with it.

Animals can evolve.

this is undeniable.

Most people on Earth think evolution means that I evolved from an ape , but it just simply means that life Can evolve.

that is what the theory of evolution says. It would be pretty stupid to say "all animals but humans can evolve" which is essentially what you are saying.

also, you might be surprised to hear this, but not only did humans evolve from apes, we still are apes. Homo sapiens, that is, humans, are in the Hominidae family of the great apes. So technically all humans are also apes, just like all apes are also mammals.

If I were to believe that God created all animals , but Noah only brought a few animals , then it wouldn't be blasphemy to say that all animals on noah's ark evolved all of the known species we have today.

no, but you would be twisting the theory of evolution around.

Originally Posted by Celvantis

Its amazing how wrong most people can be. The theory of evolution is we have a common ansester, A.K.A The missing link, not that we -are- evolved from apes.

the common ancestor was also an ape, I'm pretty sure.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

A clear distortion of the theory of evolution , would be to say that I evolved from an ape because evolution is fact.

???

the theory of evolution says that humans evolved from apes. If you try to insist otherwise you are distorting and twisting the theory around into something different. The theory of evolution is based on certain evidence, and that evidence tells us what evolved from what and how long it took and how it works. What you're doing is ignoring most of this evidence and making up a new theory, or rather a nonscientific baseless pseudo-theory.

Evolution is fact.
But evolution is just change , and has nothing to do with the origin of life.

right, origin of life is explained by abiogenesis not evolution.

"I evolved from an ape , because abiogenesis is fact" is more accurate , because abiogenesis involves everything BUT genesis.

that is not accurate at all. You can't use the theory of abiogenesis to explain any sort of evolution. Abiogenesis does not say where humans evolved from, that would be evolution.

"I evolved from Adam and Eve (Breed wise)" is also accurate , because evolution (Change) can happen.

Whether or not you are religious , Evolution will have nothing to do with history , as it is a process.

what?

evolution has a lot to do with history, considering most of it took place in the past.

Originally Posted by Majoradorf

Noah could have brought only 2 dogs for all I care.
Those 2 canines would evolve into the wolves , hyenas , foxes , and other creatures that are closely related to dogs.

no, not exactly. In fact not at all. Two dogs could not possibly evolve into so many different species. There wouldn't be very much gene variation in the gene pool of only two dogs. I don't think that they would even be able to repopulate their species, really. If there were only two dogs left, the whole species would probably die out pretty quickly.

Creation doesn't exclude evolution.

it does if it happened any less than four billion years ago or involves the spontaneous creation of any creatures other than the simple cells that evolution started with.

You keep saying evolution isn't a historical process , yet you keep contradicting yourself.

radiation is the cause of mutation within animals.

radiation can cause mutation, but it certainly isn't the only cause.

If you were to somehow over-radiate an animal , the offspring of the animal would come out deformed or different.
If you bred those ones that were deformed , then it would allow for higher biodiversity , because the amount of mutations that happened within the animal.

If a massive flood happened , it might affect the atmosphere that keeps us from dying of radiation , and might cause many mutations along animals.

These mutations would change , in what would have taken millions of years , to happen over a few 100 years or so.

what?

that's utter nonsense.

provide a source.

A global flood would cause many earthquakes and volcanos to erupt , that it could shift continents within mere hours.
And it might explain why we have a bunch of animals underground.

that's more complete nonsense. Source?

not to mention, we can pretty much be absolutely sure that a global flood never happened. In fact, it's completely impossible. There isn't enough water on the Earth to flood the entire planet or the entire planet would still be flooded. Where did the water come from? Where did it go? Why didn't a global flood leave any traces of its existence?