Were the Earth and animals, etc, created by random chance?

If you don't want humanistic ideas to "cloud your mind" then what the hell are you doing here? You've basically shut your mind to all "ungodly" concepts, which is exactly what you're accusing everyone else of doing. You are being willfully ignorant, but at least you admit it. You, my friend, are not considering the possibility of your ideas being wrong. Like I said earlier, I hate to accuse people of it, but you're openly admitting this, and you're not providing any arguments with substance.

Stop sighing. Nobody's forcing you to read this, and nobody's forcing you to reply. If you don't want to hear my preach, don't read my posts. If you choose to read our posts, don't act like it's a burden. We're trying to help you, and you're hiding behind as much pretense as you can come up with. You've tried to give evidence against evolution. That didn't work out. You've tried to give evidence for creationism. That didn't work out either. Now you've become terribly defensive. I did not try to persuade you, I just told you why I believe what I believe.

Sorry if I sound bitter, but I think you need to wake up, stop filling your mind with pretense, and consider that maybe, just maybe, you could be wrong. I'm doing it. Why aren't you?

I cannot conceive of the chance that I could be wrong, because I know I'm not, as I've said. If I were to believe that there could be a possibility that I could be wrong then I would not be believing "with all my heart and with all my soul and with all my might." I am incapable of believing in anything that is opposed to God's Word, because If I did, I would be a hypocrite, and I cannot afford to gamble with my eternal soul.

I read these post because I want to. I sigh because no one listens to me, not believing, but at least listening. Before you say that you are listening, and that I'm not etc, etc, wait and...well...listen! I have been trying to settle this for the past few hours, but no seems to notice. You've all had to have the last say and try to prove that I'm wrong, even though the debate has long been over. All I want is to just agree to disagree. I will never accept anything that goes against God's Word, but, at the same time, I don't expect you to accept anything that goes against the theory of evolution. I tried to debate it, but now I see that I just wasted my time.

I hope this can finally settle things. Whether or not it does I won't be replying anymore. I'm too tired of arguing about arguing. If I don't stop now, when will I?

Originally Posted by GDwarf

see, evolution has been proven scientifically, that's why scientists believe it.

Yep,and thats why Christians don't belive it.two,yeah science may have been proved,blah blah blah,I don't completely disagree to science,I just don't see how everything could be right in science.

Originally Posted by LinkZeldaGanon

I cannot conceive of the chance that I could be wrong, because I know I'm not, as I've said. If I were to believe that there could be a possibility that I could be wrong then I would not be believing "with all my heart and with all my soul and with all my might." I am incapable of believing in anything that is opposed to God's Word, because If I did, I would be a hypocrite, and I cannot afford to gamble with my eternal soul.

Where in the Bible does it say that Evolution is wrong? Where does it say that Genesis isn't symbolic?

Edit: We also should be able to come to an agreement, as this is an issue of fact, not opinion. Agreeing to Disagree just doesn't work.

Originally Posted by theGA/\/\Er

Yep,and that why Christians don't belive it.two,yeah science may have been proved,blah blah blah,I don't completely disagree to science,I just don't see how everything could be right in science.

What, exactly, does science say that you think can't be right? After all, it's all been verified in countless experiments.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

What, exactly, does science say that you think can't be right? After all, it's all been verified in countless experiments.

Well, I know,but what i'm trying to say is, nothng is perfect,not even science. If you give it a moment or so, you might come to a conclusion that how could anything be perfect? Think about it. Nothing is perfect,and that includes some of science.

Originally Posted by theGA/\/\Er

Well, I know,but what i'm trying to say is, nothng is perfect,not even science. If you give it a moment or so, you might come to a conclusion that how could anything be perfect? Think about it. Nothing is perfect,and that includes some of science.

Sure, science isn't perfect, it can take good ideas too long to get through the system, and getting rid of bad ones can occasionally take a while. However, it's by far the best thing we have and claiming that you just can't support it because of some imperfection that you don't define is silly.

Technically, isn't science perfect? The universe and everything in it has to work somehow. Science is the way we understand how things work. Sure, the way humans explain certain aspects of science is flawed, because we're not omniscient, but isn't science in itself a perfect explanation for everything that happens in the universe?

Originally Posted by Aerixeth

Technically, isn't science perfect? The universe and everything in it has to work somehow. Science is the way we understand how things work. Sure, the way humans explain certain aspects of science is flawed, because we're not omniscient, but isn't science in itself a perfect explanation for everything that happens in the universe?

Science is a way to find out how everything works. It's the best system yet proposed to do so, and I can't see any way to improve it. That doesn't mean it's perfect though. Let's say that it's the most perfect way of figuring out how the universe works that we know, and unless you know a better way doubting it is pointless.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Science is a way to find out how everything works. It's the best system yet proposed to do so, and I can't see any way to improve it. That doesn't mean it's perfect though. Let's say that it's the most perfect way of figuring out how the universe works that we know, and unless you know a better way doubting it is pointless.

Fair enough, but let's assume for a second that humans were imcapable of making an untrue assumption. Wouldn't the laws of science that we would abide by thus be perfect? Everything that happens has a cause, and has to follow some pattern. Bombs don't explode because people kill whales, after all.

Originally Posted by Aerixeth

Technically, isn't science perfect? The universe and everything in it has to work somehow. Science is the way we understand how things work. Sure, the way humans explain certain aspects of science is flawed, because we're not omniscient, but isn't science in itself a perfect explanation for everything that happens in the universe?

Science is just a method, and not a body of knowledge. Science may yield wrong results at first, but sooner or later, it will correct itself. One example being Newton's laws, which were perfectly scientific, but were reevaluated when we collected more data.

I belive God created the universe and life. And yeah, its true that animals and plants adapt to their environment, but that doesn't mean they completely transform into another species all together. One may argue that random mutations caused them to evolve. Give me proof. I've allways heard that mutations allways yeild a negative result, and never aids a creature adapt in any way. There has even been an experiment where some scientists purposefully mutated a bunch of flies, or something of the like, and they all turned out to be very sickly creatures. Not a one of them changed in a positive way. So then, how did EVERY form of life mutate with positive results when it has been scientifically proven that its not possible? And what about the living fossils, such as the horseshoe crabs, or turtles and crocadilians, or the celacanth (I think that's how its spelled. Its the ancient [suposedly] Fish-Reptile transition animal.) However, the celacanth was just fish. Pure and simple fish. No reptile at all. Anyway, if it was suposedly so many millions of years old, according to the theory of evolution, why hadn't they changed? They were identical to the "millions" of years old fossils. Please explain this. Oh yeah, and just where are the transitional organisms that connect all the other organisms togethere evolutionarily (if that's really a word)? How can one just asume that they are related without proper proof? Sure they may have similarities, but without trasitional organisms, one could argue that this is evidence that they were all created by the same Creator.

Anyway, enough evolution bashing. Now I will explain my evidence for the existance of a God.

The universe is far too orderly to be just some random massive expansion of a pinpoint size blob of plasma. Yes, one could argue that the universe is very chaotic, but that's just a matter of opinion, similar to seeing the glass as halfway empty-full. Also, according to the big bang theory, stars couldn't have formed, or something like that, forgot the actual theory.

I'm running out of time. Anywho, here are a few interesting links:

Problems with Big Bang Theory
17 Evidences Against Evolution
Top Evidences Against Evolution
More Evidence Against Evolution
Physical Proof of Creationism (very interesting)
Creationism Site
Creationism Article

Originally Posted by Yottabyte

And yeah, its true that animals and plants adapt to their environment, but that doesn't mean they completely transform into another species all together.

You make it sound like they transformed over night. Evolution takes millions of years and is still progressing. There's no end to an evolution. Even now, humans are much, much taller than their ancestors centuries ago.

One may argue that random mutations caused them to evolve.

It's not just random mutations. It's the environmental adaptation that gives organisms the ability to evolve and adapt. The Continental Drift theory is also one of the many sub-theories out there that support this idea. Take some Geography classes and some Biology classes and see for yourself.

Give me proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evo....htm/printable
http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309063647/html/55.html

Enjoy.

I've allways heard that mutations allways yeild a negative result, and never aids a creature adapt in any way.

You "heard". It's not "I learned". Therefore, this proves nothing.

There has even been an experiment where some scientists purposefully mutated a bunch of flies, or something of the like, and they all turned out to be very sickly creatures. Not a one of them changed in a positive way.

Artificial gene manipulation usually cannot be controlled nicely. In addition, how do you know that the scientists didn't purposefully made these flies into sickly creatures so that they would know which gene they should change and which gene they shouldn't change?

So then, how did EVERY form of life mutate with positive results when it has been scientifically proven that its not possible?

It's not scientifically proven. What you said above was an experiment with gene pools/DNA to see what were the effects generated from gene manipulations and not as an experiment to "prove" that it isn't possible.

And what about the living fossils, such as the horseshoe crabs, or turtles and crocadilians, or the celacanth (I think that's how its spelled. Its the ancient [suposedly] Fish-Reptile transition animal.) However, the celacanth was just fish. Pure and simple fish. No reptile at all. Anyway, if it was suposedly so many millions of years old, according to the theory of evolution, why hadn't they changed?

According to the theory of adaptation within the evolution, if a species can survive nicely in their own little environment then they can survive. Why should they change in any way when they are living nicely as of now?

Oh yeah, and just where are the transitional organisms that connect all the other organisms togethere evolutionarily (if that's really a word)? How can one just asume that they are related without proper proof?

First, most organisms such as, birds, have similar embryos to each other, including humans' embryos. Second, through DNA inspections, one can compare the smiliarities between one species to another.

Smiliarities are what tie species together however "random" they may seem to be.

I'm running out of time. Anywho, here are a few interesting links:

Problems with Big Bang Theory
17 Evidences Against Evolution
Top Evidences Against Evolution
More Evidence Against Evolution
Physical Proof of Creationism (very interesting)
Creationism Site
Creationism Article

Half of those are already biased enough, just like LinkZeldaGanon's source. The other half is from free web servers. Really, do you really trust a site that is hosted on a free server with ads and stuff like that?

Originally Posted by Yottabyte

I belive God created the universe and life. And yeah, its true that animals and plants adapt to their environment, but that doesn't mean they completely transform into another species all together.

Why not? Why is there this artificial barrier between species?

One may argue that random mutations caused them to evolve. Give me proof. I've allways heard that mutations allways yeild a negative result, and never aids a creature adapt in any way.

Then I'd get a new biology teacher. You're thinking of mutations as in two heads, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a change that lengthens a bone by a few millimeters, or that causes a few hundred more hairs to grow, not anything drastic like an elephant suddenly growing wings and a beak. Heck, do you know why you don't look like a perfect version of both your parents combined? Random mutations.

There has even been an experiment where some scientists purposefully mutated a bunch of flies, or something of the like, and they all turned out to be very sickly creatures. Not a one of them changed in a positive way.

Source?

So then, how did EVERY form of life mutate with positive results when it has been scientifically proven that its not possible?

There are many misconceptions here, let me see if I can cut through most of them.
First off, not every mutation is positive, by nature most are negative. However, what you see are the positive ones because they survived.
Secondly, science is perfectly fine with positive mutations existing, why wouldn't they?

And what about the living fossils, such as the horseshoe crabs, or turtles and crocadilians, or the celacanth (I think that's how its spelled. Its the ancient [suposedly] Fish-Reptile transition animal.) However, the celacanth was just fish. Pure and simple fish. No reptile at all. Anyway, if it was suposedly so many millions of years old, according to the theory of evolution, why hadn't they changed? They were identical to the "millions" of years old fossils. Please explain this.

Sure, first off, all of them have changed, albeit not very much. Why? Because they were suited to their environment so well that no random change would provide enough benefit to spread throughout the entire population. That's accounted for in the theory of evolution.

Oh yeah, and just where are the transitional organisms that connect all the other organisms togethere evolutionarily (if that's really a word)? How can one just asume that they are related without proper proof?

Every fossil is a transition fossil. How many more do you want?

Sure they may have similarities, but without transitional organisms, one could argue that this is evidence that they were all created by the same Creator.

Who, just for the fun of it, killed them off? In fact, he seems to have, also just for the fun of it, only made simple organisms billions of years ago and then had them gradually increase in complexity over time.

The universe is far too orderly to be just some random massive expansion of a pinpoint size blob of plasma. Yes, one could argue that the universe is very chaotic, but that's just a matter of opinion, similar to seeing the glass as halfway empty-full. Also, according to the big bang theory, stars couldn't have formed, or something like that, forgot the actual theory.

I typed out most all of the theory earlier in this thread, read it and then claim that stars couldn't have formed. As for the universe being orderly, once again the anthropocentric principle applies. What that essentially means is that the universe would always appear orderly so long as we existed, as we couldn't exist in a universe that wasn't. In essence it isn't proof of anything.

Problems with Big Bang Theory

First off, I won't have the time to go through and point out all of the errors in all of these, so just because I don't say something is wrong doesn't mean it's right.
Anywho, for this one all I can say is: He doesn't have any idea what he's talking about, and he doesn't want you to either.
Edit: OK, so they're claiming that the universe isn't expanding. That would mean that it has to be contracting, a state of equilibrium is essentially impossible. In that case everything would be blue shifted.

As for the age of the universe, the best estimates place it's age at 13.7 billion years or so. They also assume that all measurements are incapable of being inaccurate, many measurements of the age of various celestial objects can be off by a few %, which more then accounts for the problems they claim to have found.

17 Evidences Against Evolution

*sigh* these arguments again.
1. Moon dust is not proof that the Earth is young because:
-The Moon is a smaller target then the Earth, both in size and gravity, this means that far fewer meteors will hit it.
-The reason that so much dust piles up on the Earth is because the meteors burn up in the atmosphere, since the moon has no atmosphere the meteors don't burn up, as such the only dust on the moon is the stuff kicked up when a meteor hits.
-When a meteor does hit and kicks up dust, most of it is thrown out into space because of the moon's weak gravity.

2. The Earth's magnetic field has decayed and returned many, many times. We have evidence of this in magnetic rocks that 'point' the wrong way. This is not proof that the Earth is young.

3. Every single fossil ever found is a transitional one.

4. No one in the past 60 years has tried to use that as evidence for evolution.

5. If evolution was entirely random they'd be right, but it isn't so they're wrong.

6. That only applies to closed systems, which the Earth isn't.

7. The appendix doesn't fight disease. Also, unless they can show that the appendix isn't vestigial then this point is meaningless.

8. Noah's flood doesn't fit anywhere near all the evidence. Look at our previous thread on that topic to see why.

9. Punctuated Equilibrium is not in doubt. They also give it too much power. When it's claimed that new species appear rapidly, what is meant is over a couple thousand years, not in a couple of days. They also change gradually, allowing them to still reproduce with the old species.

10. It's nice how they ignore skeletal structure and the formation of organs, isn't it? They keep setting up straw men.

11. Carbon-14 dating doesn't work on living creatures, so it's no surprise that it didn't work on a living mollusk. I'd also love to see their sources and what kinds of dating were so far off, after all, they're probably not still used.

12. Many different independent dating methods place dinosaurs as dead long before humans appeared. I also find it funny that they claim that dinosaurs are still alive, you'd think we might've spotted one in the few thousands years we've had the ability to write.

13. They don't provide a source for this. Even if it was, is this shrinking linear or exponential?

14. ...Once again, no source, no evidence, nothing, just a statement.

15. Once again, no source, but even if it was true the time it would take the Earth to make one rotation would only be 90 seconds longer 4.5 billion years ago. (Edit: sorry, that's wrong, that's if the Earth is a few million years old. For Billions they'd have us believe that the orbit would've had to take -1 hours.) Anyways, once again, even if this does exist, linear or exponential?

Oh, and an interesting fact: The Washington monument is sinking at a rate of, I believe, 5 inches per year. This would lead us to conclude that 6 000 years ago (When the creationists claim the Earth was formed) it was... 30 000 inches above the Earth! This quite clearly proves them wrong! Naturally that's nonsense, because the Washington monument (memorial, maybe?) wasn't around 6 000 years ago, so it couldn't have been sinking at all. At the same time that is essentially the argument they're using. They take one datapoint, don't provide a source, and then extrapolate it back further then it has meaning.

16. Just as all ancient ideas of the Earth had it flat and with the sun orbiting it.

17. The Bible is hardly good scientific evidence.

Top Evidences Against Evolution

1. Once again, every fossil is a transitional 'link'.

2. This is patently false.

3. Not at all, you'll find exactly 0 scientists who have any issue with these.

4. I dunno, finding half a skeleton sounds pretty convincing to me (Lucy, a skeleton of a potential human ancestor.)

5. Since they're related to both, how would you tell?

6. First off, there are more then 12. Secondly, if there are extinct human species, does that not mean that evolution is correct?

7. This point has nothing to do with whether or not it is right, though.

8. No it doesn't. The species that is better adapted to where it lives will survive longer. Where, exactly, is the logical problem with that?

9. They are not, go read that earlier thread on the flood for more info.

More Evidence Against Evolution

1. The 'Cambrian explosion' is not a huge problem, since it is not unusual to go for hundreds of thousands of years without fossils. Besides, new discoveries keep placing new animals appearing before this time.

2. I know nothing about this, so I'll leave it to MH

3. Feathers are far from complex. They are essentially outgrown scales.

4. Not at all, the history of flight is still being debated, but there are only two possible paths.

5. What is this barrier? No, unless you put those new breeds under selection pressure for a few million years you won't get new species, but evolution explains that. It seems they haven't read the theory.

6. Covered this already

7. The atmosphere at the time was non-oxygen. There are also many ways of producing amino acids, lightning is not the only one, UV light will also do the same thing.

8. They were used as proof of natural selection, not evolution as a whole. I love how they can bash natural selection and then point to an example of it occurring.

9. I'm fairly certain they did leave transitional forms. But if they didn't then the obvious conclusion would be that it didn't take them hundreds of thousands of years, which is not unheard of. (The eye, which is supposedly 'irreducibley complex' could've evolved in a mere 50 000 years.)

10. Something very similar to it, the further back you go the less similar they are.

11. Since the radiation levels come from the sun it's fairly safe to assume that they're the same.
If the half-life of elements wasn't constant then all physics and chemistry conducted since 1950 is completely and totally wrong, despite it giving us all sorts of nice things.
The third requirement is only true for some forms of dating.
The rest of that I've already covered. That's all the time/patience I have for now, next time please actually post, yourself, in your own words these arguments, because I could, if I wanted to, simply link you to other websites. But that isn't a debate, that's seeing who knows the best websites.

Anyways, I hope you can see that the creationists who make these websites are more then willing to lie or twist the facts in order to convince you that they are 'right', take everything they say with a few dozen grains of salt. Seriously, did it never occur to you to question why every biologist alive, including the Christian ones (which most of them are) have no problem with evolution, yet some person who never finished high school can find so many problems with it? That's because they aren't problems.

Personally, I think it was created by God, and that some of the biblical explanations are right as well as some of the scientific explanations.

There is no way that one can prove that God exists, or to disprove that God exists. Even if a person says that he disproves God, that can not be trusted, because if God did exist, he would make it so that it would be impossible to disprove Him, making that guy wrong, even though he said he was right, meaning that it would be impossible, and, whoa, I'm getting confused.

Anyway, if God cannot be proven or disproven, people to go with either choice, I guess.

Originally Posted by Andross

Personally, I think it was created by God, and that some of the biblical explanations are right as well as some of the scientific explanations.

There is no way that one can prove that God exists, or to disprove that God exists.

Just as one cannot prove or disprove that I have an invisible elf in my backyard, or that I'm 90 020 years old, or that you're really a piece of paper. So why not believe those?

Even if a person says that he disproves God, that can not be trusted, because if God did exist, he would make it so that it would be impossible to disprove Him, making that guy wrong, even though he said he was right, meaning that it would be impossible, and, whoa, I'm getting confused.

No, that doesn't work. You're starting with the assumption that God is real and proceeding from there, you'll note that if God isn't real then you can trust that person.

Originally Posted by Andross

Personally, I think it was created by God, and that some of the biblical explanations are right as well as some of the scientific explanations.

There is no way that one can prove that God exists, or to disprove that God exists.

Therefore, science experiments and facts are being accepted more than just spiritual beliefs because the evidences are right there in front of your eyes. To ignore this reality is just not going to persuade anybody.

ust as one cannot prove or disprove that I have an invisible elf in my backyard, or that I'm 90 020 years old, or that you're really a piece of paper. So why not believe those?

Invisible elf: Have we as humans had any previous experiences with invisible elves, that we know of? Any pictures? Any descriptions? Would the description match what we know that animals/humans/physical beings are capable of doing/being? Would believing in an invisible elf be pure and total blind faith?

90,020 years: Unless you can explain how you were able to live that long and show us good evidence of your existence, then would I really have a reason to believe you?

Piece of paper: I'm not a piece of paper. I know what one is, and what defines it does not define me.

That's why I don't believe those.

We have better evidence for God, or a creator/designer, than we do for invisible elves, and you know it. This is quite a stretch of an analagous relationship.

I can't get myself believe in an allmighty God...
It was the Big Bang that created everything, not God.

I don't know that much about the Big Bang and such things (that I may have proved in the thread 'The universe and earth' in the Temple of Knowledge some time ago...), but I don't belive in God creating it all...

Bah, these discussions really aren't good for me. anyway...

Originally Posted by D3PyroGS

We have better evidence for God, or a creator/designer, than we do for invisible elves, and you know it. This is quite a stretch of an analagous relationship.

No. There is no evidence whatsoever for the existance of a God (nor against it, for the record, but then again, the same can be said of the invisible elves). If there is evidence for the existance of a God, then show it, and if it does prove that there is a God, then you win.

And the whole "the Universe and/or Earth is really complicated and couldn't have sprung up from random chance" argument doesn't prove that God exist. Even if it was created by a higher power, there's no proof that that higher power is God.


And on the topic of the aforementioned argument, I see no reason why something couldn't have formed on its own, just because it's complex. I mean, look at ice crystals. One might say they have a complex structure. Does that mean some kind of creator/designer/other entity created them? Off course not. I don't see why it should be any different for complex ecosystems or cell structures.

And as for it being amazingly unlikely for the Earth and all the life on it being formed "by random chance", yes, I would agree that the probability for a planet to hold complex life forms like Earth is amazingly small. But there's an imense amount of planets on which it could happen. It's like buying a lottery ticket every day: the chances of winning are immensly small, but if you just buy one every day, you're bound to win eventually. It's the same with the Earth and the life on it: it was bound to happen eventually.



In closing, I'd like to adress one popular argument against evolution: that life can't form on itself and that therefore, there has to be a Creator that created it. I ask this to all those who support this argument: Where did the Creator come from? Please tell me that.

Originally Posted by rand

I can't get myself believe in an allmighty God...
It was the Big Bang that created everything, not God.

To my knowledge,I just don't think that all the nothingness in the universe could have just compressed itself,and bam,presto,mass,energy,light,ect. was created,but by nothing? I just don't see how that could be possible,how could nothing make something.Thats like saying,ok,I'am going to make a building,with nothing. How stupid is that.

Of corse,there is more bigbang theiories,but I just don't see the bigbang happening.