Debate: Creationism Vs Evolution

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-10-01 06:20pm

Australopithicus wrote: A house doesn't build itself. It is built by an intelligent, capable, skilled being. Without the being to design it, how would the idea come into existence? How would it be carried out? And this is just a house. Think of the universe as a house filled with trillions of pieces of furniture. They didn't build themselves. A carpenter made them with hi skills as a carpenter. There would be no other way.

First of all, this essentially has no bearing on evolution. Second, there's the obvious counter-example of: coral reefs do not build themselves, but coral polyps are not intelligent. That also has no real bearing on the debate. Third, experiments have shown that many amino-acids and even RNA strands can be created from inorganic materials. This has been observed, and while not life per se, these do indicate that at least the prerequisites for life can be created through natural processes. Fourth, you are essentially saying that nothing can create itself. Okay, evolution does not require spontaneous generation. And besides, what created God?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-01 06:32pm

Sorry about not replying, Olrik. I've been busy at High school and doing HWK. I had thought to leave this for 5 years, upon which time I would be 20, but I thought 'What the hell', so I'm replying anyway.

Well, I don't want to be abusive, but you're really to ignorant to debate me sucessfully in anything related to science. Go to a good college first, and learn. Then, if you still hold your some of views (which I greatly doubt) then at least you'll know well why they are refuted.

As all DNA is different between humans, I would like to ask how different your DNA is from your mothers' or fathers' DNA. 0.0000001% or something? (I don't really know, I'm just making a point).

The similarities between each human DNA is about 99.9 % Much less than the number you used in your "point"

As chimps and Humans are supposed to be branches of the same common ancestor (Is it still Australopithecus? I don't know)

No, again you've got that wrong. Australopithecus are the earliest known hominids. Unlike all the other primates they were bipede. There were several species of Australopithecus, like the gracile and the robustus, which coexisted. Only one of them is part of our branch.
Chimps are part of another branch of primates.

then you're suggesting that Humans got progressively smarter as they went down the evolutionary line. More specifically, the genetic differences from each generation got progressively smarter/stronger/better overall.So I put this to you. If you are a descendant of your father, and the Human race is still evolving (and if it isn't then my, isn't that convenient?)

IT IS NOT!! You do not begin to grasp the concepte of evolution. Evolution only happens in response to changes. If the species is confortable, then there is no evolutionary pressure, because the possible mutations do not bring survival/reproductive advantages. And the Human species is one of the most well adapted species in the world.

then you must be suggesting that you are a minutely evolved form of your fathers' generation. This would mean that you would be minutely better at everything, would it not? Then I would ask you - was this always so? I mean, at 6 months old, you could barely (if at all) speak, let alone know as much as your father did. And even now, I'm willing to bet that your dad knows some things in areas that you don't. Therefore, if evolution is to be taken as a principle, then you must have been born with more of a capacity for knowledge and greater feats than your ancestral generations ever were. But I put it to you that I see no greater show of relative intelligence between you and those people of 500 years ago than those of so called ancient times. Therefore, relatively, we are not getting any more intelligent or anything like that. And neither are our monkey cousins.

Wrong. See above. Besides, changes only happen due to mutations, not continuously. Those mutations are extremelly rare and most of them are bad. That's why Evolution takes place in a scale of millions of years.

As things are discovered, then people and sciences change. For instance, scientists of the early 1400's postulated a theory that the Earth was flat. It was not until the turn of the 16th century that they believed in a round Earth. As such, science is always subject to theory and conjecture, along with facts.

Wrong again. The ancient greeks already knew the Earth was round. There are some simple experiences which proof beyond a doubt that the Earth is round. There were no facts to support the flat earth theory, besides the Bible. And there are irrefutable facts that do comprove Evolution. That is why Evolution is considered to be both a theory and a fact. Would you believe if somebody told you the Earth is flat, even while being shown actual photos of the Earth from space? That is called evidence.

To you, there are more facts supporting evolution than creation, and to me, it's the other way around.

You fail to provide a single fact supporting creation, and cannot refute mine supporting evolution

That does not change our mutual situation, or relative intelligence, and this would therefore see that evolution cannot be correct to me because it postulaes a theory of developing intelligence without any relative aspects. The only differences between us and those of 1000 years ago are that we have tech, equipment, and money to do such things. We are also backed by centuries of discovery on the part of our ancestors. If we had not discovered these things, I submit that even if evolution is true, then we would be no more intelligent than Australopithecus or Piltdown man or nutcracker man or any of the other neanderthals that have supposedly existed before. We would still be in the same form and with the same cranial capacities, but our intellect would not have changed. Therefore, evolution cannot be correct.[/i]

Wrong again. Homo sapiens sapiens is a species of the Australopithecus branch. Our brains volume is much higher, so we're undoubtely smarter.
You do not understand how evolution works. It is not a magic growing towards perfection, but composed of random mutations which are benefic in therms of survival/reproduction.

If you want to concede, then we'll stop the debate now. If not, then study more, because I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-01 06:33pm

HEY, people!!!

This was my debate!!!!

You bastards!!!!!

Edit: Can't breath.. Lord Wong, I apologize.. do not.. ban me..

*Falls*

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-01 06:36pm

Sorry, but you're wasting your time, Colonel. This guy is a compendium of all the dumbest creationist arguments in history. All the same cliches, all the same tired old strawman distortions of evolution theory, all the same "watchmaker" and "intelligent design" bullshit ... creationism is the single finest example in the world of the Darkstar debating technique. You can demolish their points a hundred times, and they'll just throw them back at you a hundred more times.

They've proven their strawman version of evolution theory wrong countless times, in every conceivable way. Too bad they can't put a dent in the real thing.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-10-01 06:38pm

is he gone?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-01 06:39pm

Yes, I agree. But he's only 15. There is still hope. Maybe he'll learn better in college

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-10-01 06:50pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:Yes, I agree. But he's only 15. There is still hope. Maybe he'll learn better in college

Are you refering to his age or his IQ?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-01 06:53pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
Colonel Olrik wrote:Yes, I agree. But he's only 15. There is still hope. Maybe he'll learn better in college
Are you refering to his age or his IQ?

Well, to his age. He claimed to be 15 in the beggining of the last thread.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-01 06:55pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:
Wicked Pilot wrote:Are you refering to his age or his IQ?
Well, to his age. He claimed to be 15 in the beggining of the last thread.

And he's already so arrogant that he figures he can contradict the entire scientific community thanks to the knowledge he picked up by surfing creationist websites.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-10-01 06:58pm

Darth Wong wrote:And he's already so arrogant that he figures he can contradict the entire scientific community thanks to the knowledge he picked up by surfing creationist websites.

Is that good enough to get him a "Village Idiot" title, or is the "Fundie Moron" one more appropiate?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-01 07:00pm

Darth Wong wrote: And he's already so arrogant that he figures he can contradict the entire scientific community thanks to the knowledge he picked up by surfing creationist websites.

And to top that, claiming to be a good debator. He must do a good impression upon his friends/family. But he didnt' realize he can't argue science with people who actually know a lot more than him.

I'm betting in parental indoctrination, though.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-10-01 07:20pm

Pretty sad. He can't get Joules and Watts right, he's a creationist moron, and one of those annoying JWs. Not as bad as a WCOTC member mind you, but still bad.

Perhaps, just like bed wetting, he will eventually grow out of this.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-01 09:08pm

He's young give him time......
Ok long enough resume the attack

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-10-01 09:12pm

All I can say is that the Shit list is gonna swell this week.

Solid Snake · Post by **Solid Snake** » 2002-10-02 12:17pm

Hmmmm. I am 16, and i have much to learn. I actually studied science, instead of reading sites that say: "God created you and loves you! Even though we have no proof that God exists, and that the God of the Bible is actually evil, pay no mind! God loves you!" I learned a lot from SD.net. I love this damn site. I've learned so much since then!

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-02 01:12pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Colonel Olrik wrote:
Wicked Pilot wrote:Are you refering to his age or his IQ?
Well, to his age. He claimed to be 15 in the beggining of the last thread.
And he's already so arrogant that he figures he can contradict the entire scientific community thanks to the knowledge he picked up by surfing creationist websites.

Hmph. Creationist websites, eh? Maybe I should try that.

No, I have held back the lions' share (And it's a damned big lion - 300 pages of it, infact) of the information that I hold to deny biogenesis, the big bang AND evolution all in one. You just don't want to hear it, or so I believe, and so I have not told you. Cap that with the fact that I can't be bothered to write 300 pages, and the fact that I am the only one on my side, and there you have it.

Oh, and a note for you all - scientists with high IQ's (yes, higher than yours, Wong, you blowhard) have dismissed Australopithecus as a totally simian life form, showing no discernable similarities with Humans whatsoever. Especially in its' skull.

And I should tell you all that to be arrogant, you have to be overconfident first. I am not, and you all are. It will be your undoing...MWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-10-02 01:15pm

Australopithicus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Colonel Olrik wrote: Well, to his age. He claimed to be 15 in the beggining of the last thread.
And he's already so arrogant that he figures he can contradict the entire scientific community thanks to the knowledge he picked up by surfing creationist websites.
Hmph. Creationist websites, eh? Maybe I should try that.

No, I have held back the lions' share (And it's a damned big lion - 300 pages of it, infact) of the information that I hold to deny biogenesis, the big bang AND evolution all in one. You just don't want to hear it, or so I believe, and so I have not told you. Cap that with the fact that I can't be bothered to write 300 pages, and the fact that I am the only one on my side, and there you have it.

Oh, and a note for you all - scientists with high IQ's (yes, higher than yours, Wong, you blowhard) have dismissed Australopithecus as a totally simian life form, showing no discernable similarities with Humans whatsoever. Especially in its' skull.

And I should tell you all that to be arrogant, you have to be overconfident first. I am not, and you all are. It will be your undoing...MWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Stop smoking crack. Wait, thats flaming isn't it? Oh, well

Newtonian Fury · Post by **Newtonian Fury** » 2002-10-02 01:21pm

Australopithicus wrote:No, I have held back the lions' share (And it's a damned big lion - 300 pages of it, infact) of the information that I hold to deny biogenesis, the big bang AND evolution all in one.

Bring it on. We'll tear that apart too.

Australopithicus wrote:Oh, and a note for you all - scientists with high IQ's (yes, higher than yours, Wong, you blowhard) have dismissed Australopithecus as a totally simian life form, showing no discernable similarities with Humans whatsoever. Especially in its' skull.

In science, credibility is not given to scientists depending on their IQ. It's given depending on evidence and support after it has been rigorously reviewed and tested. Just because a famous scientist or two don't believe it doesn't mean it's automatically false. Science is not religion. We don't have pedophile priests or a Vatican as superiors.

Australopithicus wrote: And I should tell you all that to be arrogant, you have to be overconfident first. I am not, and you all are. It will be your undoing...MWAHAHAHAHA!!!

There is nothing wrong with arrogance as long as we're right. We're right, you're not. We're justified, you're not. Go fuck off.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2002-10-02 01:49pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:This thread is in reponse to a challenge I issued to Australopithicus, and that he accepted

He claims Creationism is more valid than Evolution

I claim Creationism is simply not valid, and that Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

Australopithicus wrote:Fine, I'll start us off...

Australopithicus wrote: This guy can't have been a particularly good debator. I can give you a better debate than that, and I'm only 15. So lay it on me.

Australopithicus wrote:Cap that with the fact that I can't be bothered to write 300 pages, and the fact that I am the only one on my side, and there you have it.

->Australopithicus

You have initiated one debate on JW.
You have also accepted a debate challenge on Creationism.
You claimed to be a better debator than Wong.
Now you claim that you cannot be bothered to make arguments to win any of those debates?
Please...

If you are so sure about your source that will

Australopithicus wrote:deny biogenesis, the big bang AND evolution all in one

then please do us a favor:
Post the Author and Title.
It is my opinion that you will not do this because I believe that you don't have such a source.

Newtonian Fury wrote:There is nothing wrong with arrogance as long as we're right. We're right, you're not. We're justified, you're not. Go fuck off.

->Newt
I'm sorry to say that I can buy arrogance from people like Wong who has put a lot of effort to state what he believes and why he believes what he does. But to be frank, arrogance from someone who so far in the debate hasn't provided one bit of meaningful insight says more about you then it does about your "opponent".

Or maybe it's your usual tactic to stand on the side of fights and then when it's all over you sneak up and kick on the looser?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-02 01:52pm

Australopithicus, go to http://www.talkorigins.org/ now.

You must be educated in the subject you are debating before you start spewing your shit.

Newtonian Fury · Post by **Newtonian Fury** » 2002-10-02 01:52pm

That was not my intent at all. I was merely pointing it out. I only have access to computers in 1 hour intervals, and sometimes I have to multitask a couple monitors. I'll definitely put stuff in when I see them pop up.

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-02 02:39pm

You claimed to be a better debator than Wong.

If you have glasses, then you should send them back. But in case you are still having trouble reading my posts, then I'll make it easier for you:

I SAID I'M BETTER THAN THE JW WHO ARGUED WITH WONG IS, I NEVER SAID I WAS BETTER THAN WONG BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.

There, can you read THAT?

Post the Author and Title.
It is my opinion that you will not do this because I believe that you don't have such a source.

Do you now? Well here's your goddamn author and title:

AUTHOR: WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY. TITLE: 'LIFE - HOW DID IT GET HERE? BY EVOLUTION OR CREATION?'

Still don't believe me? There's 254 pages of intensely researched information coming from hundreds of sources from respected scientists to famous newspaper bulletins FROM ALL ACROSS THE GLOBE. Ask some JW's for it if they call round again. You won't be disappointed. I GUARANTEE IT.

Seeing as I won't give you the arguments, and you won't accept them anyway bcause my age has become a factor in your arrogance, then this thread might as well be closed. It's degenerated into a trollfest/flamefest/anythingderogatorypointedatamemberofSDNetfest.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2002-10-02 03:05pm

->Australopithicus
I apologize for my mistake, reading the posts again I can see that you wasn't refering to wong but the JW at the door.
My mistake. I'm sorry.

I do not factor in your age. Trust me.

I agree with the flamefest and totally understand if you have no wish for further debate.

Though if you still like to give it a go, just tell me and I will review your source and continue the debate from that point of view.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2002-10-02 03:08pm

Newtonian Fury wrote:We're right, you're not. We're justified, you're not. Go fuck off.

Newtonian Fury wrote:That was not my intent at all.

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-02 03:12pm

Spoonist wrote:->Australopithicus
I apologize for my mistake, reading the posts again I can see that you wasn't refering to wong but the JW at the door.
My mistake. I'm sorry.

I do not factor in your age. Trust me.

I agree with the flamefest and totally understand if you have no wish for further debate.

Though if you still like to give it a go, just tell me and I will review your source and continue the debate from that point of view.

Thank you.
I generally don't like flaming and trolling, because I feel that the point should be put across before the insults start flying. Unfortunately, some people don't share this view, taking up an 'insult first and wonder whether he had a point or not later'. I see that you are not necessarily one of those people, as far as my information takes me, and for that, I am grateful.

Although you don't have to, I really think that your reading of the source should at least give you a point or two that I couldn't give. Please do read it. It is a very good book, and asks some thought - provoking questions.