Login/Join

Darwin v. Jesus

Discussion
Oct 27, 2010
by: GSoukup

Warning: This can be a sensitive topic, so please read with an open mind and keep any immaturity on the last web page you were on.

 

The age old fight between Creation and Evolution, Darwin v. Jesus and all that good stuff. The fight between these two has been going on ever since people started thinking outside the box and wanted to know if there was anything more. I personally think that neither side is concrete or in other words, sound but both do have potential. The value of each argument though, is the kicker to the winner. Both sides have good arguments that appeal to a person directly, but the arguments may not make sense logically. But I will get into that later. Logic needs to be taken into account because LOGIC IS KING!

 

An article that I found on a blog was picking apart a Newspaper article that was the “Five Best Arguments for Creationism” Tut, Tut, Tut. How much fun shall this be?

 

So here an argument quote that was present. “No evidence for evolution: There is no evidence that evolution has occurred because no transitional forms exist in fossils i.e. scientists cannot prove with fossils that fish evolved into amphibians or that amphibians evolved into reptiles, or that reptiles evolved into birds and mammals. Perhaps because of this a surprising number of contemporary scientists support the Creation theory.” WOAH BUDDY!!! There is no proof? Well let us see. Charles Darwin, an author from 1859 researched for years in the Galapagos Islands off the coast of Equator. Darwin found out that in different places on these islands, the same species had different traits. For example, a finch and its beak characteristics. One finch on one island may have a short fat beak for eating seeds and other hard shelled items. Another finch has a long thin beak for eating bugs and other small animals. So as we see, by NATURAL SELECTION, evolution of animals is very prevalent and very true. One down.

 

 Another well thought out and very serious argument that Creationists is as follows. “Compound Eye: The eye that enables some organisms to see in the dark is so complex that no proven theories for its evolutionary development have yet been put forth. As the Creation Wiki puts it, the Compound Eye "has all of the hallmarks of intelligent design and defies attempts to explain it through natural mechanisms". Yet again, a lovely plot of how evolution is prevalent in the world. See the paragraph above for a simple argument refuting it.

 

Third argument =D. “Allegory: The Bible uses allegory to explain the creation of the earth. It is a story, so employs figures of speech and other literary devices to tell the story of how God created man e.g. Genesis "days" could also be read as "ages". Alright, so in philosophy there are things called fallacies. In simple terms, a fallacy is an “incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor or take advantage of social relationships between people” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia 10/27/10. So for this Creation argument, the defender of Creation is using something called Begging the Question. That means that the person is using an object that needs explaining, to explain something else. Conceder the following as an easier example; John is a psychic. He read my mind! Now the definition of a psychic is someone who can read your mind. So the statement is basically saying, John read my mind because he read my mind. That doesn’t make sense does it? Same thing with God, God is real because the bible says so, and the bible is written by God. So this argument is irrelevant just because there is no proving of anything in this scenario.

 

 The fourth argument. History is too short:

  • Creationists argue that if the world is as old as evolution claims it is there would be
  • Billions more stone age skeletons than have been found
  • Many more historical records like cave paintings than have been found
  • A lot more sodium chloride in the sea
  • A lot more sea-floor sediment

 

Really? All of these bullet points can be explained by the same thing; the natural movements of the Earth and its happenings. First one, fossils and preserved bodies can only form in sedimentary rocks. The other types would destroy the bones. So no every single body will be preserved in the sedimentary tocks, and therefore destroyed. Second, caves can cave in. Duh, it’s in the name. Haha. The third one, because I am not a geologist or have much knowledge about it, I will skip the third point. The fourth will also be sketchy. Basically, erosion and tide movement will sift the sediment.

 

And the final point; “Why?: For what purpose is all of this? Evolutionists have never offered a satisfactory explanation.” In philosophy, this is called an Appeal to Ignorance, this is another fallacy that is wrong because it is insufficient. Just because something seems far off does not mean it is. For instance, it has ALWAYS been possible to ship someone to the moon in a rocket. 1000 years ago, it was still possible but we couldn’t do it. It was still possible though. Another great example is the concept of carrying a whole library in your pocket and have it not get in the way, a smart phone was made. So just because something has not been proven doesn’t mean it cannot happen. So that argument is lacking many aspects of validity and needs help.

 

So there we go. 5 common Creationism theories that have been proven wrong. Tada.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/6163313/Creation-film-sparks-evolution-arguments.html That link above is the original copy, But what I quoted from came from the web page, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/the_five_best_arguments_for_c...

Comments

There haven’t been

Submitted by XLiu on Sat, 2010-11-20 22:27.

There haven’t been titles that attract me attention as much as your post “Darwin v. Jesus” has. I recall what I have learned from history class that Darwin was the man who proposed the evolution theory. I remember that traditional religious people from his time were very against his idea because according to them humans was “created” a different way. I remember Darwin was drag into a trial the “Scorpion Trial” I believe that’s what it was call, but I’ve really never know much about the religious sides argument and Darwin’s argument.  

I agree with the part which you wrote: “Same thing with God, God is real because the bible says so, and the bible is written by God. So this argument is irrelevant just because there is no proving of anything in this scenario.”  People have try to convince me into whatever they believe, I’ll  tell them to prove to me whatever them believe in, because I’ll only believe something if I see it with my own eyes. I always notice that religion and science are opposite of one another, religions have no proof, but science does. And I only believe in reasoning.

The few sentences below from you text provided more reason for me to believe in than the explanations given by the bible:

“For example, a finch and its beak characteristics. One finch on one island may have a short fat beak for eating seeds and other hard shelled items. Another finch has a long thin beak for eating bugs and other small animals. So as we see, by NATURAL SELECTION, evolution of animals is very prevalent and very true.”

I believe in reasons and evidence. Evidences are the only thing I trust because words could lies, but evidence can’t. Darwin was able to prove his claim with evidence while the religious books can’t, there I believe in what Darwin stands for, science.

I’ve recently “borrowed” a book from my cousin, it’s call “When Science Meets Religion” by Ian G. Barbour. I recommend you read the book, it’s about the different types of relationships between science and religion, it might be a bit hard but you’ll enjoy the thinking part after you read.

 

I'm on Darwin's side

Submitted by garciahennessymarie on Fri, 2014-02-28 21:33.

Dear Grey:

I am impressed and a little outraged by your post, "Darwin Vs. Jesus," because I agree and disagree with you. Evolution versus God is such a contentious subject. Creationists and many God believers believe that human life and Earth was created by the Lord, while atheists and some scientists believed that human life and Earth came from a process that started from the Big Bang.

One sentence you wrote that stands out for me is: "Allegory: The Bible uses allegory to explain the creation of the earth." I think this is spot on because I agree with you. The Bible was a book written thousands of years ago by people who wanted to explain the wonders and unexplained phenomenon of things. Scientists have newer theories that prove what happened to the Earth and how life arose which disproves everything in the Bible. Believers of the Lord believe that humans are a matter of intelligent design.

Another sentence that intrigued me was: “History is too short: Creationists argue that if the world is as old as evolution claims it is there would be billions more stone age skeletons than have been found, many more historical records like cave paintings than have been found, a lot more sodium chloride in the sea, and a lot more seafloor sediment. Really? All of these bullet points can be explained by the same thing; the natural movements of the Earth and its happenings.” This stood out for me because this was astounding. It is hard to say that history is short because it is a very wrong statement that people believe in. Earth’s geological record goes back to billions of years ago. There are rocks that are as old as Earth that can prove Earth’s age. Scientist have carbon dating which allows them to date rocks and bones to billions of years ago.

I totally disagree with you when you said, “ I personally think that neither side is concrete or in other words, sound but both do have potential.” One reason I say this is because I believe that evolution is more of a rational and logical explanation of Earth and life because there is more evidence to prove it. The idea of evolution is no longer a theory by Charles Darwin, it is a fact (to me). Bones, rocks, and even fragments of organisms from millions of years ago have been found. Another reason I disagree with you is because I do not believe in the Lord. The Bible is not enough evidence to prove that he is real.

Thanks for your writing. I look forward to seeing what you write next, because I would like to see what else you have to say regarding these two topics. What would bring me back is a post regarding evolution theories that have been proven wrong.