Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution or Creation?

  • Evolution

    Votes: 40 46.5%
  • Creation

    Votes: 23 26.7%
  • Both (originally created, evolved since)

    Votes: 21 24.4%
  • Neither (???)

    Votes: 2 2.3%

  • Total voters
    86
It would only be arrogant if I claimed we put ourselves in this position. I have no idea why you feel the need to cock an attitude, but it's doing nothing for the discussion and is doing less for you. Since we apparently can't keep this thread civilized, I'm not going to waste any more of my time in it.
 
flyingfish said:
Slip, can you tell me where I can easily research that (macro)and find some definite scientific answers? Why do you claim it as fact? :confused:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

In any case, there is not a significant difference bewteen micro and macro that some make it out to be.

It hinges more on what defines a new species than wether those mutations take place or not.
 
Dale W. said:
BTW: If we did evolve from chimps (primates), why didnt all of us evolve and why are there still primates? I just have to ask.

If Americans came from europe, why are their still europeans? :troll:
 
I'm sorry if you think I'm cocking an attitude. I did not mean to imply such a thing.

To say we(humans) are the "do all/be all" seems to me to be cocking an attitude.
 
Ok here I go this will be long

First I would like to address slipknots first comment

(of course, hitler was no atheist, and the evolution is no religion, but just the comparison existing shows where this thread is headed)


Slipknot have you every read the works of Aldous Huxley, or Julian Huxley the two self proclaimed modern humanist(humanist for all of you is a fancified version of asthiest)? Let me talk about them.

One of the few people who ever so clearly outlined and promoted the biological ethics of evolution was Julian Huxley. Have you ever heard of his book "religion without revelation"? He was named Humanist of the year in 1973, graduate of Oxford, the director general of the united nations eduacational and scietific society? He signed signed a thing called the Humanist Manifesto #2, he once stated that the Humanist Manifesto #2 was the "Gospel of evolutionary humanism." The man wrote a far less known work in 1926 called "the stream of life." I just so happen to have the book here with me I told you this was going to take a long time.

"The Euginic idea flows through inevitably from a realiztion of certain facts.First and foremost is the fact of evolution, the realalization that the inherited capabilities of man have progressed through a slow upward progress from those brutes(he is fancyfying (I made that word up)"animals"), and that there is nothing whatever againts the process of being continued further in the upward direction blah blah blah (lets get on to my point) the realization the the hereditary qualities of the nation are definatley slowly being lowered, while in the past the pruning knife of natural selection kept the stock up to standard...we ought to ensure that the children who are to come into this world shall have the best possible constitution; and this can be done by some control of the individuals right to bring childrean into this world"

And another qoute from Huxley

"defective poeple should be prevented if possible from having children, and so from propagating the defect. Feeblemindedness is as much of a disease as scarlet fever or smallpox.We do not allow a small pox patient to propogate his disease by coming into contact with other people blah blah blah. There are around 400000 mentally defective persons in these islands (UK). If we could prevent all of them from reproducing the percentages of defectivs would be halved in from three to five generations."

Here we go Im so close to the point I promise keep reading(Huxley)

"What are we to think when pity for suffering individuals leads us not only to preserve them, but allow them to reproduce and so not only to lower the quality of the race, but to produce more suffering individuals yet unborn? what is one to think of the misplaced kindness which to give an actual case, takes an epileptic woman to hospital to be operated on to remedy sterility.

One more to give you this highly regarded athiest hopes on a better humakind.(dang that is a lot of typin)

"when they ( reffering to the people) realize this, they will demand that the government, through the census or through a special department of state, such as that for race-biology ... and we can be sure that once the facts are there and the knowlege of them is widley diffused, action will follow(what a nice man). Let us not forget that we men are the tustees of evlolution, and that to betray to face this problem is to betray the trust put into our hands by the powers of the universe."

I'm done with qoutes, does he sound a little familiar? Of a certain facist dicatator in the land of Germany?All ideas have consequences if human life is not sacred then it is expendable period.But dont think of Huxley as an extremist. Many things that we as humans do today a direct contribution from huxleys program of eugenics. Millions of children are aborted evry year because they are metally handicapped, it is simply for a matter of convenience for the parents. It is well known that people with disabilites live productive happy lives with no shortage of genius. Im sure that Stephen Hawking would not have survied under the athiest Humanist Manifesto #2?

I am now going to rant about Atheism again.


Slipknot have you ever heard of Corliss Lamont one of THEE leaders in atheism. He said "For the humanist stupidity is just a great a sin as selfishness;...the moral obligation to be intelligent ranks always among the highest of duties." What he is trying to say is the intelligent are the ones that should choose what is right and what is wrong. so in essence they are society's moral guides am I right? But one of the fundamental principles in atheseim is that you need to resent moral guidlines that the rest of society follows. So you guys are really discrediting a Creator and now you are setting up, developing a system of morality. This humanist system of morality can evlolve. Today in Holland they perform mercy killings for people that want to commit suicide rather than dealing with emotional problems. They also kill retarded babies at birth ( down syndrome as an example) they are seen as a nuisance.

In contrast whether you look at the Koran, or the bible they set out moral laws that you follow through your life tht can not be changed. If people do not like what they hear from the message conveyed they try and twist it to make it more self servant towards their own lives cultures curent events. A good example of this is same sex marriage.

So with all the case I just presented I don't think there is anyway you can say that the Nazi dictatorships fundamental values was not influenced no not influenced inspired is a better word by atheism’s evolutionary ethics. Unless your really not an atheist and have your own beliefs that may differ from true athiesm?Or are you more of a marxist then we could talk about the estimated 110 million lives lost due toi the soviet union alone. Dont get me started on China( no real my hands are beginning to hurt).

Now to go into a little further detail about Hitler..eeew he is evil. In the evolution theory hitler found his great weapon againts religous values he writes in Mein Kampf " I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that ever existed... I do not see why man should be just as cruel as nature...all that is not of pure race in this world is trash." Slipknot if you still feel skeptical please study the matter carefully, you will find that evolutionary thought lies at the root of the Nazism horror.

John Koster the historical philosopher wrote " darwins and Huxleys picture of man place in the universe prepared the way for the holocaust...Darwin(he wrote evolutionary theory for those that have forgotten your high school bio class) directly inspired Nietzsche's superman theory and the Nazi corollary that some people were sub human...People have to learn to stop thinking of other people as machinces and learn to think of them as men and women possessed souls... History doesn't need another one hundred million deaths to prove that scientific Atheism is a form of mental illness."

Do not blame me Koster wrote it! I aint bashing athiesm. I am not suggesting that all people who believe in evolution hold such ethics. Or that all atheist hold sympathy with Hitler. what I am saying is for an atheist to carry his truth about reality into ethics, he must at worst approve of Julian Huxleys works and Hitlers superman. (Do you?) Or else admit that an athiest has no grounds on which to tell another human being what to do or think. The Athietic evolutionst has no binding moral laws.

Iam going to leave you guys with a qoute from Einstein

"as a human being one has been endowed with intelligence(no ****e) to be able to see clearly how utterly inadequate that intelligence is when confronted with what exist."How can we possibly know in our life time how everything came to be. That is why I put my faith in god. so what if in 400 hundred years we figure out that life was created not by a god but by the universe. By evolutionist point of view I wont be around to see it. So the question is why not believe in something greater?

I would answer your questions on theoris and what not but my fingers hurt last night I was tired so I said things improperly. If my fingers heal I will rant about that sooner or later.Its 9:00 pm its friday nite I cant stay here at the computer and **** away my youth its party time eveybody!
 
Last edited:
BTW: If we did evolve from chimps (primates), why didnt all of us evolve and why are there still primates? I just have to ask.

Well, technically we are primates. Chimps have evolved. Just as we have. Only along different lines. Just because we came out better most recently doesn't mean we evolved past them, or better than them. It just happened to work in our favor more.
Chimps are far more adapted to our current environment than our common ancestor was. We just have a slight current edge.

But look at the "Planet of the Apes" movies.

They can take over with a tiny advantage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Im not entirely sure what your trying to present what that babbling, but straw man and ad hominem attacks surely dont prove much of a point. In any case, I have no athiest leader, no church, no book. Heck, I dont even consider myself an athiest (I consider myself non-religious, when someone proves the existance of god, I will accept it, otherwise I see no reason to argue against nothing).


I fully realize what the point of Mein Kampf was. I never disagreed. Just dont attempt to equate hitler's distrubed mind to all who are athiest and all who understand the fact of evolution. And my original comments still stand. Hitler was no athiest (heck, have you read mein kampf? "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.") and hitler nor anyone else ever showed how we can rate human strength and ability, or how we should chose who is the 'master race'. Human beings have less genetic diversity than a single breed of dog, or a single family of chimps. So I certainly dont see how genocide is a logical solution to anything, unless there are well documented prove cases of weakness. Perhaps in an extreme case of a new genetic virus.

And Im quite tempted to put Godwin's Law into use on these forums- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

I really dont see how entering any debate touting "you're hitler' is going to be intelligent.
 
Last edited:
Heh, So because Hitler was an atheist then it must be wrong?

And...ahem...by the way...here's a quote from Einstein...

"It was, of course, a lie which you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it."

David Koresh believed in God. The Inquisition believed in God.

So based on the actions of other humans and what they personally believed in I should determine what is truth?
 
I gave reasonable answers I am not attacking you please do not see it that way I am just presenting a different point of view. That to many philosophers seems reasonable. I do not have the answer to all of lifes questions. I just try and tackle them as best I can. I presented evidence that linked athiesm to Hitler. I didn't make it up it's history. BTW this is fun :dance:

Slip all of our knowlege is an intricate combination of intuition( that could be defined as first truths), induction, and deduction. I think we arrive at truth through any of these three methods. I also think it would be foolish to exclude any of them. All in all the way we arrive at a truth is not complicted at all. (unlike that link you posted very clever btw) We deduce things from what we initially know, and the experience I believe of being alive in this world gives us compelling evidence to reach, by induction a reliable conclusion.

Newtons theories seemed to be proven science, then a guy named Einstein came along. Why bother believing in something that will just be replaced by a better theory a few hundred years down the road. I say go with creation, it is not a scietific matter to decide whether or not god exist.
 
Last edited:
AquariaCentral.com