Creationism vs Evolution

[Cin]

Since the old topic was getting very old, recycled, and spammy, I have created this new topic for more discussion. And also, I gave this one a more proper title. This new title includes all religon-based beginnings, not just christianity, so please discuss them all instead of ganging up on the christians.

And so...the debate topic is...

Which do you believe to be true? Creationism? Which version? Or Evolution?

WHY!?!?!?!!?1?!!?!?!!?1?1!?1?TWO

Ready...set...DEBATE.

[Mirai]

Since the old topic was getting very old, recycled, and spammy, I have created this new topic for more discussion. And also, I gave this one a more proper title. This new title includes all religon-based beginnings, not just christianity, so please discuss them all instead of ganging up on the christians.

Well, I really never have seen a Muslim or Jew here, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.


And so...the debate topic is...

Which do you believe to be true? Creationism? Which version? Or Evolution?

WHY!?!?!?!!?1?!!?!?!!?1?1!?1?TWO

Evolution, ofcourse. Natural selection is simple to understand if you look at it logically. There's mountains of evidence for it. For example, fossils are arranged underground EXACTLY as evolution predicts (it throws it a curve once in a while, but that just means that evolution is a healthy theory. Plus, all the bumps are straightened out).

NOTE: Evolution is a theory. But, then again, so are cells, atoms, molecules, numbers, gravity and many other things that are fact. Theory in science is not the same in culture. A theory in science is a group of tested/able ideas that explain a known phenomena.


Ready...set...DEBATE.

Theif. :P j/k

[Peyton]

Well I don't belive in god. I have a hard time beliving that it's someone up in the sky that is supposed to save us all. I also have a hard time beliving some of the things that have happened in the bible.
After all the things I've seen it makes it hard to really belive in a god.
As an athiest I belive in evolution. Also that you can be free and fine your own answers, and your own path.

[Soku]

Yay, some debate fun. Cin you physco.XD

Well, Evolution makes since out of everything, but then it comes to what people believe in their hearts. Evolution would be more logical, and could very well be proven, but then any kind of Religion can prove things in their own way. Me? Well, I believe in god, but I don't go against science. I say they both have a way in the world, and that is why we're where we are at now. Corny? Yes, I know.XD

[Laurence_Fox]

I think I'm going to have to go with Evolution once again. If religion works for you, great. But to me it just seems darn right silly to think some being up in the sky snapped his fingers and created life in little under a week.

I'm not saying here that such a thing couldn't have happened but at the present time, evolution of life has proof that, let's face it, religion is lacking at the present moment. Evolution has tangible things we can see and touch.

No one can see and touch the god...or gods if you prefer...who are in some myths are responsible for life.

[Repliku]

I do not feel we understand evolution entirely, of course, but we improve upon it as it is examined and we gain further data. In the end, at least there is that data. So I support studies and work to also contribute to comprehending evolution more as it is something I can do and note visibly through history, fossils, geological information and biological adaptations that occur right in our lifetimes.

I am glad the topic changed to Creationism versus Evolution because as I had noted before, not all religions expressly say that evolution could not have transpired and also not all Christians or others of the monotheistic faith really buy the Bible story. More aware followers do not try to hold up a two fingered cross and hiss at science.

http://ff-rpg.net/images/Replikufake.jpg

[Banana Split]

Well, I really never have seen a Muslim or Jew here, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

What would you say when you come to it? Lawl. Most people probably just don't say it.

Well, I really never went to the evo.vs.religion thread. Most of that topic is for people smarter than me, and know their way around the things of evolution and such. That is not me.

I'll say that in logic, people will go for evolution. IMO, people see what is proven. But spiritually, you can believe in a higher being and such. Either way will make you act on what you believe in. I can't really say much, so that's it.

[Repliku]

What would you say when you come to it? Lawl. Most people probably just don't say it.

Well, I really never went to the evo.vs.religion thread. Most of that topic is for people smarter than me, and know their way around the things of evolution and such. That is not me.

I'll say that in logic, people will go for evolution. IMO, people see what is proven. But spiritually, you can believe in a higher being and such. Either way will make you act on what you believe in. I can't really say much, so that's it.

I wouldn't say we are smarter than you. We just read a lot more into the subjects. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion though and if you read through some of the posts there, it may help you see a bit of evolution and also of creationism so that you can make a choice or stay neutral, but with some knowledge under your belt. Also, if you wanted to ask about either, please feel free to. Knowledge is power, after all.

http://ff-rpg.net/images/Replikufake.jpg

[HellKitten]

100 % For Darwin.

I do not stick with the theory of "P00F! We're here." Evolution has a back up, and science can prove we do have a similar brain to a monkey, Monkeys have a yellowish pink brain and so do human beings.

I do not know much about other God's like Ala. Nothing at all actually, I know of the Christian God though. The Church is pressuring us, I got detention for a week, just because I said what I think is more logical.

[Rosey]

100 % For Darwin.

I do not stick with the theory of "P00F! We're here." Evolution has a back up, and science can prove we do have a similar brain to a monkey, Monkeys have a yellowish pink brain and so do human beings.

I do not know much about other God's like Ala. Nothing at all actually, I know of the Christian God though. The Church is pressuring us, I got detention for a week, just because I said what I think is more logical.

I agree with this fully.

Are they even aloud to give you detention for speaking out what you think is right? What happened to the first ammendment? Anyways....

With Evolution, we have soild proof. We have multiple fossils, and with carbon dating, we can tell when they lived, and if their were even humans around.

Evolution for the win.

I just realized that no one here yet has sided with the church. There for it isnt really a debate.

[Mirai]

100 % For Darwin.

I do not stick with the theory of "P00F! We're here." Evolution has a back up, and science can prove we do have a similar brain to a monkey, Monkeys have a yellowish pink brain and so do human beings.

I do not know much about other God's like Ala. Nothing at all actually, I know of the Christian God though. The Church is pressuring us, I got detention for a week, just because I said what I think is more logical.

Do you go to a Christian school or something?

[HellKitten]

Yes, I go to Catholic School. Aerith->Also how could Adam and Eve's kids have kid's if they were all Male? There's a downfall for a church.

[Rosey]

Yes, I go to Catholic School. Aerith->Also how could Adam and Eve's kids have kid's if they were all Male? There's a downfall for a church.

Thats true.

>>

But there was the mother...*flinches*

But I dont think the church would support that theory either, so they are cornered.

[Roxas is Hot]

I mostly believe in Evolution. It makes a lot more sense.

If I'm right (which I'm probably not, I've only been to church once in my life) the Bible states that God made the earth and crap in "a week." I find it impossible for someone to make planet and such in a week. Even for a man in his power, it sounds phoney. The fact that a universe was somehow created and a bunch of asteroids combined to make a planet or whatever sounds a lot more realistic.

Evolution wins.

[Mirai]

I mostly believe in Evolution. It makes a lot more sense.

If I'm right (which I'm probably not, I've only been to church once in my life) the Bible states that God made the earth and crap in "a week." I find it impossible for someone to make planet and such in a week. Even for a man in his power, it sounds phoney. The fact that a universe was somehow created and a bunch of asteroids combined to make a planet or whatever sounds a lot more realistic.

Evolution wins.

Well, Christians, especially YECs, believe that their God is omnipotent, meaning he can do ANYTHING. So, "it's impossible for it to be created in 6 days" isn't a good arguement. A better arguement is that the fossil record contradicts the literal 6-day creation, and even Noah's literal world-wide flood.

[Darkwatch]

That's because Noah's flood never happened.

This is a little off topic...but yeah...

Noah's ark was a directly plagiarized from the epic of Gilgamesh--a Japanese story about how there was a huge flood and they had to use an ark to save 2 of every animal. Then once they reached land they had the sacrifice and the release of the dove.

Moses' story and history was also a polarization of Sargon, a deity who has the exact same life as Moses. Showing that Moses could not have ever existed in that way.

For those who don't know, Moses was released into a river in a basket to prevent possible harm to him, he was later captured by royalty and raised as a prince.

However, this is also the same story for numerous OTHER figures in both Religion and Greek Myth.

Much like this, Jesus' life also shows huge similarities to religious book-marks before him. The similarities and the amounts of the people like him go on and on.

[Dreadnaughtsoilder]

Well, I really never have seen a Muslim or Jew here, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.



Evolution, ofcourse. Natural selection is simple to understand if you look at it logically. There's mountains of evidence for it. For example, fossils are arranged underground EXACTLY as evolution predicts (it throws it a curve once in a while, but that just means that evolution is a healthy theory. Plus, all the bumps are straightened out).

NOTE: Evolution is a theory. But, then again, so are cells, atoms, molecules, numbers, gravity and many other things that are fact. Theory in science is not the same in culture. A theory in science is a group of tested/able ideas that explain a known phenomena.



Theif. :P j/k
precisely.

[Laurence_Fox]

precisely.

This is a debate, Dreadnaughtsoilder. Not only a debate but an INTELLIGENT debate. Meaning you CANNOT post one word responses like you just did. You should provide REASONS and LOGIC in your posts as to WHY you support either side.

Do this and MAYBE people will take you seriously. You have a world of information at your fingertips. There is NO excuse for such limited posts.

[mixt]

I'm lazy and supposed to be doing HW so i didn't bother to read the other posts so sorry if this came up allready.

I beleive in a balance between the two. Afterall if there is someone powerful and intelegent enough to create everything from scatch, wouldn't he/she/it be smart enough to create a system to adapt to the ever changing world?

[Zandyne]

(Migration complete I suppose.)

Once more I find common ground with the evolution side in this debate. Not only from the variety of evidence produced in science's favor but the lack of reasonable logic on many of the creationism's parts.

However for now this is all I can really say on such a 'clean slate' debate. I'm usually one more prone to react to other's statements rather then stating every detail of my own on the first go..... 8P

[Dreadnaughtsoilder]

I believe in evoluton. I have many reasons.1: The sattered particles from the creation of the universe and the galaxy helped create the first living thing2: They began to evolve into the water era and so on until the Dinosaurs.3: Ater the unknow entity that killed them and the ones that survived became and started th Ice Age.4: This is the unknown begining of Humans.5: now humans began to start civilizations after the great Ice Age.6: So continues to today.any ?'s?

[8730]

I believe in Evolution, mainly based on the mountain of evidence. I always think that the truth, even though it can hurt, is the best. In this case, although Evolution paints a pretty bleak and cold view of the universe, if it's the truth it should be accepted by all as such.

[Dreadnaughtsoilder]

my thoughts exactly.

[8730]

The only problem with this argument is there is no definitive way of knowing the absolute truth once and for all, barring travelling back in time (which is slightly theoretically possible but I won't go into that >_>). This meaning that this debate will go on forever without end.

If we take the creationist's point of view then some form of higher being created the universe. But this leads to the question of where did this higher being exist to create the universe? As before the universe was created there was nothing (not even time) the higher being would need some form of dimensional space to exist in. This means that there would be another universe that the higher being exists in. BUT, then who/what created that universe? This then leads to an infinite chain of universes with no end. Not very helpful.

As for the Evolusionist view there is, of course, the fossil evidence, the background radiation and apparant expansion of the universe that hints towards an event such as the Big Bang and similarities between species showing a possible progression from one to the next over the ages. There is also probably more but I can't think of any and I'm tired and have a dentist appointment in twenty minutes =/.

[mixt]

Actually if you want to think of god from a scientific standpoint, couldn't he exist outside of time and space? Thus creating a dimension with overlapping Genesis and Revelation (beginning and end for you non-Christians). So the all-powerful being of god could create himself. Complicated I know. Truth be told that doesn’t even make perfect sense, but who’s to say that the answer is even possible to understand?

[8730]

Truth be told that doesn’t even make perfect sense, but who’s to say that the answer is even possible to understand?

That is a very good point, who knows if human beings are even capable of understanding/comprehending the answer to this question. It's almost impossible for us to think about the infinite, so would a higher being not fall into that catagory? :S

[Nailpolish <3]

umm...is this from simpsons?? lol

[Mirai]

umm...is this from simpsons?? lol

Eh? What do you mean?

[Nailpolish <3]

Eh? What do you mean?

there was an episode on simpsons...

Ned finds out that in the museum, they are saying that it was evolution that created humans (monkeys to humans). so he was annoyed because it should be god because he created humans (which I agree with by the way). So he makes the reverend tell Principal Skinner to make the students to learn about god.

which isn't the best because people should be able to think what they think. well, not things as serious as god. but you should force it down their throuts.

they learned creationism vs. evolution. Lisa and Ned went to court. That was what it was called.

[Mirai]

there was an episode on simpsons...

Ned finds out that in the museum, they are saying that it was evolution that created humans (monkeys to humans). so he was annoyed because it should be god because he created humans (which I agree with by the way). So he makes the reverend tell Principal Skinner to make the students to learn about god.

which isn't the best because people should be able to think what they think. well, not things as serious as god. but you should force it down their throuts.

they learned creationism vs. evolution. Lisa and Ned went to court. That was what it was called.

First of all, it's not monkeys. It's ape-like hominids.

No... The modern theory of evolution was created by naturalist, Charles Darwin. I'm too tired to post some evidence, but there's a mountain. Go to TalkOrigins.com.

What do you mean "Well, not things as serious as God"?

[Nailpolish <3]

First of all, it's not monkeys. It's ape-like hominids.

No... The modern theory of evolution was created by naturalist, Charles Darwin. I'm too tired to post some evidence, but there's a mountain. Go to TalkOrigins.com.

What do you mean "Well, not things as serious as God"?

k...

i meant that you can't fake God. God is there. But you can't teach that in public school. Maybe in Church (or in my case, Mosques)

[Gamefreak103]

If Creationism did invade a school I would leave that with a debate team.

My old biology teacher said this a lot:

Science is either accepted or rejected based on observations and other kinds of tests.

Religion (Creationism) is a belief, there is no science in it whatsoever.

[Repliku]

There are schools in the south that do try to force Biology teachers to teach Creationism since there or at least give it a nod because of the amount of religious Southern Baptists there. Also, kids will walk out of the classes. A very good friend of mine was a teacher in North Carolina in a low populated town and kids waltzed right out of her class, so I know it happens, since I was down there with her at the time and it's part of the reason she gained an anxiety to teaching and dropped it. Of course, the education there is backwards too and the kids were using anything as an excuse. Kids were being forced up grades whether they would fail or not and teachers were supposed to just 'pass' them.

I live in NY and here the schools have a higher demand from students. If you fail, you fail. We also are taxed more and run a lottery to fund the schools more properly and it shows that the community cares about how stupid or smart kids will be, which is why I don't mind paying the increased taxes.

Religion though has no place in school. It shouldn't be given a nod too even. Public schools are public and that means anyone of any cultural diversity or belief attends them, so the material presented to them is neutral. It has been suggested that schools run a world religions sort of class but this is always shot down because in some areas Christianity is so heavy and there are more fundamentalists that say learning of other religions is wrong. This is why if you want to take studies in other religions you wait till college, like I had to.

Church is where Christianity is taught. There are Bibles people can also buy, or often get for free, to go at home and study. I see no reason at all for it to be taught in a public school where you are there to learn things that are considered education to get jobs and be successful in life. There are a ton of churches everywhere. There is no way someone cannot get to a church pretty much within walking distance anymore. They are free except for when the collection plates are passed around. If someone is hardcore into learning religion and doesn't want evolution taught, that's what religious schools are for.

Evolution is part of Science and therefore, should be taught. If people don't like it because it messes up their children's viewpoints, they should put their kids in religious schools, or take them to church. It doesn't teach kids to think God exists or doesn't exist but because it can't even be fully explained in school, due to the religious zealots, children come to thinking we evolved in the simplest of ways with inaccurate information. Also, some teachers in religious areas are also religious and try to dance around the subject material and teach it wrong on purpose. I used to think growing up everyone had the same education, the same importance on it etc since the schools are sponsored by the government, but I was terribly wrong. It seems each state or even city can mold the schools to teach what they want. It's caused me to think a lot about if I ever do have kids, where I'd want them educated at.

http://ff-rpg.net/images/Replikufake.jpg

[Darkwatch]

I agree with Repliku, Religion has no place in school at all.

If it's going to be taught and if you want to learn it, go to church or Sunday school. IMO, I may not believe in it, but because it's so widely popular and accepted it has to be kept to itself. That should have been a commandment--keep religion to yourself. lol Think of how many wars we'd be out of right now. >_>

But anyway, Evolution > Christianity.

[RikuisthehottestdudeinKH2]

EXCUSE ME?! there is a god up there and he's there to help us. maybe the evidance of evelution isn't true! i mean, how do we even evolve? do our features change over time and we then say POOF ur evolved? i believe that god put us down here! Christianity is my winner, although u people r thinking that you were once monkeys, all because we look/act like gorilla's and chimps!

[ShadowofRiku]

EXCUSE ME?! there is a god up there and he's there to help us. maybe the evidance of evelution isn't true! i mean, how do we even evolve? do our features change over time and we then say POOF ur evolved? i believe that god put us down here! Christianity is my winner, although u people r thinking that you were once monkeys, all because we look/act like gorilla's and chimps!

yeah I could never really grasp the concept of evolution. I mean if it is true then why haven't we evolved any more? and the whole poof thing was how I imagine it.

[libregkd]

yeah I could never really grasp the concept of evolution. I mean if it is true then why haven't we evolved any more? and the whole poof thing was how I imagine it.
It may be the fact that its takes millions and millions of years before any evolutionary changes to become apparent.

[ShadowofRiku]

But we haven't even been here a million years

[libregkd]

But we haven't even been here a million yearsBut we do have fossils that date back that far.

[Mirai]

EXCUSE ME?! there is a god up there and he's there to help us. maybe the evidance of evelution isn't true! i mean, how do we even evolve? do our features change over time and we then say POOF ur evolved? i believe that god put us down here! Christianity is my winner, although u people r thinking that you were once monkeys, all because we look/act like gorilla's and chimps!

Unfortunately, you do not know how evolution works. I'll have to dig up one of my posts to show you an example.

And, despite the misconception:

WE. WERE. NOT. MONKEYS.

yeah I could never really grasp the concept of evolution. I mean if it is true then why haven't we evolved any more? and the whole poof thing was how I imagine it.

We are evolving. More people are being born without wisdon teeth or appendixes, both of which no longer serve a purpose.

But we haven't even been here a million years

The species Homo sapiens sapiens has only been on this planet for about 15,000 years, yet the species before that were.

And, if the world is 6,000 years old, how can we see MUCH farther than 6,000 lightyears?

EDIT: I found my post: Read to get an understanding of evolution. (http://www.kh-vids.net/showpost.php?p=588189&postcount=255)

[TabbyRoxas]

But we haven't even been here a million years

:lol: , i know, but there are fossils.

EXCUSE ME?! there is a god up there and he's there to help us. maybe the evidance of evelution isn't true! i mean, how do we even evolve? do our features change over time and we then say POOF ur evolved? i believe that god put us down here! Christianity is my winner, although u people r thinking that you were once monkeys, all because we look/act like gorilla's and chimps!

Evolution takes Millions of years to happen, and the changes happen so slowly that we dont know that they've happened. There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that we evolved from Chimps, some noticable , some not. Go research evolution, instead of talking off the top of your head. Heres something things that have learned:
-The Archeopteryx, the first "Bird" was found during the time of the Dinosaurs
-It was feathered, but was Cold-Blooded, like all reptiles.
-It could only glide, and not fly.
-It was a reptile
-The cause of this was EVOLUTION! How else could have a Reptile grown feathers?

The birds that we know today look nothing like reptiles but:
-Reptiles are more Primitive than birds
-The bird heart is very similar to the reptile's
-The Reptile heart is less advanced then the Bird Heart.
So all together we can conclude that:
-Birds appeared after the Reptiles
-Birds EVOLVED FROM THE REPTILES
-Reptiles are more primitive

[Repliku]

EXCUSE ME?! there is a god up there and he's there to help us. maybe the evidance of evelution isn't true! i mean, how do we even evolve? do our features change over time and we then say POOF ur evolved? i believe that god put us down here! Christianity is my winner, although u people r thinking that you were once monkeys, all because we look/act like gorilla's and chimps!

This is why we do not find good people to debate from the Creationist side of things. There are misspellings, insults, and a lack of information on what Evolution even is, but boy do the assumptions run. I hate to use this as an example, but perhaps you'd like to talk civilly, explain your side rationally, and also do some research. That way we could debate this in a much more formal pattern. The only people I see do this are the extremist Christians that won't even -touch- a book on Evolution and make a stink about it when it is even slightly brought up in schools. Before an argument can be done, a debate be proper etc, it is usually a good thing to actually research BOTH sides of the coin, rather than staring at one in bright light for so long you go blind. That message is for Creationism and Evolution supporters. It seems though, one side doesn't as much need to be told this.

In actuality, your statement of we look/act like gorillas and chimps is amusing. We do share some common similarities to them, and this includes you. You might just be surprised at the similarities between especially humans and chimps, as well as bonobos. Chimps can do some light tool work, they have structured societies, they mourn their dead, they will now and then kill and eat meat, though usually they are vegetarians. They also can be taught to about the equivalent intelligence of a human 2-3 year old when in captivity, learning to communicate, follow directions and they have feelings that are broader than that often noted in the animal kingdom. Bonobos can spend considerable time walking bipedal. The manual dexterity of an ape's hand is similar to our own.

However, this does not mean we -are- chimpanzees or gorillas. It means we came from a species of ape that evolved. All animals and plants evolve. It is a process that can occur quickly through a mutation, or slowly over a period of millions of years. The human evolution line is just one of trillions of evolutionary studies which cover aquatic life, insects, birds, mammals, lizards, flora and fauna etc. Look up nearly any animal and you can see records of the earliest findings in science journals or heck, even Wikipedia. The point here I try to make is that there is nothing wrong with supporting one side or the other in a debate, but it truly does help to actually have information on both sides of the fence instead of merely one. That way we can all talk about it. I hold nothing against those that wish to believe in Creationism. I have seen some good posts by some and they are fine. However...then I see posts like this which just shows you haven't bothered to look into it at all. If you aren't researching the topic and are just going with what you -were told- by someone else, and make nasty comments, it makes all people on that side look ridiculous. It just solidifies the view that there -is- no proof because the words come from someone who -sounds- very uneducated, whether it's true or not.

The post that followed this one was just fine. So please don't think I mean this to 'all Creationism supporters' because I do not. I just wish more would respond as that person that followed did, and some others had.

[8730]

I have just thought of a possible way of explaining evolution to creationists. I remember seeing a diagram which showed the evolution of the Christian Church. I have just realised that it is in fact quite similar to biological evolution. The Church split into different shards, each with their slightly differing beliefs. Those that had a strong following survived, while those that couldn't speak to the people failed and died out.

Also, the modern day manifestations of the Christian Church are probably completely different to the original starting point.

I shall try to find this diagram ^^

EDIT: Found a diagram here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/ChristianityBranches.svg).

[Repliku]

You know, Bunterx, that's just a brilliant observation. Even the religion has changed and adapted to times, which would be an evolution of its own. So true. That just earned you rep.

[yemboy42]

I believe, more or less, that evolution did happen, simply orchestrated by God. While I do believe in God's existence, the theory of us simply popping into existence has always seemed ridiculous to me. Also, the evidence for evolution is far to much to ignore.

[Kingdom Glory]

Evolution, ofcourse. Natural selection is simple to understand if you look at it logically. There's mountains of evidence for it. For example, fossils are arranged underground EXACTLY as evolution predicts (it throws it a curve once in a while, but that just means that evolution is a healthy theory. Plus, all the bumps are straightened out).

Not to be rude, but you said "logically", let me point something out.
When you REALLY get down to it, the beginning, in creationism OR EVOLUTION are both ILLOGICAL.
It just happens that I'm Christian, so I'm going to prove my said to the best of my abilities.
Now, when you look at the Law of Conservation of Energy, you'll see that Energy can NOT be created nor destroyed but what would that say about the world being exploded into existence and creating everything?
Now, not to say the Christian version makes sense, I'm not saying it does, I'm just saying, to me, it sounds easier to understand.
I have more points by the by.
Reply if ya want to hear 'em.
I believe, more or less, that evolution did happen, simply orchestrated by God. While I do believe in God's existence, the theory of us simply popping into existence has always seemed ridiculous to me. Also, the evidence for evolution is far to much to ignore.
I have to agree with this person, he/she puts in a GREAT point!
I do believe we changed over periods of time, I just don't believe there was NO GOD in it.

[8730]

Now, when you look at the Law of Conservation of Energy, you'll see that Energy can NOT be created nor destroyed but what would that say about the world being exploded into existence and creating everything?

It was not an explosion even though the theory is called the Big Bang. It was an expansion. All of the matter and energy in our universe was contained in one small space. Outside of this there was literally nothing. The edges of this space were the edges of the universe itself, there was literally "nothing" outside of this. No space, not time, NOTHING. All of our dimensions expanded into this nothingness and continues to do so to today and beyond.

[Kingdom Glory]

But what was before that?
What started THAT energy?
What sort of FORM did that energy COME from?

[8730]

But what was before that?
What started THAT energy?
What sort of FORM did that energy COME from?
The universe is, well, infinite. It is just there. There is no scientific explaination (as far as I am aware, please correct me if there is) as to where matter and energy cam from.

Although there are theories that state that universes are created when black holes are created, at the end of each one is a new universe. This could be how ours was created, but it still doesn't define a definite start of anything. There will be no way of knowing, it happened so very far in the past it would be impossible to discover.

Also I would like to point out that just because science has yet to explain something does not automatically mean that there is some form of higher power. Magic started out as unexplained science.

[Kingdom Glory]

Yes, but can you, seriously, say for every miracle, there's scintific knowledge?

[8730]

Yes, but can you, seriously, say for every miracle, there's scintific knowledge?
Miracles are supernatural meaning they are outside of nature meaning they are outside of the laws of physics meaning they are impossible. Also, yes quite often there is a scientific explaination. But there are also things out there that can't be explained which is why im agnostic and not full blown atheist. There is so much mystery out there, science is just a light to help us see through the mystery and try to make sense of it all, to add a bit of order to the chaos.

Really religion and science offer two ways to the same end, to try and explain everything around us. To try to make sense of it all. One uses a higher power the other uses scientific method.

[Kingdom Glory]

and then there's a different road in the center that makes use of BOTH.
(Christian science for the win)
And, I've seen miracles performed at my church...I don't see how people can ignore it.

[8730]

and then there's a different road in the center that makes use of BOTH.
(Christian science for the win)
And, I've seen miracles performed at my church...I don't see how people can ignore it.
Define "miracle". Many people will interpret events differently, and that is where one of the problem lies with religion, people interpret it differently.

As for Christian science, is that the belief in God through the use of scientific method?

To make this at least a tiny bit on-topic, one thing that bothers me about creationism (the Christian theory) is that why did God decide to create life in the first place? He couldn't have been bored, curious, lonely or just being random as God does not have random thoughts. What benefit would he gain from creating life? Also, if God created the Earth, what was the point in creating the rest of the universe? All of this seemingly pointless and redundant creation doesn't seem like something created by a perfect being.

[Catch the Rain]

It would be very easy to just explain everything with God, but it is not something I personally believe.

But what was before that?
What started THAT energy?
What sort of FORM did that energy COME from?

I could be very pedantic right now and ask you where God came from :3


You have faith in your religion xD but I see little evidence in the creationalist theory, whereas I have SEEN evidence that supports the theory of evolution :3

For sure, we cannot explain everything with science, but we are still learning. Afterall a couple of hundred years ago we didn't even know oxygen existed.

[Donaut]

Evolution is scientifically provable.

Religion (almost 100% of the time) isn't.

They are entirely different in my eyes.

[8730]

For sure, we cannot explain everything with science, but we are still learning. Afterall a couple of hundred years ago we didn't even know oxygen existed.

It wasn't so much that we didn't know it existed, it was more we knew something was there, we just couldn't explain it. We knew it was there because we could see its effects through the wind and feeling something come into our bodies when we breathe. That is the start of scientific method, the gathering of evidence through observations. Then empirical testing and experimentation can take place to gather more evidence. Unfortunately nothing can ever be proved, only disproved.

[Laurence_Fox]

and then there's a different road in the center that makes use of BOTH.
(Christian science for the win)
And, I've seen miracles performed at my church...I don't see how people can ignore it.

My my someone's changed their tune quite a bit since the last thread. I seem to remember that you thinking Evolution was an idea you couldn't grasp because it was 'ridiculous' that we came from monkeys and that the evidence Evolutionists had gained were 'forgeries' and 'frauds'.

I had a teacher who thought like this in High School. She believed in Evolution of life and the Universe but she believed that something set the ball rolling.

It's a nice compromise but you have to have some faith in the something to agree to it. Something that I presently don't have.

Moving on...

"Seeing is believing". It holds true here. You have seen these so-called miracles at your church but I may see it as people being influenced by suggestion. It's like when a hypochondriac reads an article in a newspaper about a new illness and thinks they have it because of the symptoms or when in a counseling session, the patient is being subtly influenced by the questions the counselor is asking them.

It holds true for any organized religion. The children brought up in the religion are influenced by their faith...which is not always a bad thing of course but I'm going off on a whole 'nother debate here.

[Catch the Rain]

It wasn't so much that we didn't know it existed, it was more we knew something was there, we just couldn't explain it. We knew it was there because we could see its effects through the wind and feeling something come into our bodies when we breathe. That is the start of scientific method, the gathering of evidence through observations. Then empirical testing and experimentation can take place to gather more evidence. Unfortunately nothing can ever be proved, only disproved.

Yes we knew something existed, but we did not know it was oxygen, the point that you just made trying to dumb mine down has only re-iterated the very point I was trying to make :3

Just because we don' understand everything yet, doesn't mean that we wont.

^^

[Kingdom Glory]

My my someone's changed their tune quite a bit since the last thread. I seem to remember that you thinking Evolution was an idea you couldn't grasp because it was 'ridiculous' that we came from monkeys and that the evidence Evolutionists had gained were 'forgeries' and 'frauds'.

I had a teacher who thought like this in High School. She believed in Evolution of life and the Universe but she believed that something set the ball rolling.

It's a nice compromise but you have to have some faith in the something to agree to it. Something that I presently don't have.

Moving on...

"Seeing is believing". It holds true here. You have seen these so-called miracles at your church but I may see it as people being influenced by suggestion. It's like when a hypochondriac reads an article in a newspaper about a new illness and thinks they have it because of the symptoms or when in a counseling session, the patient is being subtly influenced by the questions the counselor is asking them.

It holds true for any organized religion. The children brought up in the religion are influenced by their faith...which is not always a bad thing of course but I'm going off on a whole 'nother debate here.
Actually, what I meant was, a tumour disappeared in front of my eyes.

[Laurence_Fox]

Actually, what I meant was, a tumour disappeared in front of my eyes.

And that is the only argument you can bring forth in response to my post?

Tsk tsk. I know you can do better than that.

Again, I say that this 'miracle' you saw was only a miracle to you. Someone else can interpret that miracle as something else. Be it mass hysteria, mental illness, force of suggestion, etc.

[Delicious ♥ Ambrosia]

And that is the only argument you can bring forth in response to my post?

Tsk tsk. I know you can do better than that.

Again, I say that this 'miracle' you saw was only a miracle to you. Someone else can interpret that miracle as something else. Be it mass hysteria, mental illness, force of suggestion, etc.


My best friend had really bad eyes, and they were getting worse. She prayed for several years, but it kept getting slightly worse. One day, at a prayer meeting, she had enough, walked up to the guy, ripped her glasses off, snapped them in half, and said "Pray for my eyes." She went to a doctor's appointment a few days later, and she had perfect vision. How can someone fake that? And, since she was praying for years, if it was "power of the mind" as you say, don't you think it would have happened sooner? (btw, she has an account on this site, so I can have her come here and verify if you want)

Also! My brothers have autism, and we've been praying for years. Almost everytime we take them to a special service prayer meeting, they get slightly better. Can someone fake that?




As for the creationism vs. evolution..


Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
Author: Dr. Kent Hovind
Formerly $10,000 offered since 1990

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

Observed phenomena:

Most thinking people will agree that..

A highly ordered universe exists.
At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.
Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.


Known options:

Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being..

The universe was created by God.
The universe always existed.
The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.


Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).


People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.

How to collect the $250,000:

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.

If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:

The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.


My suggestion:

Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.

*NOTE:

When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 Offer
Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word “evolution” as used in science textbooks.


Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer’s expense.


Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching.

This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as “descent with modification”) is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth “after their kind” in Genesis 1.

Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on my web site www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com/). Here are some answers to some commonly asked questions.

The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good.
The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don’t want answers (so far this has been the typical response to the offer). I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are.
Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time. For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent plant. Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved. The key is that no new genetic information has been added. Even a new “species” is not proof for evolution as the offer calls for. See the conditions of the $250,000 offer on the web site. Some have insisted on a precise definition of the word “kind”. The Bible defines “kind” as those that are able to “bring forth” or reproduce. Those animals that were originally able to reproduce were of the same kind. There may be diversity now, 6000 years later, that could cause some varieties of the original kind to not be able to reproduce now. For example, I understand that rabbits from Alaska cannot breed with rabbits from Florida yet they are still the same kind of animal. It is obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same “kind” of animal (they are currently classed as different “species” yet are inter-fertile-- hmmm, what is the precise definition of “species”?) where a dog and a fish are not. While there may be some blurry areas that would be worthy of research in defining the original kinds, rather than muddy the issue with these type questions it would be wise to focus on the obvious cases like the dog/fish comparison. These are obviously different “kinds” of animals. So, for the sake of clarity, prove the dog and the fish evolved from a common ancestor. The honest scientist would be wise to admit that no evidence exists that could begin to prove the dog and the fish have a common ancestor. He may believe that they are related but that is not science and that is my point in the offer. Some believe this type of evolution happens but it should not be presented to innocent students as a “fact”. Further, it certainly is not evidence that the other four definitions of evolution have occurred.
The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples.
Anonymous letters will be ignored.

Rather than simply sending in scientific evidence for evolution, some have wasted lots of their time and mine sending letters demanding to know who is on the committee, what bank account the money is in, asking Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like “is”, etc. When I do not respond the way they want me to they post notices on their web sites claiming that I owe them the money or that the offer is a sham! It is obvious they are using the Red Herring tactic to draw attention away from the fact that they have no evidence to support the religion of evolution. I tell everyone who inquires, if you have some evidence, send it in, don’t beat around the bush. Give us the best you have on the first try please to save time.

Many have offered evidence of microevolution and assumed that the other 5 meanings of the word are somehow magically connected. They don’t seem to realize that they are blinded to the obvious. Treat the $250,000 offer as a lawyer would treat a ‘who-done-it’ case. It is your job to prove that what is being taught to our kids as fact (all six meanings of the word evolution above), is indeed a fact. If this cannot be done then it should be admitted that evolution is a religion but not a science. Some say it is unfair to define evolution including the origin of the universe. They say it only has to do with “change in gene frequency over time.” All you need to do is read your local textbook and see that all 6 meanings of the word are part of what is taught as evolution theory. If these nay Sayers are agreeing that it should not be included then they should help me get it out of the books, if they are genuine.

Over the years I have heard many evolutionists say, “Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. Don’t you believe in gravity?” They repeat this mantra as if repetition will make it true. Their example is silly of course. We can all observe gravity every moment of our lives. We can do tests and experiments to verify the theory of gravity. No one has ever seen an exception to it. By the same token, no one has ever observed evolution nor been able to demonstrate any evolution beyond minor variations within the kind. To try to make evolution science by associating it with theories like gravity is ridiculous.

Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: “Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?” This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen. So my next logical question is: “Why do I have to pay for the evolution religion to be taught to all the students in the tax supported school system?” Since all taxpayers are being forced to pay for evolution to be taught exclusively in public schools and evolutionists have had the last 130 years and billions of dollars in research grants to prove their religion, the burden of proof is on them to supply proof of their theory.

I do not have time or interest in getting involved in long e-mail debates, but I will talk to anyone by phone or debate with any qualified scientist (even a panel of evolutionists) in a public forum at a university, on radio or TV, as long as there is equal time for each position not each person. If you call, please have a list of topics to discuss or questions to ask and feel free to record the conversation if you like. Just inform me that you are recording please. I hope this response is satisfactory.

I have taught for years that evolution is nothing but a religion mixed in with real science. Many have been duped into believing in it. There is no evidence that any plant or animal ever can or did change to any other kind or creature. It is time that intelligent people the world over began to admit that the king has no clothes! There is no evidence for changes between kinds of animals. The Bible teaches that God made them to “bring forth after their kind.” This is all that has ever been observed. The same Bible teaches that everyone will face the Creator one day to be judged for everything they have said, done or thought. I recommend that everyone prepare for that day by taking advantage of God’s mercy and forgiveness afforded through the free salvation offered to any who will confess their sin and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord. If you are interested in learning more about becoming a Christian, please call me. I travel a lot but always take time for calls when I am in the office. I am most often in Wednesday through Friday at 850-479-3466. Check my itinerary on my web site for my location if you need to talk with me while I am out speaking. If possible, attend a seminar. Seminars are free and we always have a question answer time for those who attend.

Sincerely,
Kent Hovind


I even have the link to back it up: http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67

[Laurence_Fox]

My best friend had really bad eyes, and they were getting worse. She prayed for several years, but it kept getting slightly worse. One day, at a prayer meeting, she had enough, walked up to the guy, ripped her glasses off, snapped them in half, and said "Pray for my eyes." She went to a doctor's appointment a few days later, and she had perfect vision. How can someone fake that? And, since she was praying for years, if it was "power of the mind" as you say, don't you think it would have happened sooner? (btw, she has an account on this site, so I can have her come here and verify if you want)

Also! My brothers have autism, and we've been praying for years. Almost everytime we take them to a special service prayer meeting, they get slightly better. Can someone fake that?


As for the creationism vs. evolution..

I even have the link to back it up: http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67

The human mind is something that we as human beings have not fully come to understand. If there is just a faint glimmer of hope, the human mind can fight against any disease. Even when you're sick you know you're going to get better. But someone with cancer who are told they have x number of days to live? They're going to believe that just like a doctor who tells them that there is a slim chance they can recover.

I am not saying that your friend or your brothers couldn't have gotten better by no means don't interpret my words that way. I'm just saying it's hard for me to accept the fact that some entity up in the sky healed/is healing them.

So you quoted some other persons thoughts on the issue rather than typing out your own. Honestly that link is some person offering to give money to the person that can give him proof of what he wants to hear. Sounds like a hoax to me.

[Xendran]

I stick with my simple answer of "Go find me a half evolved monkey"

[Delicious ♥ Ambrosia]

The human mind is something that we as human beings have not fully come to understand. If there is just a faint glimmer of hope, the human mind can fight against any disease. Even when you're sick you know you're going to get better. But someone with cancer who are told they have x number of days to live? They're going to believe that just like a doctor who tells them that there is a slim chance they can recover.

I am not saying that your friend or your brothers couldn't have gotten better by no means don't interpret my words that way. I'm just saying it's hard for me to accept the fact that some entity up in the sky healed/is healing them.

So you quoted some other persons thoughts on the issue rather than typing out your own. Honestly that link is some person offering to give money to the person that can give him proof of what he wants to hear. Sounds like a hoax to me.

I quoted him becuase he has the best defense against evolution I've ever seen, and he does it way better than I ever could. Plus, all my stuff is based off of his, so I figured I'd save time by linking to the orginal.

It's not a hoax. Think about this: Why would someone work so hard to defend something that is based on "Thou shalt not bear false witness", and then lie?


Also: Give me Scientific proof of evolution. (I'm talking the first 5 kinds, not microevolution)

I stick with my simple answer of "Go find me a half evolved monkey"

That's what I used to say too lol

Also, why aren't we still evolving?

[Xendran]

Exactly! if evolution was going on, why don't i have like [exageration]8 arms that can do 50 things at once[/exagerration] and adapt to the weather so that we nevre have to have heaeting or cooling or instant reflexes so that we can never get hurt, or somethign that instantly gets rid of viruses wihtout needing vaccines?

[Laurence_Fox]

I quoted him becuase he has the best defense against evolution I've ever seen, and he does it way better than I ever could. Plus, all my stuff is based off of his, so I figured I'd save time by linking to the orginal.

It's not a hoax. Think about this: Why would someone work so hard to defend something that is based on "Thou shalt not bear false witness", and then lie?


Also: Give me Scientific proof of evolution. (I'm talking the first 5 kinds, not microevolution)



That's what I used to say too lol

Also, why aren't we still evolving?

Why do we have Christian charities claiming to give money to starving children in Africa and then find out the money went to the renovvations of this church or that Christian holy site?

Man is motivated by greed.

I could easily say this: 'Give me scientific proof that there is a God.' I cannot bring forward proof of the evolution of the universe same as you cannot bring forth proof of God and the angels.

We are still evolving. More children are being born without appendixes and some people don't grow wisdom teeth.

[Delicious ♥ Ambrosia]

Why do we have Christian charities claiming to give money to starving children in Africa and then find out the money went to the renovvations of this church or that Christian holy site?

Man is motivated by greed.

I could easily say this: 'Give me scientific proof that there is a God.' I cannot bring forward proof of the evolution of the universe same as you cannot bring forth proof of God and the angels.

We are still evolving. More children are being born without appendixes and some people don't grow wisdom teeth.

Dr. Kent Hovind did in his videos. I don't remeber every single detail, so I'm not gonna put it here, but you could rent his videos (or buy them on amazon (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_d/105-2257156-2097240?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=dr.+kent+hovind&x=17&y=18)), watch them, then come back and disprove his stuff.

[Mirai]

I'l leave the miracle stuff to someone else. However... Kent Hovind. The creation "scientist "(and I use that term...

VERY

loosely), that even Answers in Genesis dislike.

Most thinking people will agree that..

* A highly ordered universe exists.
* At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.
* Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.


1. No. Chaos theory, man. The universe is extremely weird and we're just barely understand the things in it.
2. True. Howver, if there's more than one, Hovind's "hypotheses" are disproven even more than they already are.
3. Agreed.

Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being..

* The universe was created by God.
* The universe always existed.
* The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.


1. Oh yes. Christianity is obviously the ONLY religion. *facepalm* I cannot say that it was not a supernatural force, but it definitely wasn't yours.
2. This is not a static universe.
3. Agreed... Except the part in the parentheses. The big bang=/= evolution.

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

* Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
* Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
* Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
* Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
* Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).


1. NO! Big bang =/= evolution
2. Correct, but it's not the same evolution as in Australopithecus>man.
3. NO! Abiogenesis =/= evolution
4. Agreed.
5. Not "spontaneously." It evolved over billions of years.


People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Evolution is not a belief. It is a scientific theory that has gained a mountain of evidence over the past 150 years. With the "We must teach all worldviews" support, it's also saying that it's alright to teach white supremacy. Evolution is not a religion. A religion has (a) God(ess(es))(s) and talks about spirituality. Evolution talks about NONE. It is SCIENCE. If teaching evolution is a violation of the First Amendment, then teaching Creationism is even worse. It does alter minds. With evolution, we have created new medicines and vaccines.


Kent Hovind is currently in jail for tax frauds, by the way. Not saying this to invalidate his claims (as that would be ad hominen).

[Repliku]

First off, that link is a lame thing and he has it wrong. Some of what he wrote is absolute dribble, though fancied up to look legitimate. Also, those who said it was a scam are correct. In simple, you can -never- argue logic with someone who is of absolute faith. It cannot win ever! If Christian zealots were to actually study the theories before them instead of taking the word of some stupid idiot that does not know them himself, well, we might get somewhere in this debate. I find it disturbing that even the Creationist supporters here do not know what the Big Bang Theory truly is, and yet many of us who support Evolution can take quotes from the Bible and understand them perfectly fine. Creationism scientists lie. Until someone actually looks at the Theories and doesn't just read a one-sided view, there is no way to talk with these people at all. It's like they are afraid to view the truth of what is 'really' written in theories of science, but they are so candidly motivated to pass scientists a Bible. Then we read it and go 'wtf'. At least scientists actually -read- it and study it. I have yet to see a proper study done by a Creationist and I doubt I will ever see it done. I can better debate Intelligent Design versus Evolution because both come to paths of agreement and some realism, even if 'faith' is tacked on the end for ID.

Logic is rationalizing out, studying, ****yzing and critically examining and thinking about things. It is not perfect but with the minds of many people doing so and tangible evidence, things do happen. Science is diverse though and so there are more than one theory on nearly any topic, because there are different ways with evidence to look at something. It's how Objective versus how Subjective we will be when examining things before our eyes. Objective is taking in the information and Subjective is how we perceive it and ideas that formulate around them.

Science does NOT answer all questions. As a scientist, one of the little things you do in your life is understand that you will not have all the answers to every single question and some must be left "open-ended" to be researched later or by other people in the future. Science does not go out of its way to say God doesn't exist except to point out to Christians that it WILL not exist in a "Science" research because it is something that cannot possibly be studied until we reach that point. We take -real- things, look at them. Science moves around 'Faith' because Faith does not study anything. It sees what it is told to see and what it puts in its heart to believe. Science does not, despite every zealot Christian's fear, go out of its way to say God doesn't exist and the only reason it has a problem with religion is because of issues with dating, discoveries that contradict the books in events, and we study farther than a few doctrines can ever reach.

Christian Science is a farce and should be eliminated from the realm of science altogether. It's like saying Scientology is science and it is clearly not. You cannot go into science with the point of proving something exists that you already believe in and learning things of science incorrectly to form views and solidify your faith. If the material is corrupted from the beginning, ALL results will therefore be corrupted and all this is in the end is a 'reaffirming' of someone's personal faith by skewing evidence and lying. You don't need that to believe in a religion, I would hope, but that IS what Christian Science is about.

Science is studying that which is around us and using the 5 senses. It is critical views of what is there to be noticed and what does it mean, its function, its purpose and how can it be used, altered etc. It is not going to answer solidly about God because it is something someone either believes in or does not. Atheists disbelieve in God. So, many atheists are scientists. Not all are. So, some Christians, Jews, Islamic followers are Scientists. Not all support Creationism or even support Christian Science. I know several Christians that support the Theory of Evolution and other things that 'contradict' the Bible. I work with them in archeology and learn from some of them. The studies of science are meant to come from as -neutral- of a mind as you can be and to put personal beliefs and your own 'theories' to the side line so you can investigate things with an open mind: Not a closed one which is what Christian Science does. Science itself will not go out of its way to disprove OR prove God because quite simply we do not have the answers yet to do so. However, we can study matter, atoms, water, molecules, genetics, the galaxies, black holes, wormholes, entanglement, quantum physics, biology, botany etc. No text book that kids ever read says "There is no God". It will not happen regardless of what some scientists believe because that is a personal opinion and there is no evidence. It is also a personal opinion that God exists.

Just because something marvelous exists and we study it and go 'wow' doesn't mean a -true- scientist is going to just say that "God did it" because the answer to that is unknown and to say so corrupts the work done by many people to maintain a neutral point of saying 'this is how it works in the present time and this is how it worked formerly'. ANYONE can say -anything- they find was created by God and will make some reason for it to have been possible. I can also at the same time say the Pink Puffy Jellyfish made the Milky Way Galaxy and is now sending our galaxy on a path with meeting the Andromeda Galaxy. I also can have as much 'evidence' as what extreme Christians do when they say God did it.

If I went to some meeting on the Theory of Evolution and said "The Pink Puffy Jellyfish" is responsible for all the miraculous universe and our existences, I'd be laughed out of there because I have made it a personal belief and no one else is going to believe that, even if I convince some colleagues and start a "cult". If I went to a Christian Science get together and did the same thing, I would be called blasphemous, but what makes my Pink Puffy Jellyfish any less real than God is when saying there is a Divine Creator? I too can write a book and say I was divinely inspired. All cults/religions start out that way. This is WHY exactly that the Bible can be studied for some Historic quality but other than that, it is not so accurate for much else. The only evidence of God is that there are a few books out there and a mass culture of people that 'believe' in it. This is -not- proof. The Christians of the past made sure to wipe out mythologies of Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Norse and Celtic ideals (and more) and to absorb some of their holidays and designs even to make more people believe but what makes God anymore real than Thor? If Thor is now just reduced to being of the status of a mythology, why should we treat God any different? Just because people 'believe' it does not make it true. Someday Science may have the ability to prove whether God exists, or whether Thor exists or if either ever truly existed. However, it is simply not to that point yet and as there is very little evidence to support things either way, we are caught at an impasse and most scientists will not even bother with that and instead focus on what is -real- and there to be studied. Evolution has tangible evidence you can hold in your hand and therefore it is examined and studies continue. The point is to not say whether it was created by God or not, but to say THERE it is and it exists! Someday this will be understood because this war between belief and logic has gone on for hundreds of years and killed many great people who dared to think outside of the bun.

P.S. Thank you Mirai for doing what I debated on doing and taking apart that Hovind article. I didn't want this post to be anymore of a novel than it already is.

[mixt]

Sorry Repliku but I don't have time to read your monster post right now, I'll be sure to find a retort to it later. As for Mirai, most of what you said in there was arguing semantics instead of actual ideas. All you’ve shown is that he could phrase things better and needs to learn exactly which terms he should use where, many (but not all) of his actual thoughts however are still valid by your dissection. There are a few points in there I disagree with but dissecting a dissection just gets too messy and they're not all that big.

Unfortunately nothing can ever be proved, only disproved.

I’m glad someone actually brought that up. Science does not tell us what is truth, it tells us what are lies and we assume truth from that. There is no such thing as a true law, only theories that have yet to be disproved. There is also the matter that our seemingly most accurate results come from experimentation; but you can’t exactly replicate a process that takes at least hundreds of years in a lab can you? Much less with several trials.

[Repliku]

Sorry Repliku but I don't have time to read your monster post right now, I'll be sure to find a retort to it later. As for Mirai, most of what you said in there was arguing semantics instead of actual ideas. All you’ve shown is that he could phrase things better and needs to learn exactly which terms he should use where, many (but not all) of his actual thoughts however are still valid by your dissection. There are a few points in there I disagree with but dissecting a dissection just gets too messy and they're not all that big.



I’m glad someone actually brought that up. Science does not tell us what is truth, it tells us what are lies and we assume truth from that. There is no such thing as a true law, only theories that have yet to be disproved. There is also the matter that our seemingly most accurate results come from experimentation; but you can’t exactly replicate a process that takes at least hundreds of years in a lab can you? Much less with several trials.

It isn't an argument about semantics, as to what he posted. Read it again. He posted it out without being as long winded as I am in breaking it down.

Some of the man's points were valid and others are skewed and twisted to fit his meanings. That is the whole problem. He looks at it from saying 'God exists' and does not look at it from 'How does this work'. He on purpose words things the way he does to play with it and report to people his way what it means. That is lying. If he can't even get the theories right in the first place, he cannot debate what is wrong with them.

Because theories in science are attempted to be disproved much more often, and some stand the test very well, think on that a bit. When a theory is disproved, it is removed and new examinations and former studies are reopened and investigated. This is what religion cannot do and why Creationists should not have Christian Science near anything related to Science at all. It should be called Christian Rubbish. I went to a seminar where some Creationist Scientist tried to say that earth is the only place that holds water. This is bull. There are worlds out there with evidence of water, and there are moons and worlds with water on them. It would really help if people would stop spreading lies to support their beliefs. Science is not about breaking beliefs. It is about understanding the marvelous place we dwell in.

[Scrotumz!]

First off, that link is a lame thing and he has it wrong. Some of what he wrote is absolute dribble, though fancied up to look legitimate. Also, those who said it was a scam are correct. In simple, you can -never- argue logic with someone who is of absolute faith. It cannot win ever! If Christian zealots were to actually study the theories before them instead of taking the word of some stupid idiot that does not know them himself, well, we might get somewhere in this debate. I find it disturbing that even the Creationist supporters here do not know what the Big Bang Theory truly is, and yet many of us who support Evolution can take quotes from the Bible and understand them perfectly fine. Creationism scientists lie. Until someone actually looks at the Theories and doesn't just read a one-sided view, there is no way to talk with these people at all. It's like they are afraid to view the truth of what is 'really' written in theories of science, but they are so candidly motivated to pass scientists a Bible. Then we read it and go 'wtf'. At least scientists actually -read- it and study it. I have yet to see a proper study done by a Creationist and I doubt I will ever see it done. I can better debate Intelligent Design versus Evolution because both come to paths of agreement and some realism, even if 'faith' is tacked on the end for ID.

Logic is rationalizing out, studying, ****yzing and critically examining and thinking about things. It is not perfect but with the minds of many people doing so and tangible evidence, things do happen. Science is diverse though and so there are more than one theory on nearly any topic, because there are different ways with evidence to look at something. It's how Objective versus how Subjective we will be when examining things before our eyes. Objective is taking in the information and Subjective is how we perceive it and ideas that formulate around them.

Science does NOT answer all questions. As a scientist, one of the little things you do in your life is understand that you will not have all the answers to every single question and some must be left "open-ended" to be researched later or by other people in the future. Science does not go out of its way to say God doesn't exist except to point out to Christians that it WILL not exist in a "Science" research because it is something that cannot possibly be studied until we reach that point. We take -real- things, look at them. Science moves around 'Faith' because Faith does not study anything. It sees what it is told to see and what it puts in its heart to believe. Science does not, despite every zealot Christian's fear, go out of its way to say God doesn't exist and the only reason it has a problem with religion is because of issues with dating, discoveries that contradict the books in events, and we study farther than a few doctrines can ever reach.

Christian Science is a farce and should be eliminated from the realm of science altogether. It's like saying Scientology is science and it is clearly not. You cannot go into science with the point of proving something exists that you already believe in and learning things of science incorrectly to form views and solidify your faith. If the material is corrupted from the beginning, ALL results will therefore be corrupted and all this is in the end is a 'reaffirming' of someone's personal faith by skewing evidence and lying. You don't need that to believe in a religion, I would hope, but that IS what Christian Science is about.

Science is studying that which is around us and using the 5 senses. It is critical views of what is there to be noticed and what does it mean, its function, its purpose and how can it be used, altered etc. It is not going to answer solidly about God because it is something someone either believes in or does not. Atheists disbelieve in God. So, many atheists are scientists. Not all are. So, some Christians, Jews, Islamic followers are Scientists. Not all support Creationism or even support Christian Science. I know several Christians that support the Theory of Evolution and other things that 'contradict' the Bible. I work with them in archeology and learn from some of them. The studies of science are meant to come from as -neutral- of a mind as you can be and to put personal beliefs and your own 'theories' to the side line so you can investigate things with an open mind: Not a closed one which is what Christian Science does. Science itself will not go out of its way to disprove OR prove God because quite simply we do not have the answers yet to do so. However, we can study matter, atoms, water, molecules, genetics, the galaxies, black holes, wormholes, entanglement, quantum physics, biology, botany etc. No text book that kids ever read says "There is no God". It will not happen regardless of what some scientists believe because that is a personal opinion and there is no evidence. It is also a personal opinion that God exists.

Just because something marvelous exists and we study it and go 'wow' doesn't mean a -true- scientist is going to just say that "God did it" because the answer to that is unknown and to say so corrupts the work done by many people to maintain a neutral point of saying 'this is how it works in the present time and this is how it worked formerly'. ANYONE can say -anything- they find was created by God and will make some reason for it to have been possible. I can also at the same time say the Pink Puffy Jellyfish made the Milky Way Galaxy and is now sending our galaxy on a path with meeting the Andromeda Galaxy. I also can have as much 'evidence' as what extreme Christians do when they say God did it.

If I went to some meeting on the Theory of Evolution and said "The Pink Puffy Jellyfish" is responsible for all the miraculous universe and our existences, I'd be laughed out of there because I have made it a personal belief and no one else is going to believe that, even if I convince some colleagues and start a "cult". If I went to a Christian Science get together and did the same thing, I would be called blasphemous, but what makes my Pink Puffy Jellyfish any less real than God is when saying there is a Divine Creator? I too can write a book and say I was divinely inspired. All cults/religions start out that way. This is WHY exactly that the Bible can be studied for some Historic quality but other than that, it is not so accurate for much else. The only evidence of God is that there are a few books out there and a mass culture of people that 'believe' in it. This is -not- proof. The Christians of the past made sure to wipe out mythologies of Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Norse and Celtic ideals (and more) and to absorb some of their holidays and designs even to make more people believe but what makes God anymore real than Thor? If Thor is now just reduced to being of the status of a mythology, why should we treat God any different? Just because people 'believe' it does not make it true. Someday Science may have the ability to prove whether God exists, or whether Thor exists or if either ever truly existed. However, it is simply not to that point yet and as there is very little evidence to support things either way, we are caught at an impasse and most scientists will not even bother with that and instead focus on what is -real- and there to be studied. Evolution has tangible evidence you can hold in your hand and therefore it is examined and studies continue. The point is to not say whether it was created by God or not, but to say THERE it is and it exists! Someday this will be understood because this war between belief and logic has gone on for hundreds of years and killed many great people who dared to think outside of the bun.

P.S. Thank you Mirai for doing what I debated on doing and taking apart that Hovind article. I didn't want this post to be anymore of a novel than it already is.

That was the longest post i've ever not read. Seriously man no one actually CARES if they did they would just talk to each other about they'd do something.

[lostheart]

Here's a wild thought:What if God creted us through Evolution?
"Wait," you're thinking. "God supposedly created the Earth in a week."
How are you going to explain billions of billions of years to people in the 1st or 2nd century? Not by using big numbers. I guess the writers of the Bible decided to shorten it down to a week so that it all made sense. Each day stands for something he created.
In my opinion, God did create the Universe, but in a way we'll never understand because our brains are too small.

[Zandyne]

Here's a wild thought:What if God creted us through Evolution?
"Wait," you're thinking. "God supposedly created the Earth in a week."
How are you going to explain billions of billions of years to people in the 1st or 2nd century? Not by using big numbers. I guess the writers of the Bible decided to shorten it down to a week so that it all made sense. Each day stands for something he created.
In my opinion, God did create the Universe, but in a way we'll never understand because our brains are too small.

Unfortunately that would contradict the "and he formed Adam out of mud/earth and Eve from his rib" statement. Therefore the theory of Evolution is not provided as a means of creation through the Bible. The sentiment is appreciated though.

Also it is not a matter of brain size which solely dictates the logic and comprehension processes of the brain, rather it is the immeasurable ability to come to concessions with other ideas that dictates the "ability" of the brain. (IE: Dolphins have larger brains then us in terms of mass, however as far as we know they are not more intelligent than us.)

Anyway, to keep on topic, people claim evolution is still not valid because "we aren't still evolving". Given that we do so many unnatural alterations to ourselves we have what can best be compared to an overflowing pool; another would be the evolutionary points the others have pointed out as well as an add-on about the higher number of C-sections in childbirth as well as the defects in children in general.

Are physical defects a gift from God? Science explains and evidences that the same physical defects come from errors in genetic coding which are linked to the theory of evolution.

[8730]

Anyway, to keep on topic, people claim evolution is still not valid because "we aren't still evolving". Given that we do so many unnatural alterations to ourselves we have what can best be compared to an overflowing pool; another would be the evolutionary points the others have pointed out as well as an add-on about the higher number of C-sections in childbirth as well as the defects in children in general.

This is a very good point. I believe the reason we are seemingly no longer evolving (although there was a report which I saw which said that development of the human species had gone up like 10 times over the last few hundreds of years [ugh wish I could remember the exact details x.x]) is because we have taken control of our own evolution. Natural selection through survival of the fittest no longer applies in the developed world. People with diseases caused by genetic errors now live long enough to have children which passes on genetic material which in the past would eventually die out. This means that weak material is staying in the gene pool, thereby weakening the human race overall.

[Repliku]

Humans have been evolving still. We are growing on the whole larger than our ancestors previously. Selective genetic alterations also would include that some local groups are able to breathe more efficiently in higher altitudes and others can swim under water for longer durations. There are people who are born without wisdom teeth and some also who are born without appendices. There are changes and the information is out there and all a person has to do is check up on it instead of just saying 'we aren't evolving anymore'. Even our cultures evolve and the ways we interact change.

Here's a wild thought:What if God creted us through Evolution?
"Wait," you're thinking. "God supposedly created the Earth in a week."
How are you going to explain billions of billions of years to people in the 1st or 2nd century? Not by using big numbers. I guess the writers of the Bible decided to shorten it down to a week so that it all made sense. Each day stands for something he created.
In my opinion, God did create the Universe, but in a way we'll never understand because our brains are too small.

This is not a new thought. It is known as Intelligent Design, which in simple tries to merge Evolution together with the thought that a great mover initiated it and now and then alters things. The problem with this is that you still have to dismiss the Bible to say its true because there are still too many holes in it. Intelligent Design though, since God cannot be proven or disproved anymore than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is just a way to try to force that God does exist and until Science can count it does, it's just a hypothesis and not even a theory. However, in saying such, it makes more sense than Creationism ever will.

[true darkness]

i believe in Evolution, we humans didn't come during the first centuries of the earth, we came way after, but in the bible it says that "god" created humans just a day later after the animals, the bible is someting which was made long ago, but it is filled up with stories, many people may have changed the story of the creation of the earth, the creation of the earth story where god created everything in a week could just be someone's story where it got mis-read and got put in the bible.

until i get proper truth that "god" is real i believe in evolution.

[mixt]

Here's a wild thought:What if God creted us through Evolution?
"Wait," you're thinking. "God supposedly created the Earth in a week."
How are you going to explain billions of billions of years to people in the 1st or 2nd century? Not by using big numbers. I guess the writers of the Bible decided to shorten it down to a week so that it all made sense. Each day stands for something he created.

Unfortunately that would contradict the "and he formed Adam out of mud/earth and Eve from his rib" statement. Therefore the theory of Evolution is not provided as a means of creation through the Bible. The sentiment is appreciated though.

I would like to point out that much of the bible has debatable translations and much of it is metaphorical.

For example, the world being created in seven days isn’t entirely right. The Hebrew word used there for “days” means a length of time. Day, minute, month, year, age; we don’t know for sure what was originally meant so it is anyone’s guess, but if we take it to mean age the idea of Genesis still stands in science.

As for the “he formed Adam from the mud” bit can’t this very easily mean the bacteria living in the soil? It is said that bacteria form the base of the evolutionary chain. The whole thing with Eve coming from Adam’s rib I’ve yet to dissect enough to make scientific sense of though.

[black_oblivion56]

I believe that that believing in god is awkwardly more absurd than it sounds..... seriously so many people believe there is a person in the sky thats almighty and can do whatever he wants to us and we are like his action figures. so I go evolution (mostly cause I don't believe in god. also there is way too much proof of evolution. I'm sorta like a rebel cause my parents are catholic and stuff.... though my grandpa also doesn't believe in god and I think thats where I got my ideas from (even though he died before I turned 1 year old)

[lostheart]

I believe that that believing in god is awkwardly more absurd than it sounds..... seriously so many people believe there is a person in the sky thats almighty and can do whatever he wants to us and we are like his action figures. so I go evolution (mostly cause I don't believe in god. also there is way too much proof of evolution. I'm sorta like a rebel cause my parents are catholic and stuff.... though my grandpa also doesn't believe in god and I think thats where I got my ideas from (even though he died before I turned 1 year old)

But how do you know it's correct? [Just arguing because I feel to add a point mate.] So we look at apes and monkeys and say, "Hey, they share 90% of our DNA{numbers are not exact}." If we're cousins, how come their not humans? If we came a ape-like ancestor, how come apes aren't human?
Here's a scenario: The first cell appears on Earth. But it dies because it has no way of eating and getting rid of the waste. So it dies. The basic cell cannot live. So what's it gonna do? Come back to life and keep dying till it gets it right? no.
There had to be some intelligent planning in the creation of the Universe.
Another point: The Big Bang. Scientist say there was nothing, then there was a huge KA-BLOOIE! and over millions of so-so years, our solar system came to be. But that's not right. There had to be a action for the reaction to happen. There had to be two gases or something to make it happen. If there was nothing, then how can an explosion randomly happen?

[White_Rook]

But how do you know it's correct? [Just arguing because I feel to add a point mate.] So we look at apes and monkeys and say, "Hey, they share 90% of our DNA{numbers are not exact}." If we're cousins, how come their not humans? If we came a ape-like ancestor, how come apes aren't human?
Here's a scenario: The first cell appears on Earth. But it dies because it has no way of eating and getting rid of the waste. So it dies. The basic cell cannot live. So what's it gonna do? Come back to life and keep dying till it gets it right? no.
There had to be some intelligent planning in the creation of the Universe.
Another point: The Big Bang. Scientist say there was nothing, then there was a huge KA-BLOOIE! and over millions of so-so years, our solar system came to be. But that's not right. There had to be a action for the reaction to happen. There had to be two gases or something to make it happen. If there was nothing, then how can an explosion randomly happen?

The first cells were much more simple, required little and could survive in the most harsh environments. Cellular evolutionary theory postulates that complexity arose from these simple cells engulfing others and developing mutual relationships. For example, the mitochondria possess its own DNA, which suggests that at some point it was able to generate energy and produce for itself.

To start evolution is aimless; a series of random changes that result from a response and adaptation to the environment. It could've been just as probable that might have evolved from birds and been a race of avian people that ruled the skies. It just so happened that at the time the environment called for a higher order of adaptation in primates. Who knows why? We've simply acquired a great deal of evidence that at some point in time primate left the trees , etc. It could've been an issue with food, a decline in the amount of forest at the time. There's really no definitive explanation, but there are a great deal of plausible theories. As for the current apes not evolving, they are. The process takes hundreds of thousands of years, and changes are slow, gradual and unpredictable. That is, the current environment may not even call for them to become humanoid; they could end up retreating to the water and become more fish like, if the polar ice caps should melt.

Only recently has it been observed that apes possess some form of language potential. Some have learned sign language and are able to use enough of it to be effective. Granted, many have argued that the learning is simply behavioural and based on stimulus-response reactions, it still shows learning potential.

As for the Big Bang Theory, you're argument does not include all the information within the theory, which makes it invalid. The law of conservation of mass applies to the universe, and with that in mind the Big Bang Theory states that the matter of the universe began as being densely packed and volatile.

[Zandyne]

I would like to point out that much of the bible has debatable translations and much of it is metaphorical.

For example, the world being created in seven days isn’t entirely right. The Hebrew word used there for “days” means a length of time. Day, minute, month, year, age; we don’t know for sure what was originally meant so it is anyone’s guess, but if we take it to mean age the idea of Genesis still stands in science.

As for the “he formed Adam from the mud” bit can’t this very easily mean the bacteria living in the soil? It is said that bacteria form the base of the evolutionary chain. The whole thing with Eve coming from Adam’s rib I’ve yet to dissect enough to make scientific sense of though.

It can but at the same time it can very not mean that at all. The very existence of bacteria/single-celled (eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells if specification is your goal) organisms wouldn't have been understood at the time (just as how sickness and mental ailments were deemed curses, demons or other otherworldly explainations). So a metaphor is somewhat understandable, HOWEVER if "earth" was to be interpreted to be the origin of bacteria, why not water? Water (aquatic life) has been shown to have been the earlier location of life starting point than earthen material (life on land). Then again many of the descriptions of the Bible are too vague and liable for misinterpretation as you have mentioned. However this is not a question of personal interpretations of texts, but a question of if one theory of life is more plausible than the others.

(Other, much more earlier myths suggested that the first humans were also formed from earth into infants which then grew into full humans, however this is depending on the myth you look into. That in on itself means that humans formed from earth/soil is an idea first introduced by the Bible and is in fact predated by several other beliefs beforehand...but this is not a new fact.)

However, in addition to your suggestion and pondering of Eve coming from Adam's rib and connecting it to today's studies, AT BEST I can link it to some form of mass scale mitosis/meiosis cell-division.

But how do you know it's correct? [Just arguing because I feel to add a point mate.] So we look at apes and monkeys and say, "Hey, they share 90% of our DNA{numbers are not exact}." If we're cousins, how come their not humans? If we came a ape-like ancestor, how come apes aren't human?
Here's a scenario: The first cell appears on Earth. But it dies because it has no way of eating and getting rid of the waste. So it dies. The basic cell cannot live. So what's it gonna do? Come back to life and keep dying till it gets it right? no.
There had to be some intelligent planning in the creation of the Universe.
Another point: The Big Bang. Scientist say there was nothing, then there was a huge KA-BLOOIE! and over millions of so-so years, our solar system came to be. But that's not right. There had to be a action for the reaction to happen. There had to be two gases or something to make it happen. If there was nothing, then how can an explosion randomly happen?

The percentage is actually much higher depending on which "ape" you are comparing to (chimpanzees have the highest, sharing 98.2% with humans, and they also have one more chromosome pair than humans; I looked it up for you 8D). Also the reason why they "aren't humans" is for the very same fact we don't lump all other different species of "similiar" animal together as one lump population (also the rule of species which is self-explainatory; if it cannot be crossbred with fertile offspring it is not of the same species). You must also take into account that just because we don't thouroughly understand ape "intelligence" does not make them any less "human". A good example would actually be Coco the gorilla (or any other study done on those of the ape family, but Coco was one I saw at school some time ago and can think of off the top of my head) who was taught human sign language and could effectively use it to communicate. It's rather fascinating....(I'd include the additional points about "need for the evolutionary trait" but White_Rook has already covered that quite well.)

That aside I don't quite understand your arguement concerning the cell that dies and spontaneously comes back to life....that defeats the purpose of evolution and life/death concept all together...so I'm not certain how the statement works in your favor (perhaps you can rephrase it?). Also, many of the first cells that were able to exist were autotrophs...hence when they continued to live. The cell in your example would merely die and most likely its string for "survival" would no longer pop up in the natural genetic pool.
And no, nothing said the Universe was perfectly organized, look at atoms and how they function.
Also the concept of the Bing Bang is just as questionable as how God spontaneously existed to create all of existence. Both are thus far considered spontaneous and having a conundrum of "but there was nothing and then there was suddenly something." The Big Bang theory offers a straight-up answer of SPONTANEOUS EXISTENCE whereas the God/Higher-being idea consists of "well something divine made it, and that divine something has ALWAYS existed, NO MORE QUESTIONS, THANKS."