Creationism (pro) v. Evolution (con)

Nice points, I can see where you are coming from and you seem like you are attempting to be reasonable in your thinking but your conclusions don't align with your proof. "The Cambrian explosion" This is an interesting time in earth history and I'm glad you brought it up. There definitely was an explosion of life 541 million years ago. Key organisms that appeared over a 20-25 million year period : [1] Ediacara biota Kimberella Vernanimalcula Burgess-type Marrella Anomalocaridids Halwaxiids Opabinia Odontogriphus Small shelly fauna Helcionellids Was man not meant to be made in gods image rather than the image of an 'Opabinia' [2] ? The sudden appearance of life has many different explanations, the common thought on the issue is that it was a sudden change in environment such as increased oxygen levels, ozone formation or increased calcium in the seawater. It's not outlandish to conclude that change in environment would have a ripple effect on life forms. A modern example of this maybe seen in the next 5,000 years because of green house gasses. The chain of events : Gasses make a hole in our ozone " the earth warms up a few degrees " Polar icecaps melt " the earth will become more covered in water effecting aquatic and terrestrial life. If this could all happen in 5,000 years you can imagine what changes could occur over 20-25 million years (like in the The Cambrian explosion). If you are claiming that 'god' was the cause of this, I don't see how it relates to your holy book and if your holy book doesn't align with our knowledge of the history then doesn't that make your bible invalid as a history book? Science is a powerful tool for explanation because it uses observable and reproducible facts. If you would trust CSI to use science to solve a murder, then why wouldn't you trust similar fields to explain history. Being open for debate is what makes science a strong tool and what makes the bible and theory of creationism weak. Example: When black holes were predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity some scientists refused to believe their existence. They then set out to prove that they didn't exist. To do so they needed to provide a different theory than Einsteins relativity theory but the more they tried the more they ended up with the same prediction that black holes do exist. You can't accept Einsteins theory of relativity without also accepting that black holes exist. [later in our history we found some black holes thus proving the predictions correct] My point here is that you can't cherry pick ideas from science because it's a package. A package that people are constantly trying to prove wrong and in turn solidifying or disproving theory's. The Cambrian explosion is amazing yes, a miracle that has theory's of explanation. In science if you don't like something, you need to provide proof, this is where creationism fails. I maybe missing something but I'm failing to see how the Cambrian explosion example you gave is helping your argument ----------- "Irreducible complexity" Yes, life is amazingly complex it is a true marvel and something everyone should be thankful to be a part of. As our species develop we learn more about it's complexity's but because we are a part of it, it's truly an uphill battle on the road to absolute knowledge. You are quite hasty to assume that complexity is proof of creationism though. It is defiantly something to be in awe of but assuming that your god has created life because it's complex is far fetched and egotistical of the church. Like thinking the planets revolve around the earth. The information of how things are put together and came to be is out there, perhaps not entirely known to us at present, but though constant progress and discovery more is becoming clear. To rely on a book that was written by 40 philosophers and historians in 6th century BC isn't logical. Although they [the many chapters] are great philosophical books about supposed history, they are still written with a motive and agenda by people who are of a different mind than we are today. Over the years the book has changed as we talked about earlier but to stay valid the book should change constantly with the times. Unfortunately the bible has opted out of the logic race by claiming gospel and although it does modify slightly with time, it is only does so after much deliberation in regards to fact, fiction and ethics. The slow and slight changes that are made, in my opinion, hold back human discovery, ethical forward movement and morality that it is supposed to hold paramount. If there is a creationist, wouldn't that creationist be pro education, discovery and evolution of our species? Wouldn't he/she want us to explore and clearly map out the genius of his/her creation? Without a constant update the bible, in future years, will be whittled down to dated philosophy and mysticism and debates like ours will be more so about things that can't be proven by either party. The creationism party will always end up making assumptions, generalisations and false dichotomy and veering away from logic and reason. ---------------- ""Life itself cannot come from nonliving objects, This brings up the Idea that perhaps life came by random chance, to which I would say that life is far too complicated for random chance" You used an example of throwing individual words of a single phrase of Shakespeare into the air and stated that the odds of them landing in order were slim. This is true, the chances of them landing in order are slim. It is possible though, the words would eventually land in order, it maybe on the first throw, you never know. In fact, you could take all the individual words from all of Shakespeares works and if you were to throw them into the air enough times you would eventually have all his complete works in the exact order he wrote them. This can relate also to your point about the complexity of proteins needed for an organism to survive. Yes the chance of this happening is slim, ridiculously slim but it is still possible. The fact of the matter is, that if it were any other way but the perfect way it is now, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So, like the Shakespeare example because of chance we have landed perfectly with the right amount of proteins and we are able to have this talk. I'm glad. We are proof that however slim the odds, the odds are still there. Isn't' this the reason people buy lotto tickets? Again, this fact you bring up doesn't help your argument but brings to attention a hasty generalisation that you assume complexity is because of a creator. -------------- "Christianity could have easily been proven false if one person would have spoken up and said, "that didn't happen"" Faulty claims in our history happen (and i'm sure we are still are making assumptions and that will be later proved incorrect) however with time and more knowledge, claims of truth fall apart as facts emerge. Example: When I was young I believed Santa-clause brought me presents at christmas, when I got older I observed that Santa clause was just my parents and what I once believed as a fact [Santa being a real guy living I in the north pole making presents with elves] became fiction. Over the years holes have been poked in Christianity from the sciences, logic and reason. This is not a conflict of Science vs Religion because Science doesn't (and can't) claim to offer the wild claims religion does, but it does demosntrate how not everything in the bible can be true. Which must surely make you think 'what is true, what isn't' Returning to my Santa clause analogy in regards to how lies can become truth. If my friends had told me that Santa didn't exist. I could have chosen ignore them because I saw the proof, I saw that there were presents under the tree every year at christmas from Santaclause, but it doesn't make Santa real. Just my reinforces my belief. If my parents never given up the act and I never caught them putting presents under the tree, I could have lived my entire life believing that my friends were lying and that a fat man called Santa climbed down my chimney and gave me presents on christmas. I hope this Analogy is clear in demonstrating how we can easily be deceived. The difference between this Santa analogy and Christianity, is that Christianity has never delivered presents, so has even less proof of being a reality than my childhood Santa. Without being sceptical and open minded to new possibility's and proportioning our belief to evidence, we handicap ourself in regard to finding truth. If there was a creator, why would he only ever set up this laboratory once? Why not keep creating things and thus test us continually as our minds evolve to truly weed out the bad seeds? Why would he need to have a testament written, why not just watch us from afar and let us prove ourselves moral? I would rather not debate religion because under scrutiny the books fall apart. As for your arguments on PRO creationism, they also don't hold up as any sort of proof so would like to hear more from you to see if you can put forward some evidence, logic or reason rather than assumptions and generalization Thanks for your first argument and I'm looking forward to your reply. IAMCOFFEE [1]https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...