MovieChat Forums > Inherit the Wind (1960) Discussion > A Creationist Vs. Evolutionist - Who wou...

A Creationist Vs. Evolutionist - Who would win?

posted 16 years ago by Beeraw
29 replies | jump to latest

An Evolutionist once held a challenge to Christians "to prove what the Bible says is true without using the Bible in their whole discussion".
Now...Can someone please prove evolution as being accurate, without "science" in the debate at all?
The fact is, a Christian can use science in a debate against an evolutionist, without even bringing in the Bible, but an evolutionist cannot win a debate without their "science" in the discussion. (And honestly, science really is just basically a tool for understanding the world "logically" - it doesn't really even "exist".) In fact, an evolutionist couldn't really debate without science.

So putting faith in science is really [my apologies]a STUPID idea, as it's something man-invented for just figuring out dittly squat about the world.

(Note: NONE of those men who "started" the REAL whole study of science were evolutionists.)

Overall...I'd place MY bet on the Creationist over the Evolutionist. Who would you choose under a debate without either of their best sources?

And in my opinion...Science is really a BIBLICAL thing, a tool for understanding God's world - face the fact people, that's what it was all there for.

Darwin and all those other evolutionist guys were kind of being "creative" in thinking of a different way of origins, but they were...wrong.

*My sincere apologies for the randomness of this message*

> )( < WELCOME TO BEERAW WORLD > )( <

[–] Pooptart19 16 years ago

According to Merriam-Webster

Science -
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

So I guess we are to take the word of a 2000 year old holy text over that of today's current method of gathering evidence, experimentation, and peer-reviewing?

FYI, using today's evil science makes it possible for you to have clean water, shelter, medicine, and countless other things that improve your life.

Then again, I forgot, science is the work of the Devil, huh? Those evil biology professors and scientists with their fossils and rigorous testing. Man, I guess that's nothing when you have FAITH.

[–] lanaileila 16 years ago

who would win?
well, lets look at the amount of evidence for both sides that would show its existence, shall we?

Creationism/ I. D. - the bible as evidence

Science on evolution - million upon millions of papers, books, textbooks, research articles on the existence of scientific evolution.

my dear friend, if you were to have a decent scientific education, which unfortunately, few is any states in america provides, than the idea of who would win the debate the bible or science would never ever enter your mind.

(and i criticize american education system because i have gone through it fully, only to realize that its pure trash & that i would never be able to use again in life. I had never felt prepared for the science classes given in universities, even though my grades in High School were in the higher percentiles)

as for being a person who has agreed with only scientific evidence on the subject of evolution, i resent that i am being thought of as a person who is immoral and indecent. i do not go and murder people or pillage or rape, i assure you. a christian/godly upbringing was not necessary in order to prevent those things in me.
i see more prison inmates with crosses on them than i see atheists rotting in jail.

[–] RightSmarts1 16 years ago

The issue isn't with evolution, but with Darwinism - the idea that evolution is a blind, purposeless, goalless process, which all data is showing to be completely false. Front-loaded evolution is the hottest thing going in science today and will completely through Darwinism within the next decade or so.

[–] Fork_Q 16 years ago

The issue isn't with evolution, but with Darwinism - the idea that evolution is a blind, purposeless, goalless process, which all data is showing to be completely false

Huh? Which 'all data' are you talking about?

If evolution had a goal other then diversity then who the hell is the joker who put nipples on men?

[–] MelivaME 15 years ago

And where did you learn your 'facts' on Darwinism? Darwinian Evolution is not 'goalless' or 'purposeless'. Hence the mechanism of survival of the fittest. Darwinian Evolution posits that a species evolves in order to be advantageous in its own surroundings.
What data is showing this to be false? And front-loaded evolution is hardly the 'hottest thing going in science today'. It is one of many theories, and one that is not adhered to as much as the Darwinian Evolution that you seem to detest.

'Cause we all end up in a tiny pine box, A mighty small drop in a mighty dark plot.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] frontiersmantanis 16 years ago

Spewing so much ignorance that your opponent doesn't have enough time to correct you AND provide positive evidence for scientific claims does not mean creationists win debates.

If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.

[–] moretap 16 years ago

It was Kepler that said "The Chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of Mathematics."

Science is nothing without math, and math is nothing with out reason and logic. A good thing to do is ask people why they think reason and logic are reliable.

[–] novastar_6 16 years ago

The director of this movie said the winner would be decided by the audience...as we saw there really was no winner, Matthew Harrison Brady died failing to make his point, and Henry Drummond lived, unsatisfied with his logical beliefs.

[–] graham-167 16 years ago

If you ruled out both biblical and scientific sources, what exactly would either side say to the other?

[–] Pete975 16 years ago

Discuss a scientific subject without reference to the evidence?
That is stupid.

A Creationist cannot use the Bible to prove a real world scientific claim such as literal truth of the Bible since it is not a science book and it presents no empirical evidence of its creation story. That and the obvious circular reasoning of using your assumption to prove your assumption. When Creationists try to prove that their Bible is literally true they turn to science, which usually fails to meet their hopes.

Twinkle Twinkle little eye. Now it's time for you to die

[–] Kmadden2004 16 years ago

Can I just say to the OP, that I am a card-carrying, church-going Christian, and I categorically do not believe a single word (beyond the sentence 'God created the Earth') that is written in Genesis. Genesis is essentially a folklore that was invented by man to try and explain how the world was made, which is exactly what you claim science to be. The fact of the matter is there is just much more evidence to support evolution than there is to support creationism.

Try asking yourself this, OP, why is it so hard to believe that evolution, itself, wasn't an invention of God?

Baba O'Riley... the best song in the world

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Thelsttm 16 years ago

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."

Augustine of Hippo, CE 408

How little things have changed.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Thelsttm 16 years ago

Just read the source of the quote and make assumptions about the subject?

In the quoted passage Augustine is arguing AGAINST Biblical literalism, in this particular case, when it concerns the book of Genesis.

<<Why not just take the bible for what it is? Great fiction.>>

Why don't you? It's a free country.

<<How truthful is the Odyssey? It isn't, its just a story...why is it so impossible to believe that the bible is probably just a story as well.>>

You're conflating the two concepts: It isn't so impossible to believe that the Bible is just a story, but that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with your position on the matter.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hellodollyllama 14 years ago

Because there is no evidence of God, and there is abundant evidence that the documents claiming to substantiate his existence are wildly fraudulent.

[–] carlandybob 16 years ago

honostly, no one would win because both are too thick headed to understand what the other is trying to say. both evolution and the bible were created by man, who, by nature, is not infallible. do i believe there could be a God, sure. do i believe we could have evolved into what we are today, its possible. Unless you lived during the start of life on earth, no one has the slightest idea on how, when, why, or what caused us to be at the point we are today.

evolutionsim is just the viewings of the world around us in an attempt to justify, rationally, how things happened.

creationism is basing your ideas based on scriptures from the past.

in reality both are just belief systems that make people feel a little closer to understanding the concept and common question of "why are we here?" For the most part religions set a base of characteristics that most cultures would agree upon that will make us better as people. Be good to other people, don't cheat on your loved ones, don't steal, don't be a menace to society either through greed, sloth, or what have you.

this shunning of others based on faith, in either religion or through scientific gatherings, is rediculous and only causes tension amoungst everyone. its like saying your favorite pudding is chocolate, and then some one hears this and goes "chocolate pudding sucks for this this and this reason." well, nobody is making the 2nd person eat chocolate pudding, so why should it matter to him. and what if what person 2's dislikes of chocolate pudding are the reason person 1 loves it. religions and beliefs are just this, opinions that 1 or a group of people have about life.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rangely8723 15 years ago

both evolution and the bible were created by man, who, by nature, is not infallible

The bible indeed was made by man, but 'evolution' is an observable phenomenon, a series of biological processes, and it was discovered but not invented by man. The theory which describes evolution and which concludes that it is the cause for the diversity of the species is a human brainchild, but it's not a randomly created myth but a rational explanation of the observable facts, based on and related to other scientific knowledge, permanently refined by new discoveries.

Unless you lived during the start of life on earth, no one has the slightest idea on how, when, why, or what

That is nonsense. You don't have to be present at an event to realize, to reconstruct and to explain it.

what caused us to be

Evolution doesn't refer to the origin of life, only to the diversity of species.

evolutionsim is just the viewings of the world around us in an attempt to justify, rationally, how things happened.

Something like 'evolutionism' doesn't exist in science; science doesn't promote any world views or ideology, it only tries to find the best rational explanation of natural phenomena, through interpretation of the observation respecting the scientific method.

in reality both are just belief systems that make people feel a little closer to understanding the concept and common question of "why are we here?"

Evolution and the theory explaining it are not a belief at all, nor does evolution refer to the question why we are here. It is accepted by the vast majority of scientists worldwide, people who come from very different cultural background and religious beliefs (actually most scientists have a religious belief), otherwise biblical creation is only believed by (a minority of) people who believe in the bible.

« Citoyens! Vouliez-vous une révolution sans révolution? »

[–] willjohn 16 years ago

What's the matter, mate? Still can't get over the fact there is no Heaven for you to go to nor a Hell to wish your enemies to go to?

Enjoy this life, pal. You will not get another one.