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 > )( <

[–] empty-xj 16 years ago

I have a better challenge:

Can anyone prove the bible is accurate USING ANY AND ALL RESOURCES AVAILABLE?

It has yet to be done.

[–] MelivaME 15 years ago

While I do agree a creationist would win, my reasons are quite different. I believe a creationist would win an argument simply because they would refuse to broaden their own scope and admit that a belief based on faith is not the same as knowledge based on model testing. The Evolutionist, so frustrated with the lack of engagement would give up and allow the creationist to wallow in the small world that they have erected around themselves.

First of all, creationist does not automatically mean Christian. Many Christians believe in evolution and many creationists are not even Christian. So saying the bible is the only source that would be barred is ridiculous. You would have to bar any book that even hints at faith. And so if you are to bar Evolutionists from using 'science', (As an aside, what do you mean by this? I am a student in the history of science and let me tell you there is no once definition for the discipline, the endevour or the concept. Provide a clear definition of what you mean.) you should bar any creationist from using arguments of intelligent design. This religious rant, cloaked in pseudo-science.

Darwin was not being creative, Darwin believed what he was writing. Proto-evolution has been a concept since the ancient Greeks. The idea that an organism wishes to move up the chain of being is more evolution than a description of kinds in their place. And what do you mean by Real, whole science? Again, you appear to be making up your own definitions and terms without properly explaining them. If you are hinting at the seventeenth century enlightenment then you would not be fully correct. Many of those 'scientists' would not be considered scientists today.
Watch your terms, watch your definitions, and please be willing to stand by your convictions.

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

[–] Tim_Cullen 14 years ago

They say stupid people are good at arguing because they don't realize when they've lost.

So the creationist would most likely win by default once the evolutionist has given up out of frustration. Probably by jumping out a window while the creationist sits back safe in the knowledge that gravity is also only a theory and the evolutionist may or may not fall to his death.

Oi you cünts, want to say fück on imdb? Copy, paste, indulge!

[–] hellodollyllama 14 years ago

The question is absurd, because science is substantiated by facts and logic, but the Bible is not. In any properly-run debate, science would be allowed, but the Bible would not.

Which is why the evolutionist would win the debate.

[–] jomar68 13 years ago

All I can say is that I respect true science and I believe in intelligent design. Without throwing out all of the evolution theory it remains what it, a theory with some interesting concepts but very flawed science.

Science starts with theory and then you find enough proof to support the theory until something proves it wrong. Evolution as an explanation of how man came to be has more holes than Swiss Cheese.

[–] frontiersmantanis 13 years ago

You obviously have no idea what theory means in science. A scientific theory and a fact are separate things, not rungs on a ladder of increasing certainty. Theories explain facts and phenomena and evolutionary theory is the sole theory supported by the data. On the other hand ID is pseudo-scientific repackaging of creationism supported by nothing but fallacy.

No, science starts with an observation, forms a hypothesis, makes predictions, tests predictions, repeat for a while with parsimonious data from different fields.

[–] chie0223-1 13 years ago

Evolution as an explanation of how man came to be has more holes than Swiss Cheese.

What holes are you referring to? Holes such as the assertion that the earth was created before the sun, the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is only 5,000 years old? You mean that kind of holes?