NationStates Jolt Archive

A poll over the massive debate on evolution swirling around these threads. Have you:
Studied creationism in-depth and support it,
Studied it in depth and don't support it,
Havn't studied evolution but support it
Havn't studied evolution and believe in creationism

For this purpose, believing in evolution does not include believing evolution exisits but with divine intervention. If you do, PUT THAT IN YOUR POST!
P.S I know this is a simplimication, so please include details in your post. I personally have studied evolution, believe in it and think that, although you have all rights to study it, it should be left out of the science classroom as creationism is not a science. I believe it is enough to put the disclaimer "Although we have lots of evidence for this and it is the most commonly accepted by the scientific community you have every right to believe whatever you want. This is a scientific explination of our existence and creationism is purely based on your personal faith."

A poll over the massive debate on evolution swirling around these threads. Have you:
Studied creationism in-depth and support it,
Studied it in depth and don't support it,
Havn't studied evolution but support it
Havn't studied evolution and believe in creationism
I've studied evolution indepth enough to know that creationism is wrong...

I haven't studied evolution in depth, but I know enough to be about 99% sure that it is correct, micro and macro.

I'll never understand why it's an eiter/or argument.

Personally, I believe that God set the universe into motion with all it's scientific laws. Who says God didn't use evolution as a mechanism for creation?

*points to Texpunditistan*
Ive studied both and think theres good arguements for either side.
I fail to see why God couldnt just have said:
"Let there be a small chimp-like creature that will one day evolve the use of a thumb, out comepete all other small, chimp-like creatures and eventualy develope higher intelligence, construct buildings and so on!

For this purpose, believing in evolution does not include believing evolution exisits but with divine intervention.

Confusing.

I think God used evolution as discovered and explained by modern science as His tool of creation, and that the Bible is the world's first evolutionary tract. Having studied the theory of evolution, I voted for evolution w/ study. Was I correct under your criteria?

yeah, i should edit that

how does one "believe" in evolution? its a scientific theory/fact.

i studied biology at a-level and 'believe' in evolution.

I'll never understand why it's an eiter/or argument.

Personally, I believe that God set the universe into motion with all it's scientific laws. Who says God didn't use evolution as a mechanism for creation?
I'm glad this post came this soon in this thread.
*bows*

*points to Texpunditistan*
Ive studied both and think theres good arguements for either side.
I fail to see why God couldnt just have said:
"Let there be a small chimp-like creature that will one day evolve the use of a thumb, out comepete all other small, chimp-like creatures and eventualy develope higher intelligence, construct buildings and so on!
Ya know, that "in His image" number one often hears about might explain the way things turn out as well as "His" strange, almost schizophrenic behaviour.

*points to Texpunditistan*
Ive studied both and think theres good arguements for either side.
I fail to see why God couldnt just have said:
"Let there be a small chimp-like creature that will one day evolve the use of a thumb, out comepete all other small, chimp-like creatures and eventualy develope higher intelligence, construct buildings and so on!He probably did.. but because everything was given by word of mouth it ended up like...

Teacher: and God said... "Let there be a small chimp-like creature that will one day evolve the use of a thumb, out comepete all other small, chimp-like creatures and eventualy develope higher intelligence.."

neophyte: "but sir, I don't understand."

Teacher: "err... he created man."

Neophytes: "Ohh... so God said, let there be man."

guess what stuck...

I haven't studied evolution in depth, but I know enough to be about 99% sure that it is correct, micro and macro.

Same.

Ok, here's a thing I have an issue with. I was raised devoutly Catholic, and once I entered public middle and high school (my parents thought if I was limited to all Catholic schooling it would turn me into a conservative nutjob) I finally got the chance to study Evolution -- all theories surrounding it, not just microevolution that the Church endorsed. As I'm sure I'm not the only one who can see the holes in both the Evolution and the Creation arguments, why are the only poll answers absolutely black and white? "I do" or "I don't". I can't really go for that, and I was rather hoping, when clicking into this thread, that I'd have an option on voting. I'm a little disappointed :(

Simonist']Ok, here's a thing I have an issue with. I was raised devoutly Catholic, and once I entered public middle and high school (my parents thought if I was limited to all Catholic schooling it would turn me into a conservative nutjob) I finally got the chance to study Evolution -- all theories surrounding it, not just microevolution that the Church endorsed. As I'm sure I'm not the only one who can see the holes in both the Evolution and the Creation arguments, why are the only poll answers absolutely black and white? "I do" or "I don't". I can't really go for that, and I was rather hoping, when clicking into this thread, that I'd have an option on voting. I'm a little disappointed :(
The Catholic church has no problems with evolution. They do not explicitly endorse it, but they do not endorse creation either. You can make up your own mind. I learned about evolution in Catholic highschool, there was no controversy there.

Why can't faith and science coexist?
-I ask you that

Why can't faith and science coexist?
-I ask you that
Religion relies on faith and science relies on reason.

Religion relies on faith and science relies on reason.
Faith without reason means nothing. I am religious because I can examine the facts and have faith that my reason is pointing me in the right direction.

Faith without reason means nothing. I am religious because I can examine the facts and have faith that my reason is pointing me in the right direction.
I never said religion means an absence of reason, but its foundation is faith in the supernatural.

I never said religion means an absence of reason, but its foundation is faith in the supernatural.
True. Yet, nowhere does science rule out the possibility of the supernatural.

True. Yet, nowhere does science rule out the possibility of the supernatural.
It can't, thats kinda the definition of supernatural. Science deals with the way the natural world works, supernatural isn't part of the natural world. Science and religion can't neccesarily coexist because the exist to explain totally seperate subjects. Religion has no buisness explaining evolution and science has no buisness describing god.

The Catholic church has no problems with evolution. They do not explicitly endorse it, but they do not endorse creation either. You can make up your own mind. I learned about evolution in Catholic highschool, there was no controversy there.
I wasn't saying the Catholic Church had a PROBLEM with it. I'm saying that the nuns that taught us told us one thing, as well as all of our Bible stories in the formative years, and I've studied hardcore the other options. Simply stated, I was just pointing out that there was no viable option for me to vote on there.

And for the record, they've widely accepted Microevolution into their teachings in most of our Catholic schools. Your diocese maybe restricts scientific teachings a bit less than others, I wouldn't know, but the kids I knew who went to Catholic high schools elsewhere in my state didn't have ANY access to evolution information at their school -- they weren't taught either theory, and therefore don't know crap about either.

I don't think that evolution and a belief in god are mutually exclusive. I don't think a literalist interpretation of scripture is viable. To propose that things just happen, without an observabe process, is fairytale thinking. To explain that things happen spontaneously because of divine intervention creates irrelevant questions. We do or do not have god, but we have a process that isn't dependent on belief.

I've studied evoloution and I am quite sure that's how things went down, however there's always room for error.

I studied evolution and natural selection in biology. I explored quite a few creation myths in my UUist RE class on Sundays. I choose to place greater trust in empirical evidence and scientific method than in any myth, unless the myth can be successfully explained as a metaphor or an allusion to actual, verifiable events. And even then, what's that other than the truth being tarted up and pimped by a bunch of skyving old men in robes?

Nahhh, give me evolution, warts and all. Anything less is a fairy tale, and you either know it, or you ought to know it by now.

Evolution and god can not both be true.

God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and without any fault, and to create all life through evolution would be stupid and evil.

For evolution to work, all but the strong creatures have to die. God does not let His creations die needlessly.

Also, this would mean that God couldn't get it right first time. Even with evolution, He would have to start with something, so why wouldn't He start with a perfect world?

God and evolution can simply not co-exist. One is right and one is wrong.

I for one believe that God is right and evolution is wrong, but I will readily change my mind if I see any piece of real evidence for evolution. All I've seen so far has only made me laugh.

All I've seen so far has only made me laugh.

I can say the same about this concept of "god", but hey that's what's great about being human beings. We can each have our own opinion. :D

For this purpose, believing in evolution does not include believing evolution exisits but with divine intervention.
I suppose it would actually be Divine Intervention later affected by Evolution.

Anyways, I believe that all God created everything, but also created the forces that keep our world running [In this case evolution] because it is necessary.
and to create all life through evolution would be stupid and evil.
Not really, it would allow the creatures he creates to continue to thrive when something alters their inviroment. What's evil about keeping life on earth alive without constant divine intervention?

I can say the same about this concept of "god", but hey that's what's great about being human beings. We can each have our own opinion. :D
My whole point is that some opinions are wrong.

If I believe in a heaven that does not exist, I would not go there when I die, no matter how strongly I believed in it.
On the other hand, if I disbelieve in a hell that does exist, my disbelief would not save me.

Evolution and god can not both be true.

God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and without any fault, and to create all life through evolution would be stupid and evil.

For evolution to work, all but the strong creatures have to die. God does not let His creations die needlessly.

Also, this would mean that God couldn't get it right first time. Even with evolution, He would have to start with something, so why wouldn't He start with a perfect world?

God and evolution can simply not co-exist. One is right and one is wrong.

I for one believe that God is right and evolution is wrong, but I will readily change my mind if I see any piece of real evidence for evolution. All I've seen so far has only made me laugh.

Well, first of all I'd like to point out that the part highlighted in bold is quite laughable. From what I've read of the Bible, the Christian God is anything but all benevolent.


But, that's not really the point. The point that I wanted to make is regarding your last paragraph. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and to say that "all I've seen so far has only made me laugh" makes me believe all you have read is from watered-down media reports, people who should not be educating regarding the matter, or you just plain don't understand what you're reading.

Here's one of the strongest arguments against creationism: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%206. That is of course not to say that this is evidence for evolution, but there are many studies just like this to support evolution.


Evolution is not some cockeyed theory that scientists made to bash Christians. On the contrary, the same percentage of scientists are religious as laypeople. Evolution is a theory that unifies the evidence gathered by science and scientists. It is not perfect, but then that's the point of science. To find a plausable theory to support the gathered evidence.

Creationism on the other hand is trying to gather evidence to support a theory. It is backwards science, in other words, not science.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-- Albert Einstein

how does one "believe" in evolution? its a scientific theory/fact.
Right and wrong. Evolution is a theory...not a fact.

Until something is proven as fact...it's all a matter of "belief".

....Evolution is a fact, just like gravity.

The Theory of Evolution, like the Theory of Universal Gravitation, is the attempt to explain these facts.

....Evolution is a fact, just like gravity.
When you build a time machine, go back in time and bring back time lapse video of evolution in progress...then you can call it a fact.

A poll over the massive debate on evolution swirling around these threads. Have you:
Studied creationism in-depth and support it,
Studied it in depth and don't support it,
Havn't studied evolution but support it
Havn't studied evolution and believe in creationism

Yeah, all of the above.

For this purpose, believing in evolution does not include believing evolution exisits but with divine intervention. If you do, PUT THAT IN YOUR POST!
WHAT? That is complete nonsense. So if one believes in "intelligent design" it had to have come from what is interpreted as the "God of Issac, the God of Abraham?" Open up your mind, child.
P.S I know this is a simplimication, so please include details in your post. I personally have studied evolution, believe in it and think that, although you have all rights to study it, it should be left out of the science classroom as creationism is not a science. I believe it is enough to put the disclaimer "Although we have lots of evidence for this and it is the most commonly accepted by the scientific community you have every right to believe whatever you want. This is a scientific explination of our existence and creationism is purely based on your personal faith."
Typographical errors notwithstanding, which used to bother me a lot, and lately doesn't so much so: are you saying that only those with a view on one side of the erxtreme or another has a place here?
You know what!? I'm not even sure what I'm arguing here. Best to exit quickly. Before I say something to REALLY piss someone off. Thanks for letting me play!

When you build a time machine, go back in time and bring back time lapse video of evolution in progress...then you can call it a fact.
Wait a minute.
So unless YOU personally experienced it, nothing in history actually existed? After all, without a time machine, I can never really know whether or not Nazi Germany existed, or the Inquisition, or the Crusades, or the Viking conquests, or anything else for that matter!!!
Remember, it is the victors who write the history books. You will trust everything else in history that you have been told actually happened, but you need video proof for evolution? What is that?

My God. . . .

Only fifteen sensible people compared with 53 foolish fish, all of whom have taken the bait and accepted the propaganda. Put me in the last category. :)

My God. . . .

Only fifteen sensible people compared with 53 foolish fish, all of whom have taken the bait and accepted the propaganda. Put me in the last category.

Oh curse you science. You with you reason, your logic, your evidence and facts! Only the brave and true of heart know that the truth can only be obtained by lying to yourself and ignoring common sense! :p

Right and wrong. Evolution is a theory...not a fact.

Until something is proven as fact...it's all a matter of "belief".
You clearly have no idea what a scientific theory is, so i suggest you read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) article on it. You could also look up the scientific method.

I'll never understand why it's an eiter/or argument.

Personally, I believe that God set the universe into motion with all it's scientific laws. Who says God didn't use evolution as a mechanism for creation?

But God using evolution as a mechanism for creation is not what we refer to as creationism... if you are a creationist, then you must hold that evolution and creation and mutually exclusive, and things such as the fossil record are elaborate traps set by God to test scientists on their blind lack of faith.

Right and wrong. Evolution is a theory...not a fact.

Until something is proven as fact...it's all a matter of "belief".

Yup, you can never prove evolution... creationists can always argue that all the increasingly convincing evidence in support of it is either not conclusive (as a side, is any scientific theory a fact??? i personally believe not) or is designed by God to lead people who have no faith astray

Why can't faith and science coexist?
-I ask you that

They just don't get along very well. I blame faith. I take that back, I blame fanatics. Remeber that time, way back when, the Dark ages. For 800 years scienctific advancement was banned. That was in the name of faith.

Still today, you could argue if we are better off. Stem cell research could be one of the most promising new discoveries. Who are the main opponents?

Science and Faith just don't see eye to eye, they buttheads on too many issues. That might just be the people though.

Right and wrong. Evolution is a theory...not a fact.

Until something is proven as fact...it's all a matter of "belief".
A theory is based on facts. It attempts to explain why these facts occur in a reasonable manner. Therefore, creationism is not a real theory, since it is mainly based on scriptures compiled quite some time ago, while the theory of evolution is based on fossil findings and similarities between fossils and modern relatives of them.

You clearly have no idea what a scientific theory is, so i suggest you read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) article on it. You could also look up the scientific method.
Yep so evolution is a theory you can accept based on the evidence and conjecture or reject. As is gravity. Some theories have a greater body of evidence than others and the evidence is less open to interpretation. But the argument is more about the use of language. As it cannot be stated that evolution is a fact, but is a hypothesis based on ecvidence then if you accept it is true you are accepting the theory is correct and could be seen as believing the thing to be correct.
As I have said before on other threads, the theory of gravity will lead you to postulate that if you let go off a ball it will fall to earth, that will be born out if when you do let go it falls. But other scientific theories that are also accepted state that there is a chance that it will stay where it is. a very small chance but a chance.
I was also interested by the person who said they had studied evolution and could state from that evolution was wrong. It's good to see some one has every fact there is and that there is no room for any doubt, maybe if they shared this information with the world the would be famous. Until then maybe they should just say that they have studied both sides and come down on the side that thinks evolution is more plausable.

You clearly have no idea what a scientific theory is, so i suggest you read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) article on it. You could also look up the scientific method.

Yep so evolution is a theory you can accept based on the evidence and conjecture or reject. As is gravity. Some theories have a greater body of evidence than others and the evidence is less open to interpretation. But the argument is more about the use of language. As it cannot be stated that evolution is a fact, but is a hypothesis based on ecvidence then if you accept it is true you are accepting the theory is correct and could be seen as believing the thing to be correct.
As I have said before on other threads, the theory of gravity will lead you to postulate that if you let go off a ball it will fall to earth, that will be born out if when you do let go it falls. But other scientific theories that are also accepted state that there is a chance that it will stay where it is. a very small chance but a chance.
I was also interested by the person who said they had studied evolution and could state from that evolution was wrong. It's good to see some one has every fact there is and that there is no room for any doubt, maybe if they shared this information with the world the would be famous. Until then maybe they should just say that they have studied both sides and come down on the side that thinks evolution is more plausable.

Yep so evolution is a theory you can accept based on the evidence and conjecture or reject. As is gravity. Some theories have a greater body of evidence than others and the evidence is less open to interpretation. But the argument is more about the use of language. As it cannot be stated that evolution is a fact, but is a hypothesis based on ecvidence then if you accept it is true you are accepting the theory is correct and could be seen as believing the thing to be correct.
As I have said before on other threads, the theory of gravity will lead you to postulate that if you let go off a ball it will fall to earth, that will be born out if when you do let go it falls. But other scientific theories that are also accepted state that there is a chance that it will stay where it is. a very small chance but a chance.
I was also interested by the person who said they had studied evolution and could state from that evolution was wrong. It's good to see some one has every fact there is and that there is no room for any doubt, maybe if they shared this information with the world the would be famous. Until then maybe they should just say that they have studied both sides and come down on the side that thinks evolution is more plausable.
Yes, I was arguing the use of the term scientific theory. Some people seem to think it's just some wild guess pulled out of a hat with nothing supporting it, because it's just a theory. It really annoys me. I'm not saying the theory of evolution is perfect, but it's the best one we have. The only one we have. I'm sure there will be modifications to it in the future, like there have been in the past. If another theory based on facts and not beliefs comes along I'll consider it, untill then I'll stand by evolution.

I would also dare the creationists to put forth some evidence of their own, more than goddidit. Just because you find 'holes' in the theory of evolution doesn't make creationism any more likely. Also, it's very hard to study both sides sice creationists sources do not state their own ideas. They only try to disprove or disrepute evolution.

Yes, I was arguing the use of the term scientific theory. Some people seem to think it's just some wild guess pulled out of a hat with nothing supporting it, because it's just a theory. It really annoys me. I'm not saying the theory of evolution is perfect, but it's the best one we have. The only one we have. I'm sure there will be modifications to it in the future, like there have been in the past. If another theory based on facts and not beliefs comes along I'll consider it, untill then I'll stand by evolution.

I would also dare the creationists to put forth some evidence of their own, more than goddidit. Just because you find 'holes' in the theory of evolution doesn't make creationism any more likely. Also, it's very hard to study both sides sice creationists sources do not state their own ideas. They only try to disrepute evolution.
Agreed. Sorry for the delay, in replying can't get the forum to work.
The theory is a good one. I do object however ot who ever it was that said creationists must believe in the bible verbatum and can't use evolution as god's tool. No you can't forcea restriction on some one to satify a narrow interpretation of a label, just like there are camps within evolutionist there can be camps within creationists. For a start we have all the religions!
I like the theory of evolution but it's existance disporves nothing, that is hwat I don't like, the people who say this is a good idea so everything else must be wrong. That is the norrow mindedness of the fundamentalist.
Fundamentalist scienientists! Who would have thought it!

When you build a time machine, go back in time and bring back time lapse video of evolution in progress...then you can call it a fact.

Already done - evolution is the change in allele frequency across time for any given genetic population.

Any reasonably equipped biology lab can study that in real time.

If that's the only leg you have to stand on, you're paraplegic.

Why can't faith and science coexist?
-I ask you that
I'll answer that.

Science is breaking complex problems down into smaller simpler problems that can be tested or theorised about. This eventually leads to the ultimate questions such as the unifying theory of energy and the origins of life.

Now we're in a position to theorise about these problems rationally, but what is the point of doing that if - after simplifying and simplifying you go in and throw in the biggest most complicated thing that could ever exist (i.e. god) into the answer? You see the idea of a god doesn't answer any questions, it just makes bigger questions.

Alternatively, assuming one day a scientist creates replicating RNA in a laboratory using materials and conditions that would have existed in an early Earth. A clay/mineral catalyst base, a 'primordial soup' of amino acids et-al, UV and Frakensteins lightning. Would this make him a god?

In other words knowing what it took to create life, how intelligent would a god have to be to interfere and make it happen? Science is the art of getting the IQ of god down to zero (blind nature), at the moment because we don't quite know how it happened it's IQ is certainly above human but no-where near the omniscience that religion requires.

QED

The peope who argue against evolution only use gaps in our understanding to undermine it and not anything that we already propose to be fact, which is hardly rational. After all, not knowing everything about something doesn't make everything else you know about the subject invalid. The fact that they can't come up with anything that contradicts any of the things that are known proves how weak their case is.

What we were like when we were created, of course we may have evolved, b ut wouldnt you think at the same time we could have been created. Mabye when god said that he created man in his own image, he ment that he looked like a money, or ape so to speak.

The possiblities ar pretty much limitless on this issue, but i believe in creationism as well as evolution. Who is to say that we were created looking the same as we are now.

Its very possible that both could have happened, and as far as i can see there ar no contradictions between believing in the two.

A poll over the massive debate on evolution swirling around these threads. Have you:
Studied creationism in-depth and support it,
Studied it in depth and don't support it,
Havn't studied evolution but support it
Havn't studied evolution and believe in creationism

For this purpose, believing in evolution does not include believing evolution exisits but with divine intervention. If you do, PUT THAT IN YOUR POST!
P.S I know this is a simplimication, so please include details in your post. I personally have studied evolution, believe in it and think that, although you have all rights to study it, it should be left out of the science classroom as creationism is not a science. I believe it is enough to put the disclaimer "Although we have lots of evidence for this and it is the most commonly accepted by the scientific community you have every right to believe whatever you want. This is a scientific explination of our existence and creationism is purely based on your personal faith."

"believing in evolution does not include believing evolution exists but with divine intervention"?

So where does that leave us theistic evolutionists? Evolution is evolution. Regardless whether the belief-system of the proponent is theistic or atheistic. They should be considered the same. The particular Theology of the person studying evolution has no bearing what-so-ever on the study of the evolutionary process.

Am I to be "grouped" with literalists and day-age theorists, merely because I happen to believe in God?

Theology has no bearing on evolution as a scientific process. Regardless of your theology, you can be an evolutionist or a creationist. I should be allowed , in a poll, to state that I have studied evolution, and accept it as a valid process which adequately explains how life has formed here on earth (and possibly elsewhere)... Regardless whether I believe it occured through the divine plan of creator/God or merely random events.

Since I am now allowed to answer your intollerant, biased, and outright retarded poll... My answer stands here:

I have studied evolution, and its associative processes in biology and exobiology. Have accepted the theory as that which best fits all available facts to this point. I do, in matters of personal belief, believe that the process has occured according to the divine plan of a Creator/God...

My feelings on Creationism are pretty simple: it's boring and stupid.

Creationism is not new, even if you try to change the name to things like "Intelligent Design," and it was already boring one hundren years ago.

Creationism is not a scientific theory, because a scientific theory is an idea that has been supported by evidence and has held up to repeated rounds of testing; Creationism is simply wishful thinking, a random stab at explanation through story-telling.

Creationism has no practical value, contributes nothing to our understanding of the universe, and makes no useful predictions. Making up a fable to describe things you don't understand is useful when trying to hide your ignorance from your three-year-old, but it's hardly a worthwhile practice in adult discourse.

In addition to being unproductive, Creationism is unimaginitive. It's just the theory that an anthropomorphized all-powerful being of some kind waved its magic wand and our world poofed into existence. I can't think of a single scientific theory that is less creative and interesting than Creationism.

Creationism does not "threaten" me as a scientist, no matter what the Creationists like to tell themselves. I do find Creationism slightly offensive, in the sense that such a stupid, pointless, dull, and uncreative idea offends me because I expect better from non-retarded human adults.

Evolution and god can not both be true.

God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and without any fault, and to create all life through evolution would be stupid and evil.

For evolution to work, all but the strong creatures have to die. God does not let His creations die needlessly.

Also, this would mean that God couldn't get it right first time. Even with evolution, He would have to start with something, so why wouldn't He start with a perfect world?

God and evolution can simply not co-exist. One is right and one is wrong.

I for one believe that God is right and evolution is wrong, but I will readily change my mind if I see any piece of real evidence for evolution. All I've seen so far has only made me laugh.

God is loving - God is wrathful.
God is merciful - God is vengeful.
God simply is....

And you do not have an acurate picture of God as He is expressed in the Bible. That being said, you have "edited" out parts of God, you do not like, as He has expressed Himself. And formed yourself an idol of your own liking from the parts you do. Anything less than a complete image of God, as He has expressed Himself, both through Scripture and Nature, is not the true God.

Your god is an idol of your own fashioning.

Ok. This is how i see it. As a Christian who takes the Bible fairly literaly, I come down against evolution. Could i be wrong? Could God in his infinite wisdon chosen to use evolution to spawn the various critters on Earth? Yes. yes he could. The thing is, when you think about it, it really doesn't matter. We are here, either by God driven evolution, or God speaking and it became so, we are here. Religion will never be able to prove itself with undeniable fact, because if it did, there would be no need for faith, and free will would be non-exsistant. Science will never be able to explain everything to anyone's satifaction because we, as humans, not God, aren't that smart. Now, i do believe the answers will be known at some point, and when I get to heven this will be one of the first questions i ask God. The unfaithfull, however may or may not find out, not really sure about that one, but I'm begining to get a bit off topic, and the more I publicly get into my faith, the more people will bash me, or disregard my opinion. Not that I care and will gladly debate anyone on any thing, this thread just isn't the place for it. I'll try to keep up with the thread and answer anyone who quotes me and starts complaining about something i said. :D

Anyone who believes in Evolution but also Creationism as well just do so to make THEMSELVES feel better about it. God is not required in the Theory and putting it in there answers nothing.

IMO, evidence of evolution is self-explanatory once you go into it in detail. I've seen so many things that make an evolution necessary to have happened.

From my point of view, the only reason why Creationists want to refute evolution is because they feel that it undermines the authority of their fundamentalist dogma. If we accept Creationism, we turn the whole of science ad absurdum and return into a state of medieval superstition. Therefor, i am an enemy of Creationism. :mad:

On the bright side, i have noticed that there are also religious people who are less fundamentalistic and acknowledge that accepting evolution as a real phenomenon and still believing into god at the same time are possible. :)

Wait a minute.
So unless YOU personally experienced it, nothing in history actually existed? After all, without a time machine, I can never really know whether or not Nazi Germany existed, or the Inquisition, or the Crusades, or the Viking conquests, or anything else for that matter!!!
Remember, it is the victors who write the history books. You will trust everything else in history that you have been told actually happened, but you need video proof for evolution? What is that?

Mutations of small and large scale, as an oberved process, is a fact. Attration occuring between bodies with significant mass, is a fact.

The Evolutionary Process as documented by scientific measurement and study is a theory (not a fact), the Gravitational Process as documented by scientific measurement and study is a theory (not a fact).

Science bases itself on facts, and devlopes theories to explain those facts. Evolution, is not a fact, it is a theory, which best fits the available factual evidence.

If you think evolution is a "fact", you are not speaking from a scientific viewpoint.

I havn't voted yet, because I have not yet made up my mind about evolution. In most of what I do I have to assume evolution is correct because I use models and other theories that are built upon the assumption that evolution is correct.

There is another school of thought in the scientific community called Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design in a nut shell is that our world is too complex to have been created by random mutation.

Personally I see evidence for both cases. Evolution is full of assumptions and conjecture that must be taken as a matter of faith. For example, which came first protein, RNA, or DNA? It is assumed that RNA came first and was a precursor for the other two. Why? Because DNA codes for RNA and RNA codes for protein and RNA structures exist on their own. I don't know about you but this is a fairly flimsly arguement.

However, mathematical modeling of evolution using genetic divergence has created some compelling arguements. The problem with mathematical modeling as proof of your theory is that you have to assume that you theory was correct in the first place. Mathematical modeling is great for disproving a theory, but does not actually prove anything.

As for intelligent design I was taking a class on cellular structures and we were studying a specific super structure. The protein consistis of many different subparts as is as complex as a watermill. A structure that that is pretty new as far as human inventions are concerned, has existed since the dawn of human life...or earlier. Intelligent design theorists can make a compelling arguement by just looking at some of the cellular machinery that makes your body work.

So to make a long story short, I have studied evolution. I have studied creationism, I am a Christian. I have studied intelligent design. And in the end have come up with, "What does it really matter anyway?"

Zelbin, you might as well say "does science matter anyway?", or "does curiosity matter anyway?" or "does truth matter anyway?"

If you think it doesn't matter then go and believe in god and stay ignorant.

If you think science does matter then, when the going gets tough i.e. a question is unanswerable, then think about it rather than throw in the towel and proclaim that god must have done it!

Personally I see evidence for both cases. Evolution is full of assumptions and conjecture that must be taken as a matter of faith. For example, which came first protein, RNA, or DNA? It is assumed that RNA came first and was a precursor for the other two. Why? Because DNA codes for RNA and RNA codes for protein and RNA structures exist on their own. I don't know about you but this is a fairly flimsly arguement.

Hmmm... Thats not quite the argument. RNA codes directly for protein manafacture, and some organisms make do with RNA alone. DNA is a more stable way of storing that code long term, and cannot be fed into a Ribosome for direct protein sythesis, so would probably have developed later, as a way to allow complex organisms to control expression to when it is needed. (Free RNA of the correct type, I think its tRNA, will be continually expressed by ribosomes, which could be a problem for multicellular organisms in specified cells, but not for single-celled life with continual, relatively simple metabolic processes). Therefore, having DNA without RNA makes no sense, as the informaton on the DNA cannot be expressed. DNA also has a more complex structure, implying progression from one to the other.

I havn't voted yet, because I have not yet made up my mind about evolution. In most of what I do I have to assume evolution is correct because I use models and other theories that are built upon the assumption that evolution is correct.

There is another school of thought in the scientific community called Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design in a nut shell is that our world is too complex to have been created by random mutation.

Personally I see evidence for both cases. Evolution is full of assumptions and conjecture that must be taken as a matter of faith. For example, which came first protein, RNA, or DNA? It is assumed that RNA came first and was a precursor for the other two. Why? Because DNA codes for RNA and RNA codes for protein and RNA structures exist on their own. I don't know about you but this is a fairly flimsly arguement.

However, mathematical modeling of evolution using genetic divergence has created some compelling arguements. The problem with mathematical modeling as proof of your theory is that you have to assume that you theory was correct in the first place. Mathematical modeling is great for disproving a theory, but does not actually prove anything.

As for intelligent design I was taking a class on cellular structures and we were studying a specific super structure. The protein consistis of many different subparts as is as complex as a watermill. A structure that that is pretty new as far as human inventions are concerned, has existed since the dawn of human life...or earlier. Intelligent design theorists can make a compelling arguement by just looking at some of the cellular machinery that makes your body work.

So to make a long story short, I have studied evolution. I have studied creationism, I am a Christian. I have studied intelligent design. And in the end have come up with, "What does it really matter anyway?"

Yes, that assumption (RNA) would likely be correct. Or more specifically amino-acids (which are the building blocks of RNA/DNA).

Exobiologists have already been able to produce complex amino-acid mollecules by passing electric sparks (lightning) through "soup" mixtures of methane, ammonia and water (much like what is theorized early-earth enviroment would have been like). While we haven't actually created a cell. We have been able to create conditions where these amino-acids" cooperate and form RNA and DNA chain mollecules.... We have also, however, been able to generate protien strains in the same manner. Very complex mollecules can form "naturally" in these mixtures in the presence of high-energy discharges.

It is likely the early process wasn't a matter of "one event preceeding another", but where differing molecules (protiens/RNA) form the earliest forms of life through enviromental cooperation... And that even the "cell" as its known today, was not merely the result of one earlier form, but two seperate forms entering a symbiotic relationship (mitochondria/cell relationship).

The theistic/atheistic aspect of belief, stems more from a faith based area in the statistical probablities of occurances, as opposed to being any basis (on either part) on hard facts... But merely where you place faith in probabilities.

That being said, atheistic and theistic evolutionists both derive the same or similar theoretical models from the available facts; but only differ in how they interpret the statistic probabilities of occurances (which have no direct part on the theory itself). Which is why I do not think the two views should be seperate. You either study, and accept Evolution as a valid theory, or you do not... Your theological views in regards (whether atheistic, or theistic) have no bearing on the data from a scientific viewpoint.

What it does matter? Well, it does matter this:

One important thing you forget is that while the theory of evolution is really just about biological evolution, Creationism is not just about it. Creationism not only insists on how species came about, but also how the Earth and the rest of the universe came about. That's of course not part of evolution, this involves other fields like archaeology, astrophysics, geology and mineralogy.

In order to believe into Creationism (YEC, that is, but as a matter of fact it applies to virtually all other kinds as well), you don't just only have to neglect evidence for evolution, but other things we observed like the age of the universe, age of the Earth, various processes that have been going on in the universe and on Earth over billions of years (and are still going on). And when you do all that, you are creating an image of a world which is absolutely not consistent with what we see. Thus, Creationism is something very folly...

Ok. This is how i see it. As a Christian who takes the Bible fairly literaly, I come down against evolution. Could i be wrong? Could God in his infinite wisdon chosen to use evolution to spawn the various critters on Earth? Yes. yes he could. The thing is, when you think about it, it really doesn't matter. We are here, either by God driven evolution, or God speaking and it became so, we are here. Religion will never be able to prove itself with undeniable fact, because if it did, there would be no need for faith, and free will would be non-exsistant. Science will never be able to explain everything to anyone's satifaction because we, as humans, not God, aren't that smart. Now, i do believe the answers will be known at some point, and when I get to heven this will be one of the first questions i ask God. The unfaithfull, however may or may not find out, not really sure about that one, but I'm begining to get a bit off topic, and the more I publicly get into my faith, the more people will bash me, or disregard my opinion. Not that I care and will gladly debate anyone on any thing, this thread just isn't the place for it. I'll try to keep up with the thread and answer anyone who quotes me and starts complaining about something i said. :D

As a scientist and a Christian, I also believe in Creation. From my studies of bacterial genetics and biochemistry, I see nothing that conflicts with a six day creation, and a relatively young earth. Of course, there are many interpretations that other scientists have come up with that would contradict a young earth theory, however, they are only interpretations, and the same things can easily be interpreted with a young earth view in mind. I do find a lot of bigotism among scientists, usually by those who lack any appreciation of the creation theory. In my experience, the scientists themselves are among the most narrow minded people. Many of them are blazingly passionate about their own viewpoint. This is fine, except where they feel superior to the creationists and think that somehow if they can ridicule and belittle them that they are more intelligent.

I say hang on to your faith and your opinion. So far, the only reason why I would change from being a creationist to an evolutionist would be to avoid all the flak and ridicule. Not an honest enough reason, if you ask me.

Evolution and god can not both be true.

God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and without any fault, and to create all life through evolution would be stupid and evil.

For evolution to work, all but the strong creatures have to die. God does not let His creations die needlessly.Who's to say that Cro Magnon man, Archeopterix, the first fish-thing that crawled onto land and the monocellular 'whatsit' that first developed chlorophyl don't have places in Heaven?

After all, isn't that (one particular stance on) the point of Christianity? You live a good life, you conduct God's purpose and when you die you get your reward.

Also, this would mean that God couldn't get it right first time. Even with evolution, He would have to start with something, so why wouldn't He start with a perfect world?Because both world and creatures on it are changing? Because we are only 'perfect' insofar as our aesthetic ideals and that the primates and rodents and amphibians and fish that came before us were perfect to themselves

God and evolution can simply not co-exist. One is right and one is wrong.I'm ambivalent about God. I'm fairly sure that Evolution exists. The former is supposed to be ineffible, so why not 'ineff' a bit by going down the route of initiating evolution?

I for one believe that God is right and evolution is wrong, but I will readily change my mind if I see any piece of real evidence for evolution. All I've seen so far has only made me laugh.I can't quite reverse your statement. The best I can come up with is "I don't believe in God (though allow that He may exist, all the same) and consider evolution to be the most right answer we have available to us. I may change my mind if God shows himself to me (although I know that's unlikely, even if He does exist) but all the 'evidence' for God and the truthfulness of the Bible that I have seen so far as left me unconvinced (about the evidence itself, that is)."

Yes, that assumption (RNA) would likely be correct. Or more specifically amino-acids (which are the building blocks of RNA/DNA).
Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. Nucleotides (each nucleotide contains a sugar, a phosphate group and a nitrogenous base) are the building blocks of DNA/RNA. :)

YES! 82.48% so far accept evolution! Humanity is not doomed! :D

YES! 82.48% so far accept evolution! Humanity is not doomed! :D
Oh yes it is, how do you think the most powerful man in the world would vote?

Oh yes it is, how do you think the most powerful man in the world would vote?

Are you talking about Bill Gates?

:confused:

Oh yes it is, how do you think the most powerful man in the world would vote? *weeps*

I have studied evolution. I do not "believe in" it. I feel that the evidence supports it and that it is, as yet, our best theory.

I also believe there is a God who "designed" and began the universe and the processes we see in it.

As a scientist and a Christian, I also believe in Creation. From my studies of bacterial genetics and biochemistry, I see nothing that conflicts with a six day creation, and a relatively young earth. Of course, there are many interpretations that other scientists have come up with that would contradict a young earth theory, however, they are only interpretations, and the same things can easily be interpreted with a young earth view in mind. I do find a lot of bigotism among scientists, usually by those who lack any appreciation of the creation theory. In my experience, the scientists themselves are among the most narrow minded people. Many of them are blazingly passionate about their own viewpoint. This is fine, except where they feel superior to the creationists and think that somehow if they can ridicule and belittle them that they are more intelligent.

I say hang on to your faith and your opinion. So far, the only reason why I would change from being a creationist to an evolutionist would be to avoid all the flak and ridicule. Not an honest enough reason, if you ask me.

*Sighs* And people wonder why there is so much pseudoscience in the world and everyone believes them.

If you are looking for evidence to fit an unchanging mold, you are not a scientist. Period. That is the antithesis of the scientific method.

Are you talking about Bill Gates?

:confused:

I hope so. Gates is with evolution.

A poll over the massive debate on evolution swirling around these threads. Have you:
Studied creationism in-depth and support it,
Studied it in depth and don't support it,
Havn't studied evolution but support it
Havn't studied evolution and believe in creationism


That's a bit messed up. I didn't study creationism, but studied evolution (only at highschool level, but that was still quite in depth). Where do I fit in?

A poll over the massive debate on evolution swirling around these threads. Have you:
Studied creationism in-depth and support it,
Studied it in depth and don't support it,
Havn't studied evolution but support it
Havn't studied evolution and believe in creationism

For this purpose, believing in evolution does not include believing evolution exisits but with divine intervention. If you do, PUT THAT IN YOUR POST!
P.S I know this is a simplimication, so please include details in your post. I personally have studied evolution, believe in it and think that, although you have all rights to study it, it should be left out of the science classroom as creationism is not a science. I believe it is enough to put the disclaimer "Although we have lots of evidence for this and it is the most commonly accepted by the scientific community you have every right to believe whatever you want. This is a scientific explination of our existence and creationism is purely based on your personal faith."

this doesn't have to be either/or

you could believe that the universe was created but that evolution (of planets, plants, animals, etc.) soon followed.

That's a bit messed up. I didn't study creationism, but studied evolution (only at highschool level, but that was still quite in depth). Where do I fit in?
You can't study Creationism, it's just pseudo-babble cop-out.

Why can't faith and science coexist?
-I ask you that

I believe that faith and science can coexist because well, who created science?
God duh :rolleyes:

I hope so. Gates is with evolution.

Bill Gates is the richest person in the world. Politically, the person with the most clout and the most power behind him is Shrubbie. And you know how *he* stands on evolution.

You can't study Creationism, it's just pseudo-babble cop-out.
What's pseudo about their babble? Seems like it's full-on babble, to me.

Have studied both creation and evolution and I am convinced that evolution requires more faith than evolution. So I believe in creation.

*Sighs* And people wonder why there is so much pseudoscience in the world and everyone believes them.

If you are looking for evidence to fit an unchanging mold, you are not a scientist. Period. That is the antithesis of the scientific method.

Could you provide an example to demonstrate your statement? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.

What's pseudo about their babble? Seems like it's full-on babble, to me.

Pseudscience? Stuff like... ummm... let's see:

- "Water Canopy Theory"
- "Rock liquification"
- "New Redshift Interpretation"
- "C-Decay"
- "Baraminology"

I believe that faith and science can coexist because well, who created science?
God duh :rolleyes:
Nah, the Greeks did it.

Pseudscience? Stuff like... ummm... let's see:

- "Water Canopy Theory"
- "Rock liquification"
- "New Redshift Interpretation"
- "C-Decay"
- "Baraminology"
Oh, I agree that Creationism is just about the most odious form of pseudo-science around today. But he said it was pseudo-BABBLE. I think it's all babble.

Have studied both creation and evolution and I am convinced that evolution requires more faith than evolution. So I believe in creation.
<--is deeply confused.

Have studied both creation and evolution and I am convinced that evolution requires more faith than evolution. So I believe in creation.

Then I say to you that either your first or second statement is dishonest.

Creationism has *no* evidence [please, any creationists here do feel free to be the only creationist in the world ever to submit something to peer review in the community] whereas the level of evidence supporting evolutionary theory is vast beyond comprehension.

I don't believe in Evolution as the origin of species, but I know that it does work on the adaptive scale. Anyone who denies Evolution on that smaller scale has to be a complete idiot, since there has been observable evidence for it. Besides, if you believe God created the world, don't you think it makes sense that he'd give His creatures some sort of adaptive mechanism?

Also, I still haven't decided exactly -who- or -what- I think created the world/life...

...God is laughing His ass off at us...

[QUOTE=Rus024]
Creationism has *no* evidence

Neither does evolution.

Creationism has *no* evidence

Neither does evolution.
Incorrect. There most certainly is substantial evidence for evolution. You may not believe it is SUFFICIENT evidence, and you may not believe it is CONVINCING evidence, but denying that any evidence for evolution exists is the same as denying that the Rocky Mountains exist...it just makes you look ignorant or crazy.

Could you provide an example to demonstrate your statement? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.

You said that you see nothing that conflicts with a six day creation. I tell you that there is a whole lot that does, and it's evidently visible, and they cannot be interpreted as consitent with a young Earth.

Think about Big Bang and Cosmic Background radiation, think about all the rocks and minerals, think about radiometric dating, dendrochonology and ice core samples, think about fossils and the tratigraphic column, think about all the morphologic and genetic similarities in lifeforms. I don't see how this could ever be interpreted as consistent with YEC. :headbang:

Actually look at the fossil record. They don't show gradual changes within species.

[QUOTE=Rus024]
Creationism has *no* evidence

Neither does evolution.



CHeck your textbooks again, evolution has more going for it (fossil records, microevolution, etc.) than creationism has ever had.

You said that you see nothing that conflicts with a six day creation. I tell you that there is a whole lot that does, and it's evidently visible, and they cannot be interpreted as consitent with a young Earth.

Think about Big Bang and Cosmic Background radiation, think about all the rocks and minerals, think about radiometric dating, dendrochonology and ice core samples, think about fossils and the tratigraphic column, think about all the morphologic and genetic similarities in lifeforms. I don't see how this could ever be interpreted as consistent with YEC. :headbang:
Exactly. It is quite possible for somebody to say that when they look at the whole of scientific evidence they remain unconvinced that evolution took place, but it is not possible for any rational person to look at the whole of scientific evidence and say there is nothing that conflicts with Young Earth Creationism. There is a TON that conflicts with such theories...just because somebody doesn't find it sufficient does not make it poof out of existence.

[QUOTE=Wisjersey]You said that you see nothing that conflicts with a six day creation. I tell you that there is a whole lot that does, and it's evidently visible, and they cannot be interpreted as consitent with a young Earth.

What if God created a mature earth? That would explain why the earth apears to be old.

Actually look at the fossil record. They don't show gradual changes within species.
1) Yes, they do.
2) Even if they didn't, that would not constitute any type of refutation of evolutionary theory. There are many reasons why such "transitional fossils" might not be found, and only one of them is that evolution is wrong...there are about ten others that are quite consistent with evolutionary theory.

Actually look at the fossil record. They don't show gradual changes within species.

Well, they do. We just have an incomplete fossil record. Besides, what about chronofaunas? Ecosystems changed drastically over time. Don't forget that entire ecosystems have vanished which did not co-exist because they existed at different times...

Already done - evolution is the change in allele frequency across time for any given genetic population.

Any reasonably equipped biology lab can study that in real time.

If that's the only leg you have to stand on, you're paraplegic.
I get sick of having to make completely clear when I'm talking about MICROevolution versus MACROevolution.

MICRO is a fact and has been proven. MACRO is not and has not.

1) Yes, they do.
2) Even if they didn't, that would not constitute any type of refutation of evolutionary theory. There are many reasons why such "transitional fossils" might not be found, and only one of them is that evolution is wrong...there are about ten others that are quite consistent with evolutionary theory.

Darwin himself said that the fossil record would either make or break his theory of evolution.

[QUOTE=Wisjersey]You said that you see nothing that conflicts with a six day creation. I tell you that there is a whole lot that does, and it's evidently visible, and they cannot be interpreted as consitent with a young Earth.

What if God created a mature earth? That would explain why the earth apears to be old.
What if all our scientific data is tweaked and altered by a race of magical invisible centaurs, fooling us into thinking that we are collecting real information about the age of the Earth? What if the Earth was created last Wednesday from the collision of two pixies who were traveling at 100 times the speed of light, and our memories are nothing more than the invisible centaurs' idea of a practical joke?

[QUOTE=Rus024]
Creationism has *no* evidence

Neither does evolution.

That is, to be frank, a lie. Any reasonably equipped biology lab can watch evolution occurring in real time, for example.

Do feel free to post any specific tenet of creationism which stands up to testing. If you can, you will be the first creationist *ever* to do so.

Could you provide an example to demonstrate your statement? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.

Suppose a Creationist and a scientist both saw a bunch of recently hatched chicks following a dog around. Suppose they had both been told at some point that dogs give birth to chickens.

A Creationist would immediately say, "See! I was right! The chickens following the dog around is absolute proof that I was right all along! Dogs do give birth to chickens!"

The scientific view: "Hmmm, that's interesting. It would appear that dogs do have chicken babies. Let's investigate this further." The scientist would then attempt to create experiments that could disprove the idea. For instance, the scientist might try to mate a chicken with a dog. When that went all wrong (with one or the other horribly injured). The scientist would observe both dog and chicken behavior. Eventually, the scientist would see that chicks hatching out of eggs and state that chicks seem to come from eggs, not from dogs.

The Creationist would then say "Nope! I have all the evidence I need! Chicks come from dogs! I saw them following the dog!"

The scientist would then attempt to figure out why chicks might follow dogs. Eventually, she would find that chicks imprint upon whatever they first see moving. The scientist would experiment with this to find support for that hypothesis by having eggs hatch with different creatures around. The scientist would demonstrate chicks following dogs, cats, humans, lizards, whatever.

The Creationist would still say "I have evidence!! I do!! Chicks come from dogs because we say a chick following a dog!" They would then try and poke holes in what the scientist said, "You didn't show chicks following flies! And sometimes those eggs don't hatch!! You're wrong!!!"


The point is, you can find evidence for anything if you start with a foregone conclusion. In the above example, both started out with the same conclusion. The difference is that the scientist was willing to alter that conclusion with new evidence. Also, the scientist's ideas always came from the evidence, not from someone telling them it was so. This is the difference.

A scientist must always be a sceptic. Nothing is hard and fast in science. Nothing is immutable. There are assumptions we make because there is so much evidence that we doubt it will be refuted, but we are always open to refutation.

Well, they do. We just have an incomplete fossil record.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! *falls out of chair laughing*

If you have an incomplete fossil record, how can you say that the missing fossils, which you cannot observe nor test, show change from one species to another?

I get sick of having to make completely clear when I'm talking about MICROevolution versus MACROevolution.

MICRO is a fact and has been proven. MACRO is not and has not.

Nothing in science has ever been proven. It is all theory.

Meanwhile, there are not separate theories of microevolution and macroevolution. The theory is evolution.

[QUOTE=Wisjersey]You said that you see nothing that conflicts with a six day creation. I tell you that there is a whole lot that does, and it's evidently visible, and they cannot be interpreted as consitent with a young Earth.

What if God created a mature earth? That would explain why the earth apears to be old.

Then god is a liar, and therefore not god.

That sort of argument is self defeating.

[QUOTE=Rus024][QUOTE=Confederacy Roxland]

That is, to be frank, a lie. Any reasonably equipped biology lab can watch evolution occurring in real time, for example.

That is what you call microevolution. Not macroevolution. They are not creating an entirely new species from another speicies.

Darwin himself said that the fossil record would either make or break his theory of evolution.
1) Let's see that quote, please, in context.
2) Darwin got a couple of things wrong about evolution and natural selection, though the big picture seems to be right on the money, and just because Darwin might have said something doesn't mean it's the case.
3) So far, the fossil record has, indeed, "made" his theory. We have no fossil evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory.

[QUOTE=Confederacy Roxland]

That is, to be frank, a lie. Any reasonably equipped biology lab can watch evolution occurring in real time, for example.
Really?!? I've personally never seen/heard of an experiment in which you could observe one species changing into a completely different species.

Please...cite sources/provide links. I would be MOST interested in this.

What if God created a mature earth? That would explain why the earth apears to be old.

That would explain it, but would not be a scientific hypothesis, as it relies completely upon an entity that can never be measured, and thus can never be disproven.

Darwin himself said that the fossil record would either make or break his theory of evolution.

Darwin was a very astute, intelligent man - but he is outdated.

In Darwin's time, such minor things as "DNA" were not exactly common knowledge. In Darwin's day, the fossil record would have been the most appropriate source of evidence.

Thing is, the fossil record supports evolutionary theory *anyway*.

If you have an incomplete fossil record, how can you say that the missing fossils, which you cannot observe nor test, show change from one species to another?

Ha! That's simple: While you have an incomplete fossil record, you can make predictions about intermediate forms that should exist, and which should be found. And if these are found, then the prediction was obviously right. Making predictions of what should be observed is part of the scientific procedure, btw.

[QUOTE=Rus024]
Really?!? I've personally never seen/heard of an experiment in which you could observe one species changing into a completely different species.

Please...cite sources/provide links. I would be MOST interested in this.

I suggest you personally get your hands on any scientific database - google would do.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! *falls out of chair laughing*

If you have an incomplete fossil record, how can you say that the missing fossils, which you cannot observe nor test, show change from one species to another?
We don't. We say, "the intermediate fossils we have show concrete evidence of evolution." We also say, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," so even if there were no intermediate fossils (which there are) that would not be evidence that intermediate forms never existed.

It's best not to laugh at people who are avoiding your logical falacies. Just a tip.

[QUOTE=Rus024][QUOTE=Confederacy Roxland]

That is, to be frank, a lie. Any reasonably equipped biology lab can watch evolution occurring in real time, for example.

That is what you call microevolution. Not macroevolution. They are not creating an entirely new species from another speicies.

There is no distinction.

Unless you want to claim that since we onyl take steps of ~1 metre it is impossible to walk 1km? I hope not, because you will look quite silly.

Ha! That's simple: While you have an incomplete fossil record, you can make predictions about intermediate forms that should exist, and which should be found. And if these are found, then the prediction was obviously right. Making predictions of what should be observed is part of the scientific procedure, btw.
Speculation and prediction. Sounds something like astrology to me.

BTW...that's trying to find evidence to fit the hypothesis/theory, not observing evidence and constructing the hypothesis/theory from that evidence...which happens to be the same reason someone (earlier in this thread, I think) cited to prove that Creationism wasn't science.

Darwin himself said that the fossil record would either make or break his theory of evolution.

So? The process of fosil formation was not fully understood at that time. He made a minor error and dispite this and the fact that the genetic mechanism was unknown at the time he put forward a thory that has been rigiorously tested and has yet to fail in over one hundred years. Eveyone gets things wrong, some of Einsteins theories were incorrect and needed adjustment. Beside there are transitional fosil. Whales is fairly complete lineage as is humans.

[QUOTE=Confederacy Roxland][QUOTE=Rus024]

There is no distinction.



Microevolution is changes within a species. This has been proven. Macroevolution is where on species changes to another species. This has never been proven.

Speculation and prediction. Sounds something like astrology to me.

BTW...that's trying to find evidence to fit the hypothesis/theory, not observing evidence and constructing the hypothesis/theory from that evidence...which happens to be the same reason someone (earlier in this thread, I think) cited to prove that Creationism wasn't science.

Wrong. The predictions *test* the existing theory. Findings which contradict the predictions are used to refine the theory, unlike creationism where contradictory findings result in, well, nothing - creationists don't bother doing research.

BTW...that's trying to find evidence to fit the hypothesis/theory, not observing evidence and constructing the hypothesis/theory from that evidence...which happens to be the same reason someone (earlier in this thread, I think) cited to prove that Creationism wasn't science.

Incorrect. The theory was formed from the evidence. Now we look for evidence to refute it. As yet, none has been found.

The difference is that, if something that refuted the theory were found, the theory would be scrapped/changed.

[QUOTE=Rus024][QUOTE=Confederacy Roxland]

Microevolution is changes within a species. This has been proven. Macroevolution is where on species changes to another species. This has never been proven.

Wrong again. I strongly suggest that you acquaint yourself more closely with the literature.

You are arguing that since a pace is ~1m, it is impossible to walk 1km.

We don't. We say, "the intermediate fossils we have show concrete evidence of evolution." We also say, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," so even if there were no intermediate fossils (which there are) that would not be evidence that intermediate forms never existed.
Yet evolutionists will do as they do on this thread and REAM creationists and intelligent design types for having "no evidence" for their beliefs...when you yourself just said "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

[QUOTE=Rus024][QUOTE=Confederacy Roxland][QUOTE=Rus024]

Wrong again. I strongly suggest that you acquaint yourself more closely with the literature.

QUOTE]

Actually I suggest you look at the difference between the two. Since you don't seem to get that the two are very different.

Microevolution is changes within a species. This has been proven.

Incorrect. Science cannot prove anything. The theory of evolution has been supported.

Meanwhile, the theory does not make a distinction between micro- and macro-. That is an addition from pseudoscientists generally unaware of the actual theory. Evolution, is evolution. There is no separate theory of microevolution and macroevolution.

Tex - why don't you come upp with some evidence of your own for a change, instead of denying existing evidence.

Actually I suggest you look at the difference between the two. Since you don't seem to get that the two are very different.

You might want to re-examine the difference yourself, since one is simply the extension of the other.

Speculation and prediction. Sounds something like astrology to me.

BTW...that's trying to find evidence to fit the hypothesis/theory, not observing evidence and constructing the hypothesis/theory from that evidence...which happens to be the same reason someone (earlier in this thread, I think) cited to prove that Creationism wasn't science.

LOL! Scientific prediction means: i have my hypothesis on how things work and if things can be observed that are conform to that my hypothesis is right. If things are observed that are non-conform with my hypothesis, it has to be wrong. Now, think about it. We're making the prediction that we should find intermediate forms. Some time later we happen to find some intermediate forms (if Creation was right, then these intermediate forms SHOULD NOT EXIST because you say that god created species separately). They however DO exist.

Besides, our theory of evolution could easily be falisified by forms that should not exist according to our common theory. Like unicorns or pegasi, to a fancy example. Or fish and dinosaur fossils from the Precambrian, to take soemthing less fancy. These have not been found however.

Yet evolutionists will do as they do on this thread and REAM creationists and intelligent design types for having "no evidence" for their beliefs...when you yourself just said "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

To be a scientific theory, they must have evidence. They have none. Faith is not evidence to anyone but the believer.

No one has a problem with anyone believing Creationism. No one has a problem with believing in creation - in fact, most biologists do believe in a creator. The problem is when religion tries to disguise itself as science.

[QUOTE=Rus024][QUOTE=Confederacy Roxland][QUOTE=Rus024]

Wrong again. I strongly suggest that you acquaint yourself more closely with the literature.

QUOTE]

Actually I suggest you look at the difference between the two. Since you don't seem to get that the two are very different.


The difference is quantitative, not qualitative. Your argument depends on the difference being qualitative, so your argument is crippled.

Again I suggest you go and look at the literature - there are documented instances of this "macro" evolution you insist is impossible.

way I see it, evolution happened with God's help. I believe in a little bit of both.

[QUOTE=Confederacy Roxland][QUOTE=Rus024][QUOTE=Confederacy Roxland]


The difference is quantitative, not qualitative. Your argument depends on the difference being qualitative, so your argument is crippled.

Again I suggest you go and look at the literature - there are documented instances of this "macro" evolution you insist is impossible.


Then show me one.

Wow! This thread has turned into the bigges ASSload of circular logic that I have ever seen.

This represents me ejecting from this thread. (http://www.mikehowells.net/migfire2.jpg)

[QUOTE=Rus024][QUOTE=Confederacy Roxland][QUOTE=Rus024]


Then show me one.

No - get your finger out. You claim to have checked, when you plainly haven't.

Science is open access - you can use google just as well as I can. WoS and Science Direct are better, but not as free.

Then show me one. Micro and Macro are the same thing :rolleyes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.life.uiuc.edu/bio100/lectures/sp98lects/25s98evidence.html

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.dino.html

Your turn. Offer credible evidence that macroevolution is false.

I haven't studied evolution and therefore don't think I'm in a position to make a judgement about how likely/reliable/accurate/true etc it is.

[QUOTE=Confederacy Roxland][QUOTE=Rus024][QUOTE=Confederacy Roxland]

No - get your finger out. You claim to have checked, when you plainly haven't.

Science is open access - you can use google just as well as I can. WoS and Science Direct are better, but not as free.

Well since you can't give me an instance then I guess you don't know of one.

Wow! This thread has turned into the bigges ASSload of circular logic that I have ever seen.

This represents me ejecting from this thread. (http://www.mikehowells.net/migfire2.jpg)

Circular logic? Ejecting? You run away because you have run out of arguments, is that the case? ;)

Now, let's talk about a totally different scientific prediction. When Einstein came up with his Theory of Relativity, he predicted that the speed of light would be constant. This has been observed over and over again. Making a prediction like that doesn't make Einstein an astrologist, does it?

[QUOTE=Confederacy Roxland][QUOTE=Rus024][QUOTE=Confederacy Roxland]

No - get your finger out. You claim to have checked, when you plainly haven't.

Science is open access - you can use google just as well as I can. WoS and Science Direct are better, but not as free.

Google scholar only searches peer-reviewed articles, I believe.

Of course, you can't get anything but the abstract for free with most of them.

Repeated for good measure.

Then show me one. Micro and Macro are the same thing :rolleyes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.life.uiuc.edu/bio100/lectures/sp98lects/25s98evidence.html

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.dino.html

Your turn. Offer credible evidence that macroevolution is false.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emcon.htm

[QUOTE=Rus024][QUOTE=Confederacy Roxland][QUOTE=Rus024]

Well since you can't give me an instance then I guess you don't know of one.
:confused: You just got four (4!).

[QUOTE=Falhaar]Repeated for good measure.

Micro and Macro are the same thing :rolleyes:
Actually according to your very own source Micrevolution and Macroevolution are two very different things.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/quest.htm

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emcon.htm

And, where is the evidence that what that page claims would be true? I don't see any links/references there. I haven't heard anywhere else of homo sapiens fossils that are any older than 400,000 years or so... thus i doubt it. Seriously.

Oh wait, there is reference, my mistake, sorry:

LUBENOW, Marvin L. 1992
Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House


Doesn't sound exactly like a reliable source, though.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emcon.htm

That's cute. Really cute.

Now provide peer-reviewed material, or at least material based upon peer-reviewed material.

http://www.icr.org/headlines/humphreys_to_hanke.pdf

[QUOTE=Rus024][QUOTE=Confederacy Roxland][QUOTE=Rus024]

Well since you can't give me an instance then I guess you don't know of one.

Stop being silly.

http://www.icr.org/goodsci/bot-9703.htm

http://www.icr.org/headlines/humphreys_to_hanke.pdf

What journal was this published in?

Edit: Funny that he complains that he wants peer-reviewed journal articles to refute him, yet does not seem to have anything published on this subject in a credible journal. Hmmmm.......

Circular logic? Ejecting? You run away because you have run out of arguments, is that the case? ;)
No... because beating my head agaisnt a brick wall is pointless.

[QUOTE=Rus024][QUOTE=Confederacy Roxland][QUOTE=Rus024]
Of course, you can't get anything but the abstract for free with most of them.


Ah yes, that is the drawback. However, experience teaches that researchers themselves are slightly less strict about the copyright laws - pdfs are remarkably easy to come by :-)

http://www.icr.org/goodsci/bot-9703.htm

The ICR? Have you *any* idea how discredited those loons are? The homepage states quite clearly that they are a "christ focussed creation ministry". Yes, very scientific.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1][QUOTE=Rus024][QUOTE=Confederacy Roxland]


Ah yes, that is the drawback. However, experience teaches that researchers themselves are slightly less strict about the copyright laws - pdfs are remarkably easy to come by :-)

But of course. So, if you ever really need an article. TG me and I'll see if I have access. hehe.

Repeated for good measure.

Micro and Macro are the same thing :rolleyes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Since you insist on posting links to the inane "Talk Origins" site...I'll have to be contrary and post a link to their rival site: http://trueorigin.org/

Check out this link and take a look around, if you like... (http://www.stratigraphy.org/)

Since you insist on posting links to the inane "Talk Origins" site...I'll have to be contrary and post a link to their rival site: http://trueorigin.org/

Hey Tex, do you know you are having some pretty good fossils of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals over there in Texas? Do you know how different ecosystems from different times there are present over there?

Hey Tex, do you know you are having some pretty good fossils of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals over there in Texas? Do you know how different ecosystems from different times there are present over there?
What does that have to do with anything? :confused:

[QUOTE=Rus024][QUOTE=Dempublicents1][QUOTE=Rus024]

But of course. So, if you ever really need an article. TG me and I'll see if I have access. hehe.

The uni is kind enough to pay for psych-info, WoS/WoK, and Science Direct for me - now, if they'd only find that extra bit of cash for PsychArticles...

Failing that, an ILL from the British Library works - takes a few days, but they send a photocopy of pretty much any paper ever in the history of papers right to my door.

There is no excuse in this day and age for scientific illiteracy - not when it's *this* easy to access the most obscure aspects of science.

What does that have to do with anything? :confused:

Well, a whole lot. And you should know that if you had an idea about evolution. :)

Since you insist on posting links to the inane "Talk Origins" site...I'll have to be contrary and post a link to their rival site: http://trueorigin.org/

The difference between the two is that TalkOrigins provides multitudes of citations for credible, peer reviewed sources.

Creationist sites can't do that.

Well, a whole lot. And you should know that if you had an idea about evolution. :)
Damn! You're right!

*looks out window and sees a bipedal bovine using two sticks to make a fire*

PROOF! I NOW HAVE PROOF!

*snickers*

I've studied evolution and believe in creationist evolution as a complete concept?

I don't suppose you could make that an option.

Originally Posted by Texpunditistan
Since you insist on posting links to the inane "Talk Origins" site...I'll have to be contrary and post a link to their rival site: http://trueorigin.org/

Ahahahahahaha! I knew somebody was going to try and bring that one up. Yes, how about something legitimate?

A nice little, "oh by the way" riposte to that site: http://www.televar.com/~jnj/item11.htm

I've studied evolution and believe in creationist evolution as a complete concept?

I don't suppose you could make that an option.
What's creationist evolution?

The difference between the two is that TalkOrigins provides multitudes of citations for credible, peer reviewed sources.

Creationist sites can't do that.
Thank you for proving that you are hopelessly biased. The True Origin site approaches the Bible/creationism/young earth theory from a scientific point of view. Read the articles with an open mind if you don't believe me.

I know the "open mind" part is hard...but just try, okay? ;)

Damn! You're right!

Yes, i am right... have you heard of Dimetrodon from the early Permian or Postosuchus from the late Triassic?

Thanks for the links Falhaar, they were interesting reads (should be working though).
I've read a couple of Dawkins books and had never heard of micro/macro evolution and in a previous thread when they were brought up I exclaimed they were the same thing. Now I know why the distinction came up, and why I'd never heard of them, and that I was right with my hunch. It's just a Creationist 'divide and conquer' ploy.

So Evolution is a fact although the mechanics (Darwin's Theory of Evolution) is a rigorous theory the mechanics of which are still up for investigation.

But still you can't argue with a Creationist, because if they stubbornly want to believe in a god they can say "You can't prove that god didn't create the world yesterday, with all your memories intact" :headbang:

Thank you for proving that you are hopelessly biased. The True Origin site approaches the Bible/creationism/young earth theory from a scientific point of view. Read the articles with an open mind if you don't believe me.

I know the "open mind" part is hard...but just try, okay? ;)

Are there, or are there not, citations to peer reviewed credible science publications on the True Origins site? Unless it has changed *dramatically* since I last looked, the answer is "no, there are not".

Are there, or are there not, citations to peer reviewed credible science publications on the TalkOrigins site? Unless it has changed *dramatically* since last I looked, the answer is "yes, there are".

Game set match.

I know the "open mind" part is hard...but just try, okay? ;)

Yes, so please try to keep an open mind for chronofaunas... :)

Thank you for proving that you are hopelessly biased. The True Origin site approaches the Bible/creationism/young earth theory from a scientific point of view. Read the articles with an open mind if you don't believe me.

I know the "open mind" part is hard...but just try, okay? ;)

A scientific point of view does not include "I know the Bible is true so I am going to prove it."

A nice counterpoint to one of that laughable site's most vehement arguments: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/A_reply_to_Ashby_Camp_and_TrueOrigins_on_Avian_Phylogeny

A scientific point of view does not include "I know the Bible is true so I am going to prove it."

Took another look at TrueOrigins - on the front is an ad for a list of 500 web articles in support of creationism.

That's absolutely hilarious.

In response one has to bring the old "500 PhDs named Steve" in biology.

A quick perusal of the list shows that the "web articles" are on creationist propaganda sites, and not - strangely enough - science sites. Wonder why?

A quick perusal of the list shows that the "web articles" are on creationist propaganda sites, and not - strangely enough - science sites. Wonder why? It's obviously a massive conspiracy by evil evolutionary scientists who demand things like "evidence" and "reason", a large bulk of whom, I might add, are religious as well. Oh the cunning complexity of their scheme! :p

I'll never understand why it's an eiter/or argument.

Personally, I believe that God set the universe into motion with all it's scientific laws. Who says God didn't use evolution as a mechanism for creation?
Yes, now that is something i could believe.Thank You :)

I'll never understand why it's an eiter/or argument.

Because the Creationists have made it so.

Personally, I believe that God set the universe into motion with all it's scientific laws. Who says God didn't use evolution as a mechanism for creation?

Funny, that's what most "evolutionists" think. Fancy that.

I found a nice creatonist site http://www.pathlights.com. They also had some interesting things on homosexuals (http://www.pathlights.com/Public%20Enemies/Homo-sheet.htm):
3 - Fecal sex—Oddly enough, those who enter upon homosexual activities like to eat human manure, and spray urine in one another’s face! There is supposed to be happiness in doing this.
Very openminded of them! :(

I found a nice creatonist site http://www.pathlights.com. They also had some interesting things on homosexuals (http://www.pathlights.com/Public%20Enemies/Homo-sheet.htm):

Very openminded of them! :(

Other highlights:

* Oral sex is like drinking blood, and always includes swallowing.
* Straight people don't have oral sex.
* Rimming includes eating faeces.
* Straight people don't have anal sex.
* Straight people don't do water sports.
* Straight people don't do S&M.
* Straight people don't murder people.

Wow, who knew.

Let's hope their science is better than their sex ed on that site. I rather fear it isn't.

A scientific point of view does not include "I know the Bible is true so I am going to prove it."

I recall a line in an anthropology book I read. To paraphrase:
The best explanation for the human diving reflex, buoyant female breasts and overall human hairlessness is that we were aquatic for a period of time. Scientists are now looking for evidence of this off the coast of Africa.

As humans, scientists are as subject to dogma and knee-jerk reactions as everyone else.

There is a large, increasing body of evidence that there were highly advanced cultures circa 10000-8000 B.C. that were destroyed by a global flood. This is not the Biblical flood because lots of people survived (although you may wish to say that this is the flood the Bible refers to). However, this evidence is dismissed not because it is flawed, but because scientists do not want to acknowledge the possibility of a global flood.
Over four hundred cultures around the world have this legend but for fear of having to say, "Human civilisation has not been a smooth steady progression, but has suffered many fits, starts and setbacks." all of this evidence is dismissed.

There is a large, increasing body of evidence that there were highly advanced cultures circa 10000-8000 B.C. that were destroyed by a global flood. This is not the Biblical flood because lots of people survived (although you may wish to say that this is the flood the Bible refers to). However, this evidence is dismissed not because it is flawed, but because scientists do not want to acknowledge the possibility of a global flood.
Over four hundred cultures around the world have this legend but for fear of having to say, "Human civilisation has not been a smooth steady progression, but has suffered many fits, starts and setbacks." all of this evidence is dismissed.
....There is absolutely no geological evidence of a global flood.

Whoever told you so was either yanking your chain or full of shit.

Also, what kind of shitty archeology book do you have? Humans are hairless because the brain needs to be cooled, if we were covered in fur in the african jungles (you know, where our species arose) we would overheat. It is due to our large brains that we do not have a lot of body hair, not because we were aquatic.

There is a large, increasing body of evidence that there were highly advanced cultures circa 10000-8000 B.C. that were destroyed by a global flood. This is not the Biblical flood because lots of people survived (although you may wish to say that this is the flood the Bible refers to). However, this evidence is dismissed not because it is flawed, but because scientists do not want to acknowledge the possibility of a global flood.
Over four hundred cultures around the world have this legend but for fear of having to say, "Human civilisation has not been a smooth steady progression, but has suffered many fits, starts and setbacks." all of this evidence is dismissed.
This relates to evolution, how exactly?

I recall a line in an anthropology book I read. To paraphrase:
The best explanation for the human diving reflex, buoyant female breasts and overall human hairlessness is that we were aquatic for a period of time. Scientists are now looking for evidence of this off the coast of Africa.

Which is not the same as saying "I know for a fact that human beings were once aquatic and I'm going to prove it!" If those scientists don't find any evidence of this hypothesis, or if they find evidence to the contrary - it is gone. Not so with Creationism.

There is a large, increasing body of evidence that there were highly advanced cultures circa 10000-8000 B.C. that were destroyed by a global flood.

Incorrect. There is a large body of evidence that there was a huge flood in and around the Sumerian area. It was so large that it would have appeared to all of the cultures at the time that it was worldwide (since they didn't know how large the world really was.

None of this is being ignored. In fact, it is well known and commonly accepted among the scientific community.

A scientific point of view does not include "I know the Bible is true so I am going to prove it."


Yet most scientific papers are from the point of view "I know evolution is true so I am going to prove it."

I'd also appreciate it if all the creationists weren't grouped into christian bible believing fanatics. I believe in a higher deity that set things in motion including the evolutionary mechanisms. Its an ingenius setup that works very well. Hard to believe that it came about on its own. I know there isnt really any viable proof for this but its what i believe based on what i've studied during my life.

You can't study Creationism, it's just pseudo-babble cop-out.

Part of the reason you may not be able to find proper scientific studies done for creationism is the fact that many scientists take this sort of viewpoint whenever its brought up. Its hard to get finding and cooperation with this sort of pervasive close mindedness. I do agree that the fanaticism of Christianity can be partly faulted for this but it is a scientists responsibility to explore all possibilities.

I do not accept the possibility of a global deluge sensu Genesis (i.e. the whole of Earth would be covered by water). However, i acknowledge that a worldwide coastal flooding event (maybe in connection with the end of the last ice age) might be a possibility...

... at least this would explain the multiplicity of deluge myths in various cultures.

Yet most scientific papers are from the point of view "I know evolution is true so I am going to prove it."

Incorrect. The very fact that you would say it demonstrates an extreme lack of knowledge of the scientific method.

I'd also appreciate it if all the creationists weren't grouped into christian bible believing fanatics. I believe in a higher deity that set things in motion including the evolutionary mechanisms. Its an ingenius setup that works very well. Hard to believe that it came about on its own. I know there isnt really any viable proof for this but its what i believe based on what i've studied during my life.

Irrelevant. This is exactly what most scientists who study evolution believe. The difference is that the god part is not scientific, so is not included in the theory.

Part of the reason you may not be able to find proper scientific studies done for creationism is the fact that many scientists take this sort of viewpoint whenever its brought up. Its hard to get finding and cooperation with this sort of pervasive close mindedness. I do agree that the fanaticism of Christianity can be partly faulted for this but it is a scientists responsibility to explore all possibilities.

The idea of a God is outside the realm of science. Science does not take a view on the subject. As far as science is concerned, there may be a God or there may not - it is outside that which we can measure.

Part of the reason you may not be able to find proper scientific studies done for creationism is the fact that many scientists take this sort of viewpoint whenever its brought up. Its hard to get finding and cooperation with this sort of pervasive close mindedness. I do agree that the fanaticism of Christianity can be partly faulted for this but it is a scientists responsibility to explore all possibilities.

A quick perusal of conference proceedings shows that funding is available for some *really* weird science.

Many creationists claim to *be* scientists - so where's the exploring? Where are the creationists publishing the results of their research?

Oh, that's right - they *don't*.

Which is not the same as saying "I know for a fact that human beings were once aquatic and I'm going to prove it!" If those scientists don't find any evidence of this hypothesis, or if they find evidence to the contrary - it is gone. Not so with Creationism.
Be honest. If a scientist even attempts to study Creationism seriously their career is over. So who is left to argue for it? Theologians.
With base mockery as the response to earnest attempts at debate, is their any doubt as to why these people are dogmatic?



Incorrect. There is a large body of evidence that there was a huge flood in and around the Sumerian area. It was so large that it would have appeared to all of the cultures at the time that it was worldwide (since they didn't know how large the world really was.

None of this is being ignored. In fact, it is well known and commonly accepted among the scientific community.
There is evidence of ruins off the coasts of India, China and Japan that were 'sunk' around that time.
I'm not saying that the entire planet was under water, but there was a major cataclysm and it is unrecognised for the purposes of dogma.

There is evidence of ruins off the coasts of India, China and Japan that were 'sunk' around that time.
I'm not saying that the entire planet was under water, but there was a major cataclysm and it is unrecognised for the purposes of dogma.

Are you talking about the pyramid of Yonaguni?

Irrelevant. This is exactly what most scientists who study evolution believe. The difference is that the god part is not scientific, so is not included in the theory.

This was just a simple statement of my own beliefs. I do believe I'm allowed to do that am i not?

The idea of a God is outside the realm of science. Science does not take a view on the subject. As far as science is concerned, there may be a God or there may not - it is outside that which we can measure.
I do agree with you there. Science in the purest sense does not take the idea of god into it. This would be all well and good if it were how things are practiced. But many people have taken evolution to mean the anti-creation anti-christian theory. And it is impossible to completely separate the opinions of the scientist from the scientific work. As such most things need to be taken with a serious grain of salt.

how does one "believe" in evolution? its a scientific theory/fact.

i studied biology at a-level and 'believe' in evolution.


A theory is a theory precisely because it cannot be absolutely proven. It is a possible explanation for a natural occurence. Many theories are offered and disproven every day by scientists.

Be honest. If a scientist even attempts to study Creationism seriously their career is over. So who is left to argue for it? Theologians.
With base mockery as the response to earnest attempts at debate, is their any doubt as to why these people are dogmatic?

I don't buy that. Scientists are given *much* more freedom than this would require - they are more than free to do "creation science" on the side. Thing is, they can't - there's nothing to do. It can't be done - they can't show that, for example, the universe is younger than Irish civilisation [for reasons which should be glaringly apparent].



There is evidence of ruins off the coasts of India, China and Japan that were 'sunk' around that time.
I'm not saying that the entire planet was under water, but there was a major cataclysm and it is unrecognised for the purposes of dogma.

It is not "unrecognised" - we all know about it.

A theory is a theory precisely because it cannot be absolutely proven. It is a possible explanation for a natural occurence. Many theories are offered and disproven every day by scientists.

Nope, no they aren't.

You are grossly confusing "theory" and "hypothesis".

It is exceedingly rare for a theory to be disproven.

I'll never understand why it's an eiter/or argument.

Personally, I believe that God set the universe into motion with all it's scientific laws. Who says God didn't use evolution as a mechanism for creation?

I agree! :D

....There is absolutely no geological evidence of a global flood.

Whoever told you so was either yanking your chain or full of shit.

Also, what kind of shitty archeology book do you have? Humans are hairless because the brain needs to be cooled, if we were covered in fur in the african jungles (you know, where our species arose) we would overheat. It is due to our large brains that we do not have a lot of body hair, not because we were aquatic.

The word is "Anthropology". It's a distinct field of study to archaeology.

The great apes aren't hairless. And they do actually live in the jungles, as opposed to our ancestors who according to modern evolutionary theory were plains apes (which is why we can stand upright: to look out over the Veldt for predators).
If hair is bad for intelligence, why do we still have hair on our head?
Simple. Body hair has nothing to do with intelligence.

Nope, no they aren't.

You are grossly confusing "theory" and "hypothesis".

It is exceedingly rare for a theory to be disproven.

theories can be improved though. Like Newton's laws on gravitation. They still hold true to the limits in which they were established, but beyond those you need Einstein

which is why we can stand upright: to look out over the Veldt for predators).

That's backwards - we could look for predators *because* we could stand upright, not the other way round.

That's backwards - we could look for predators *because* we could stand upright, not the other way round.
Within the context of the statement it was accurate, as in the ability developed because it was advantageous to a plains dwelling ape, while it was not advantageous to a jungle dewlling ape and so they can't really do it.
I admit I could have phrased the point better though.

Within the context of the statement it was accurate, as in the ability developed because it was advantageous to a plains dwelling ape, while it was not advantageous to a jungle dewlling ape and so they can't really do it.
I admit I could have phrased the point better though.

Yes, *I* know that and *you* know that - but we're dealing with the sort of people who *don't* know that. They would read that and say "so evolution *is* guided" or some such drivel.

Maybe I'm just getting burned out.

Yes, *I* know that and *you* know that - but we're dealing with the sort of people who *don't* know that. They would read that and say "so evolution *is* guided" or some such drivel.

Maybe I'm just getting burned out.

I normally just lurk, so I am still a bit sensitive to people arguing with points I think they think I've made, when I think I haven't made those points.
Don't worry though, once we reach a few thousand posts we'll be as oblivious to the points made by others as most of the senior citizens around here and will be able to delightfully post arguments against the voices in our heads. ;)

I do not accept the possibility of a global deluge sensu Genesis (i.e. the whole of Earth would be covered by water). However, i acknowledge that a worldwide coastal flooding event (maybe in connection with the end of the last ice age) might be a possibility...

... at least this would explain the multiplicity of deluge myths in various cultures.

The deluge myths are currently being studied (scientifically) and some hypotheses have been proposed. For example, the melting of the glaciers at the end of the ice age is one such hypothesis. Another is the breaking of a landbridge that separated the Black Sea from the Mediterranean Sea, flooding the lake that was the Black Sea to the point it is today.

Of course niether of these suggest that the "whole world" was flooded. There's not enough water on Earth to flood the higher mountains. But, to the people living at the time, it would seem that their "whole world" had been flooded.


Regarding ruins found off the coast of some places, this does not in any way support a "Noah's flood". In fact, it more accurately supports the rising of global sea level at the end of the last ice age.



Now, regarding evolution and creationism: this debate shouldn't really even exist.

The reason? Evolution is science and creationism is not.


Contrary to what many Christians on this forum may believe, the proportion of Christians to non-Christians is the same among scientists as it is among the layperson. In other words, it is obvious that many scientists in the past have tried to scientifically prove creationism, but the evidence didn't support it. Scientifically, there is overwhelming evidence to support evolution (though if a "new, better" theory were introduced that fit more of the evidence then evolution would quickly be replaced.) Creationism has little if any scientific evidence to back it up.


This does not in any way mean that God doesn't exist. In fact, God could have set forth evolution as we know it. And science isn't trying to argue that!

I didn't answer the poll because my answer isn't up there: I've studied evolution and I don't believe or disbelieve in it.

....There is absolutely no geological evidence of a global flood.

Whoever told you so was either yanking your chain or full of shit.

Also, what kind of shitty archeology book do you have? Humans are hairless because the brain needs to be cooled, if we were covered in fur in the african jungles (you know, where our species arose) we would overheat. It is due to our large brains that we do not have a lot of body hair, not because we were aquatic.

Actually, there are alot of physiological characteristics that humans share with other aquatic mammals, which is the reason there is illusion to the idea that we may have spent part of out developmental period in or near oceans.

Some of these are:
1. Humans, unlike most other primates, but much like sea-going mammals, and other forms, have a natural process to excrete excess salt from our systems. Landbased mammals on the other hand, conserve salt in their systems.
2. We are hairless, and store large amounts of fat in a single layer under our skin. Landbased mammals store it within and around their muscle tissue... We have more in common in that area with hippos, and cetacians.
3. Our diet requires a disportionate ammount of omega-3 fatty acids, more inclined to early development on a fish-based diet, than most other land-mammals.
4. All early civilizations are found near large water sources. And on coastlines.
5. Human babies are capable of swimming at early ages, as instinct. And will naturally float. Humans are the only hominid capable of swimming.

While it's quite likely we did not spend much time as "aquatic" and even then only partially so. Many aspects of our culture, instinct, and physiology, are common to sea-going mammals only... And are not shared with any other hominid. It's is pretty well ascertained that we have been aquatic, based on all evidence, for a period of time.

Learnt a bit about evolution in secondary school. Can't say I really care :rolleyes:!

Learnt a bit about evolution in secondary school. Can't say I really care :rolleyes:!
Ha. :fluffle: for you!

I do agree with you there. Science in the purest sense does not take the idea of god into it. This would be all well and good if it were how things are practiced. But many people have taken evolution to mean the anti-creation anti-christian theory. And it is impossible to completely separate the opinions of the scientist from the scientific work. As such most things need to be taken with a serious grain of salt.

It is the way science is practiced, save for the occasional rogue who claims to be able to "disprove" or "prove" God. The vast majority of scientists, like the vast majority of all human beings, are theists. We just don't bring that into our research.

Meanwhile, no scientific work gets published in any credible journal without being peer-reviewed. Of course this process isn't fool-proof, but it does reduce the number of things that get through that are heavily biased. It isn't unusual for a reviewer to ask for more data, require more experiments, or ask that conclusions be toned back before letting the paper through.

The people who have taken evolution to be anti-creation and anti-Christian are not scientists. They are lay people. And they are just as wrong as the religious people who take it that way.

1. Humans, unlike most other primates, but much like sea-going mammals, and other forms, have a natural process to excrete excess salt from our systems. Landbased mammals on the other hand, conserve salt in their systems.

This isn't really correct. Human beings are not the only mammals that maintain a salt balance. If there is too much, it is excreted (often in the urine). If there is too little, it is conserved. A lot of this has to do with water balance as well. All mammals have systems to maintain blood pressure that is ~ constant.

God is loving - God is wrathful.
God is merciful - God is vengeful.
God simply is....

And you do not have an acurate picture of God as He is expressed in the Bible. That being said, you have "edited" out parts of God, you do not like, as He has expressed Himself. And formed yourself an idol of your own liking from the parts you do. Anything less than a complete image of God, as He has expressed Himself, both through Scripture and Nature, is not the true God.

Your god is an idol of your own fashioning.I'm sorry for the incomplete description, but I don't have time to fully describe God. No man does.

I have read the entire bible and know just about as well as any man alive what He is like. Just because I did not say something, doesn't mean I don't believe it.

I would be appreciative if you were to be more careful to avoid making assumptions.

I believe God created evolution. Somewhere, somehow it all started with God.

CHeck your textbooks again, evolution has more going for it (fossil records, microevolution, etc.) than creationism has ever had.Fossil records are based on circular reasoning. Fossils are used to date rocks, and rocks are used to date fossils.
Microevolution does not support macroevolution. You can breed dogs together to get a new kind of dog, but you will never breed dogs together to get a cat.

....There is absolutely no geological evidence of a global flood.Now I havn't been there myself, but I've heard through multiple sources (including a science teacher who believed in evolution) that there are fossilized clams on Mount Everest.

Sounds like a big flood to me, unless prehistoric clams used to climb mountains maybe.

Many creationists claim to *be* scientists - so where's the exploring? Where are the creationists publishing the results of their research?right here (http://www.drdino.com)

right here (http://www.drdino.com)

I looked at the website, and all it does is try to debunk evolution. It gives no scientific evidence to support creationism (that I could find).

Remember, evidence that does not directly support evolution is not the same as evidence that does directly support creationism. Just because something seems to debunk evolution does not mean it supports creationism.

How about, I've studied both and just am not qualified to tell which is the right one?

there are not enough options here. i am both evolutionist and creationist, the two do not conflict.

there are not enough options here. i am both evolutionist and creationist, the two do not conflict.The Bible states very clearly that God created everything in six days. This is called the creation.

Please explain to me how this is compatable with evolution.

The Bible states very clearly that God created everything in six days. This is called the creation.

Please explain to me how this is compatable with evolution.
And there's evidence to support that by "days" that was actually indicative of "eras". There's just way too much to have happened in the history of the world that all that was done in six days.

Come on, I'm a devout Catholic and they taught even ME better than to believe that literalist "six days" crap.

I looked at the website, and all it does is try to debunk evolution. It gives no scientific evidence to support creationism (that I could find).

Remember, evidence that does not directly support evolution is not the same as evidence that does directly support creationism. Just because something seems to debunk evolution does not mean it supports creationism.OK sure it may focus on disproving evolution, but I challenge you to find answers to even a few of the the questions it raises for evolution.
If you find the articles to be uncomprehensive(as I do myself), you will find a lot more information on his tapes.

OK sure it may focus on disproving evolution, but I challenge you to find answers to even a few of the the questions it raises for evolution.
If you find the articles to be uncomprehensive(as I do myself), you will find a lot more information on his tapes.

Just the other day, a Christian pointed me out to a site that showed such errors in evolution. First of all, I by no means consider evolution perfect. It needs to be changed a bit to fit the evidence. But, that's the beauty of science, we are allowed to change the theory to support the new evidence.


Secondly, most of the arguments on the site (I thought looked valid at first glance) were quickly debunked by someone who knew more about science than myself. Therefore, I don't pretend to know why the "evidence" against evolution is just misconstrued or skewed, but I do have a feeling that much of it is.


I will post a link to a thread in these forums made by one that is much more scientifically qualified to debunk such claims than myself:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418178&page=1

I'm going to leave this thread alone now so that I can have a life, and I leave you with my last point.

For a long time Trent Hovind has offered $US250,000 to anyone who can prove that we and the world around us came into being through natural processes. No submissions have yet been made.

I'm going to leave this thread alone now so that I can have a life, and I leave you with my last point.

For a long time Trent Hovind has offered $US250,000 to anyone who can prove that we and the world around us came into being through natural processes. No submissions have yet been made.
And yet Abelikesthisplace has given up on this thread because they can't stand that people can at least somewhat argue every point they've brought up.

Funny how this seems to work.

I'm going to leave this thread alone now so that I can have a life, and I leave you with my last point.

For a long time Trent Hovind has offered $US250,000 to anyone who can prove that we and the world around us came into being through natural processes. No submissions have yet been made.

Ha! You're leaving because you can't argue my point.

And your point is not valid either, because there are no "proofs" in science. Just theories. Besides, the "world around us [coming into] being" is not the same as evolution.

And finally, as stated before, evidence against evolution is not evidence for creationism.


If you want to leave this debate that's fine with me. If you think that makes you better than me, that's fine with me.

Since you insist on posting links to the inane "Talk Origins" site...I'll have to be contrary and post a link to their rival site: http://trueorigin.org/That's a very funny site. Really cheered me up...

That's a very funny site. Really cheered me up...

Always nice when a website exists that you can refute in a matter of seconds.

Fossil records are based on circular reasoning. Fossils are used to date rocks, and rocks are used to date fossils.

Not quite. Fossils with a definite date (or date range) are used to initially date rocks where no other evidence exists at that time, and rocks with a definate date (or, again, range) are used to initially date fossils where, blah blah blah... If then a closer study of the rock includes some radiometric assessment that indicates that it is far older than assumed, what should then happen is that the fossils (which previously might have been thought to be of a certain age) are now examined in the light of the possibility that they are from an age outside the original assumption.

And starting on the trail of rock/fossil dating I doubt anybody went "lets say that's a million years old, so the fossils in it are, so the rock is a million years old, so now we've proven them both". That's not scientific and won't have survived review.

Microevolution does not support macroevolution. You can breed dogs together to get a new kind of dog, but you will never breed dogs together to get a cat.Why are so many people (on [that side of the fence) sure that macroevolution (as they define it) is cats turning into dogs or fish turning into birds?

Evolution is about (say) fish turning into slightly different fish turning into even more different fish turning into interestingly different fish turning into something that's a fish but with differences turning into something very fishlike but might not be recognised as a fish by the 'original' fish turning into something that is perhaps not a fish but which still retains fishlike qualities turning into something that is definitely not a fish but which has provable ancestry back to fish. (That's missing loads of steps out, but will suffice, and uses "turning into" as a shortcut for "reproduces for many generations, during which time the successive generations become" rather than the more Lamarkian assessment of the phrase.) And whether this latest creature is called an amphibian or Bob doesn't matter. The stages of fish and progressively less-fishlike creatures that sat directly on the line of ancestry of Bob didn't have a picture of Bob on their bedside cabinets saying "I want to be more like that", they're just the ones whose natures were more Bob-like in a world where being Bob-ish was (in general) an advantageous thing to be... The siblings and cousins of the Bob-ancestors who started to become (by each generation) more like Dereks might not have survived (for reasons connected or not with the advantages of a final 'Derek' form) and hence there isn't a fully-formed Derek creature today or in the fossil record (save for in the sense that we name people Derek, but I thought it silly to use a name such as "Zqutrtay" in this argument") currently extant in the biomass of the planet, because the proto-Dereks didn't compete well against the proto-Bobs, or else just happened to set up home in an area that was later to become a volcanic wasteland or meteor impact site or unsustainable ecosystem rapidly overrun by climate change in the form of glaciation or desertification or something equally devistating with insufficient opportunity to relocate...

If you see what I mean...

Now I havn't been there myself, but I've heard through multiple sources (including a science teacher who believed in evolution) that there are fossilized clams on Mount Everest.

Sounds like a big flood to me, unless prehistoric clams used to climb mountains maybe.You obviously aren't aware (or willing to accept) that the rocks that make up the Himalayas were (simplifying it a little) originally on the sea-bed between the Indian and Asian techtonics plates and that India moved (is, in fact, still moving) towards the Asian one and the Himalayas is essentially the 'crumple-zone' between the two.

Apart from anything else, fossilisation does not generally occur on dry land, cannot really do so (unless you count Pompeic 'preservation' of people and things under layers of air-born volcanic ash, though that really isn't the same) and there is no reasonable mechanism for a forty-day-and-night flood to carry clams up a mountain, bury them in sufficient extra sediment to allow the sediment they are in to be compressed back into rock and then for the weathering to bit back exactly back to the level of now-rock sediment where we can find them...

(Simplifying some things a bit, but essentially you have to believe the world is changing to make any sense of it all. Or they could have been planted there by God, yes, but invoking a deity to make work a theory that supports the deity is just chasing your tail...)

Now I havn't been there myself, but I've heard through multiple sources (including a science teacher who believed in evolution) that there are fossilized clams on Mount Everest.

Sounds like a big flood to me, unless prehistoric clams used to climb mountains maybe.

Mt. Everest is located in Nepal, in the Himalayas... A mountain chain formed at the collision point between the Asian and Indian plates.... The material in the mountain chain is "Seabed" material thrust up from a collision..... Try again.

Why are so many people (on [that side of the fence) sure that macroevolution (as they define it) is cats turning into dogs or fish turning into birds?

Evolution is about (say) fish turning into slightly different fish turning into even more different fish turning into interestingly different fish turning into something that's a fish but with differences turning into something very fishlike but might not be recognised as a fish by the 'original' fish turning into something that is perhaps not a fish but which still retains fishlike qualities turning into something that is definitely not a fish but which has provable ancestry back to fish. (That's missing loads of steps out, but will suffice, and uses "turning into" as a shortcut for "reproduces for many generations, during which time the successive generations become" rather than the more Lamarkian assessment of the phrase.)
Yeah, to put it bluntly but in a way that most people in the modern world can recognize (because it seems to me that almost everybody meets SOMEBODY who spouts this off at some time).....evolution is like the gradual change from parrot fossils dating from approximately 65-70 million years ago, to the modern [accursed, squawky, smelly] parrots. 'Course, admittedly, not all experts agree on this (but what DO they all agree on, anyway?), and the most significant AND widely recognized fossil of the oldest "modern parrot model" is from a mere 53 million years ago.

But I digress. I should still be sleeping.

Fossil records are based on circular reasoning. Fossils are used to date rocks, and rocks are used to date fossils.
Microevolution does not support macroevolution. You can breed dogs together to get a new kind of dog, but you will never breed dogs together to get a cat.

Macroevolution is microevolution.... They are the same thing... One is merely the other carried over many sucessive generations.

You're surrounded by present day transitionals.

Egg laying mammals, like the Spiny Anteater, and the Platypus.... The Platypus also has scales, like it's reptillian ancestors.

Birds retaining many features of their saurian ancestors.

Fish with lungs.

Amphibians retaining gills.

Cooperative multi-cellulars, like the sponge and anemone.

I sorted through some of the posts today. I expected to get a few pages, but not this much. It's unbelievable what a hotbutton issue this is today. I'm not going to waste my time rehashing the arguements from my side. All I can say is this. Many of the creation supporters out there demand that not teaching creation is religious intolerance. Yet, many are constantly crusading to stamp out any mention of evolution in schools. Why is it, I must ask, that while campaigning for teaching creationism you demand to stomp out other beliefs in how we got here. Hows that for intolerance?

Fossil records are based on circular reasoning. Fossils are used to date rocks, and rocks are used to date fossils.
Microevolution does not support macroevolution. You can breed dogs together to get a new kind of dog, but you will never breed dogs together to get a cat.

Wrong. Fossils are not used to date rocks. They are used to give a ballpark - a shorthand way of establishing rough dates by virtue of the consistent findings of actual dating methods.

For example, finding a viking artefact in an archaeological dig gives a rough date of about 12-1400 years ago. That's because Viking artefacts have been repeatedly dated to that time using accurate merthods.

Evolutionary theory does not posit that breeding dogs should give cats - but thanks for displaying a profound ignorance of the subject.

Now I havn't been there myself, but I've heard through multiple sources (including a science teacher who believed in evolution) that there are fossilized clams on Mount Everest.

Sounds like a big flood to me, unless prehistoric clams used to climb mountains maybe.

Ever hear of a little thing we call "plate tectonics"? No?

right here (http://www.drdino.com)

Dr Dino [i.e. "Dr" Kent Hovind] is a fraudster, which you would know if you opened your eyes. The man doesn't even have a real doctorate - it's from a recognised diploma mill.

Further, a website that openly proclaims itself as representing a religious ministry doesn't quite cut the mustard as a scientific reference. That's a charitable assessment.

Simonist']And there's evidence to support that by "days" that was actually indicative of "eras". There's just way too much to have happened in the history of the world that all that was done in six days.

Come on, I'm a devout Catholic and they taught even ME better than to believe that literalist "six days" crap.

Even using that "era" notion it still doesn't work - plants did not evolve before the sun formed. For starters.

The catholic church doesn't go for the six days nonsense - they might be regressive, but they're not *that* regressive.

I'm going to leave this thread alone now so that I can have a life, and I leave you with my last point.

For a long time Trent Hovind has offered $US250,000 to anyone who can prove that we and the world around us came into being through natural processes. No submissions have yet been made.

That's "Kent" Hovind. Read the criteria to go along with that offer - it very quickly becomes apparent that the offer is for people to demonstrate the validity of an entirely fabricated account of evolution. Hovind is attacking a poorly constructed straw man.

But thanks for playing.

Now I havn't been there myself, but I've heard through multiple sources (including a science teacher who believed in evolution) that there are fossilized clams on Mount Everest.

Sounds like a big flood to me, unless prehistoric clams used to climb mountains maybe.

You are aware that mountains are formed over time? (and wear down over time)

I sorted through some of the posts today. I expected to get a few pages, but not this much. It's unbelievable what a hotbutton issue this is today. I'm not going to waste my time rehashing the arguements from my side. All I can say is this. Many of the creation supporters out there demand that not teaching creation is religious intolerance. Yet, many are constantly crusading to stamp out any mention of evolution in schools. Why is it, I must ask, that while campaigning for teaching creationism you demand to stomp out other beliefs in how we got here. Hows that for intolerance?

As a creationist, I would prefer that neither were taught or that both were taught as theories on origins of humanity with neither being tauted as "the truth".

As a creationist, I would prefer that neither were taught or that both were taught as theories on origins of humanity with neither being tauted as "the truth".
What is you basis for stating creationism a theory? You can't include the theory of evolution in your answer.

As a creationist, I would prefer that neither were taught or that both were taught as theories on origins of humanity with neither being tauted as "the truth".

I still don't see your problem with the scientific theory being taught as such, and the lay-theories left to be taught by those who espouse them.

What is you basis for stating creationism a theory? You can't include the theory of evolution in your answer.

You'll never accept that my theory holds any water, just as I will not likely ever find much validity in evolutionary theory. I really don't want to argue it further. Please search out my previous posts, not all of which are in this thread mind you, if you really care about my opinion on this subject and aren't just looking to belittle those with differing ideas from your own.

Sorry if that is a bit curt. I just getting a little tired of rehashing the same issue a thousand times.

Science never claims it's theories as 'truths'...
It simply accepts certain theory as a 'good' way to describe things, once reliable evidence exists to support a certain theory. But it is constantly trying to disprove its existing 'accepted' ideals...and would change its views once evidence against a certain accepted theory is presented.

That's what makes evolution and creationism different. One is a scientific theory. The other's a religious idea...where things are worked the other way round.

I still don't see your problem with the scientific theory being taught as such, and the lay-theories left to be taught by those who espouse them.

Nor will you likely ever see the issue from the perspective of someone who sees belief in evolution as essentially a religious belief. Until you can comprehend what that perspective makes sense you won't ever be satisfied with my answer to that issue.

Science never claims it's theories as 'truths'...


Not good science, I'll grant you that. But, I've been exposed to enough bad science to be thoroughly convinced that it is taught in the majority of elementary and highschool class rooms as being fact/truth. Either way, both should be presented as competing theories on the origin of species IMO.

God created the universe.

Evolution is his patching program...

If dinosaur$ = 0, then human_iq$=+50

Nor will you likely ever see the issue from the perspective of someone who sees belief in evolution as essentially a religious belief. Until you can comprehend what that perspective makes sense you won't ever be satisfied with my answer to that issue.

Your perspective makes sense, so long as you see all of science as a religion that should not be taught in the schools. What you are actually saying is nothing but hypocrisy.

I just getting a little tired of rehashing the same issue a thousand times.
See, we do agree on something :D

But I still think creationists are abusing the word theory. They use it to evevate their own beliefs and ideas to the standard of a scientific theory and they use it in denying/belittling evolution as only a theory.

I belive scientific ideas but still belive in that what is in Bible but I see it as a methaphore, not literally...

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." --
Albert Einstein

See, we do agree on something :D

But I still think creationists are abusing the word theory. They use it to evevate their own beliefs and ideas to the standard of a scientific theory and they use it in denying/belittling evolution as only a theory.

See particuarly the Latin origins and defintions 5 and 6. IMO the simplist and most correct defintion of the word theory or to theorize is: to create, invent, contemplate an explantion or explanations for that which is observable or conceiveable.

Oh yeah, I forgot to add :D :D Someone else I have actually agreed with on this site. :D :D It's a rare occurance for me so please forgive my idiocy.


the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1.A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2.The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. I'm sure that at least someone will disagree with my definition, but that is how I view the issue and I consider both evolution and creation to be theories on the origin of species, if you want an example of how that works.

3.A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4.Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5.A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6.An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Late Latin theria, from Greek theri, from theros, spectator : probably the, a viewing + -oros, seeing (from horn, to see).]

*snip*

Irrelevant. In a science class we can only teach that which meets the scientific definition of a theory.

I have studied the Evolution/Creation debate. I am a conservative Christian (lets get the bias in the open). That said, at the begining of the last century, many ultra-conservative Christians accepted a theistic evolution as fact. It is not required for one to believe Creation to be a Christian. That said, I have never heard any evolutionist convincingly explain the following concepts:

Irreducible complexity: see Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box in which he examines the flagelel motor of mono-cellular creatures. The motor has more than 30 components and every component is required for the motor to function. The complexity cannot be reduced and it is useless without all of the parts in the correct order.

Information: Where does information come from? Information does not develop itself. Without the information from DNA, the first supposed protien, which developed in the primordial soup, would not have been able to fold into anything useable. It would have remained inert.

Finally, there exists a growing trend in science to accept Inteligent Design. Robert Jastrow, a self-avowed agnostic, admits that he has a problem: he is a materialist and cannot deny the evidence for a creator.

Evolution sounds cool - I will admit that. There are days when I wish it were true, because then I could believe in aliens. The facts attest to themselves. Not one assumption relied on by evolutionists has been proven.

If you are an evolutionist, I would respectfully challenge to explain the source of information in the universe and the existence of irrudicble complexity. I do not critcize those who believe in evolution. Have a great day.

Irrelevant. In a science class we can only teach that which meets the scientific definition of a theory.

I understand your position, I disagree. Any place human origins are taught, competing theories, scientific or otherwise should be taught IMO and particularly in any situation where said education is compulsary.

See particuarly the Latin origins and defintions 5 and 6. IMO the simplist and most correct defintion of the word theory or to theorize is: to create, invent, contemplate an explantion or explanations for that which is observable or conceiveable.
Simple misunderstanding we are using def.1 and you def.6

I understand your position, I disagree. Any place human origins are taught, competing theories, scientific or otherwise should be taught IMO and particularly in any situation where said education is compulsary.

Are you sure you know what you are saying? Should we teach all that pseudoscientific crap that completely lacks any evidence...

I mean, i'm not just talking about those Creationism-related topics here, i'm also talking about other stuff like Hollow Earth, Flat Earth, Velikovsky's hypotheses, etc. ... and maybe some really crazy stuff like the Raelians and Scientology believe it. :headbang:

Seriously, none of that nonsense should be taught at school... :eek: