Evolution vs. Creationism

What do you believe?

  • Evolution

    Votes: 18 85.7%
  • Creationism

    Votes: 3 14.3%

  • Total voters
    21
Werbung:
Hmmm

I agree with saggyjones Mark ...very fine post on your part and I think the name-calling is totally lame on a debate board.

As it happens, more people in the US are creationists than not; this was well known anyway but confirmed again somewhat recently in the book The End of Faith by Sam Harris.

I think evolution makes a lot of sense; for me there is no conflict in religious terms because Catholic teaching does not have a problem with it.
A truly awesome reconciliation was done by Fr. Teilhard de Chardin in The Phenomenon of Man in the mid-twentieth century ...not light reading but worth the trouble.

Catholic teaching? You are aware that all Catholicism is is an institutional organization that's purpose was created and built around the words in a single book...The Bible. The Catholic Priests may not have a problem with it, but just who the hell were they again? Any person that can read and is a true christian does have a problem with evolution especially when they are trying to consolidate and dominate the Goddamn education system.
 
Hmmmm

If anyone is interested, read this:

http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm

It's a great read.

It's more one-sided secular entertainment than a real discussion or debate on science vs christianity. A lot of it is untrue, innacurate or dishonest and it's quite clear it was purposely made by an atheist who was looking to comically denounce and belittle christianity. In truth, Christianity can make a whole lot of science too except that science is theoretically based on fact-finding and research without any agenda-driven will like religion is.
 
This thread is actually based on a false analogy. The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain how life began, only how one form of life changes into another form over time.

The debate should actually be Creationism vs Abiogenesis. Not Evolution.

Therefore Evolution and Creationism are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as is often assumed by Evolutionists.

Cite sources to prove your arguments?

Here are the sources you cite:
Evolution: the entire Scientific community that came to this opinion through research and experiments with empirical results.

Creationism: The bible....With no empirical evidence.

That is inaccurate. Many cultures outside Christianity believe in creationism. Many people who are not Christian at all believe that existence was created by a higher power.

yes, evolution is scientific, and can be proven.

Natural Selection can be proven. Evolution has never been observed.

You actually would be amazed at how many Americans still believe in Creationism over Evolution, which particularly has to do with our educational system and a ceeeeertain group of people retarding our educational access to a certain controversial scientific theory.

Since the theory of Evolution make so much sense, I am not afraid of what the Creationsists have to say. My argument is not weak.

To be honest, even though I am an atheist, I dislike being around other atheists. They're such know-it-alls. The whole point of science is to question. Evolution is not a religion. There's no reason to defend it like one.

Why do we have so many idiots in the US anyways? Too much freedom?

Only a liberal would complain that people have too much freedom of thought.

Evolution with a capital "E" however, the evolution that some demand be taught in school as if it were a fact is the notion that species evolve over time through random variations and natural selection.

The theory states that organisms, via mutation, will adapt to their environment over time. Evolution makes no value judgement as to what is superior or inferior...everything is relative to whatever environment the organism exists in.

For example, there is a species of parrot that exists on an Island that has lost the ability to fly. If there were predators on the Island, the Parrot would be an easy target...it is clearly inferior to it's own ancestors by our judgement. But it has evolved into a flightless bird because flight is no longer necessary to exist in it's environment.

Evolution says that organisms change in this way over time. They dont necessarily change into something better or worse...they just adapt to whatever environment they exist in.

Over a century and a half of fossil-collecting has happened since Darwin, and it has become painfully clear that fossil species tend to appear suddenly and exist essentially unchanged for long periods of time before they go extinct.

If the animal is already well adapted to it's environment, there may be no need to change. Sharks are a good example of this. Evolution is sporadic because it is based on mutations, and mutations are random. There are other variables as well, such as natural catastrophies. The fact that the fossil record is not smooth and even does not necessarily mean evolution is not taking place.

The fossil record of sudden appearances supports the idea of intelligent design far better than the painfully underwhelming evidence for macro evolution. Even the few examples of transitional fossils don't support Darwinian macro evolution because it simply can't be demonstrated that the transitions were the result of random variation and natural selection.

There are fossil records of transitional species and even living examples:

Archaeopteryx - A feathered dinosaur with both dinosaur and bird-like features.

Platypus - A venomous mammal that lays eggs.

The Flying Squirrel - A squirrel with bat-like features.

Allow me to make a prediction if I may. Today, this very minute, scientists are at work, all over the world performing experiments on mixtures that they believe was the primordial soup at the beginning of the world in an attempt to learn how life came into being. Some day, they may happen upon the secret and actually create life. My prediction is that if that life continues to exist and somehow after a billion years is manipulated into some sort of intelligent life, the liberal faction of that life will howl to the heavens that intelligent design is heresy and has no place within civilized discussion.

Heh heh
 
bievolutionhorse.gif


Here's what they teach kids over here. Are you trying to tell them that it just so happened all these species lived one after each other by chance, despite all looking so similair, and died out after the next one came along, just by chace. And that they look like a better developed version of their predecessor, just by chance?

We all know genetic mutations happen, and that two stronger horses breeding together will likely have a more muscular, larger horse. I don't see how anyone can argue with evolution.

Sure, it doesn't explain how life began, and its got holes in the fossil record, but most of the time you can see whats going to fill that hole.

I remember someone else on the forum pointed out that an insect that breeds at an astoundingly fast rate was monitored in a lab for hundrerds of generations (maybe more) and there was no evolution. If there is no need for evolution, then the mutations will not be useful and will not be kept for long in the gene pool and spread. That is something I can actually agree on with Sadistic Saviour.
 
Of course... Religion and Evolution can be compatible. ;)

All one has to do is become a Creationist. Then when little things like no dinosaurs in the Bible come up you can just insert them. Where the Bible says the world is flat you just say... they mean flat in a circular sort of way... and all is explained.

Personally I'd consider going with the Scientology explanation. Adding the space creatures makes the whole religion thing really POP with excitement! :D

Seriously some type of a creating force... call it God if you like is not an impossibility. But any of our man made religions having anything to do with that possible truth is in my opinion not really very possible at all.
 
Werbung:
who the hell believes in creationism these days anyways?

I do. And most people who don't were only conditioned by the secular system and would have believed it in the secular's absense anyway. We live today in a secular America. People seem to forget that when they discuss the decline of the church in America. In other words, I don't buy for one second the theory that people don't believe in our Lord today because they are any wiser or smarter than the people before them but they have been raised and conditioned by the secular system to denounce Christianity and turn away from God. I don't believe people ever voluntarily gave up the practices from every generation of their family traced back hundreds of years before now because they thought they rightfully were making a smarter, more accurate choice [to NOT do something as opposed to REPLACING something] but they were severely disenfranchised since they were young to give-up their practicing of religion through convenience and satisfaction of themselves and the many. Even if you are an admirer of science and research, you cannot profess there is a titanic amount of irrefutable evidence that stands directly in crushing creationism when creationism itself has much evidence of its own as well as reasoning against evolution. Besides all of this, it is much easier, always has been and especially today to renounce God and be an Atheist. It is harder and obviously more involving to be a practicing Christian than sit on your arse and upchuck there is no God. So regardless, religion (mono religion anyway) is better for the nation and keeps the government small. It is scary for people to be the architects of society who do not fear God.
 
Back
Top