Evolution vs. Creationism

Well, I think the title says it all.

Cite your sources when you give your arguments!

 

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.

 

yes, evolution is scientific, and can be proven.

and the bible. yes. it has been translated many thousand times, and was rewritten for understanding sake.

the odds of creationism to be the truth

who knows

 

the christians, the religious fanatics. you name it they exist haha

 

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.

The rest of the first world all think we are incredibly primitive for just having the creationism/evolution debate in our schools.

 

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

Too much freedom?

 

Is that the punchline? ....I don't get it.

 

Punchline? Maybe, lol. But name-calling isn't nice.

I say why not both?
I'm a Christian and I have my faith and for me, evolution makes some sense.

Evolution is, as with abortion, another touchy issue for many people.

There are those who believe that the world was created in 6 24-hour days and that was that. I was always confused with this when I was younger. If we had cavemen and dinosaurs, where do Adam and Eve come into the picture?

The way I try to understand it is that the 6 days were not days as we know them. They were billions of years, in my view.
That allows plenty of time for evolution (oh noes!!!1!!!one!!) to take place.

The dinosaurs came and went as did the first forms of life, like algaes and trilobites. Some remained and others died off. Then man came along sometime in history (and screwed up most everything since, but that's a whole other set of forum topics. )

I feel that these two work together, but don't need to be taught together. Evolution is fairly self explanatory, and frankly, natural selection makes a lot of sense to this Christian. There will probably always be controversy over the creationism/evolution issue, that can't be avoided.

You can accept one and not the other, but I think everyone should have the chance to hear both sides.
Public school is a government funded entity and as such the separation of church and state needs to remain.

Go to school for math and science. (not offensive if you don't let it be)
Go to church or not, it's still your choice, for religion. (not offensive either, if you don't let it be)

Evolution is still a theory, but it's the best scientific reasoning we have so far.
We're not meant to know and understand everything.
But hey, who knows? We still have the theory of gravity and that's been working fairly well for us. I haven't hit the ceiling yet.

 

You are probably the most enlightened Christian I've ever met! lol
That's a really good way to incorporate evolution into the Bible and I completely agree with you (except that I don't believe in Adam and Eve etc.) and your position on this.

Our president to name one person

 

Evolution vs Creationism, jeeze.. tough subject to tackle. Personally I find it hard to have "faith" and devote my life to the teachings of a book that was written by 40+ authors over a period of 1500 years or more. And not to mention how religious affliations claim the earth is much younger than Science proves it is. It's proven science that there was a early form of man, (cro-magna) long before Modern man. That alone shows there was something before "Adam and Eve." I think it is good for people to believe in something, Having faith helps keep people headed down the right path. But at the same time, the cold hard facts show that evolution played and still does play a major role in how we got here. It's a mystery that we will always have to study, argue, and ponder over, If someone knows something that I don't I would love to hear it.

 

Your poll is too restrictive. I lean more towards intelligent design and most of those "religious wackos" that you like to make fun of would lean in that direction as well if you ever considered asking the question.

Evolution, that is macro evolution, is hardly a provable science. In fact, Sir Arthur Keith, he man who wrote the foreward for the 100th edition of Origin of the Species said: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable."

Those who make the claim that evolution is a fact are speaking from a terribly misinformed position. If you believe that you can prove evolution to be a fact, I can direct you to several places that have prizes upto a quarter of a million dollars available to anyone who can prove evolution to be true.

In the broadest sense, evolution simply means change. The and animals that we see around us didn't always exist and some that used to exist no longer exist. In that sense, evolution is true and I can't think of any religious person who would disagree. That is not the sort of evolution that is the topic of this poll though, is it?

A second, and more narrow meaning of evolution would be the idea that all living things decended over a long period of time from one, or a very few common ancestors. Any "evidence" for common ancestry is much more debatable than evidence for simple change. Even this more narrow meaning of evolution does not create an insurmountable problem for most religious people as intelligent design fits very nicely within these boundries.

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. Darwin cited domestic breeding as an example of evolution. Modifications in domestic crops or livestock can be produced by appropriately selecting small variations. Since about 1859 scientists have observed a similar process in the wild. For example, when mosquitoes are exposed to insecticides, subsequent generations become more resistant to the insecticide as the more susceptible organisms die off, when moths are exposed to predatory birds, subsequent generations tend to be better camouflaged as the more visible ones are eaten. There is a considerable body of evidence that supports the idea that change occurs through the natural selection of random variations.

But how much change? In Darwin's examples no new species appear and no new features appear within the species that are changing. Domestic breeding can't turn a sheep into a goat, much less a lizzard or a fish. And bird predation does not change moths into butterflies. Biologists have long recognized a distinction between relatively minor changes within a species, which is defined as "microevolution," and the much larger changes necessary to produce significant new features or entirely new species which they call "macroevolution." It is entirely possible and even probable that evolution in its third sense (change through random variations and natural selection) is true when it is applied to microevolution, but completely untrue when it is applied to macroevolution.

So evolution in the broadest sense, that being, change over time is a fact. We can see it if we look around the world. Evolution in the second sense, that being, decendency from common ancestors is thoroughly debatable and evolution in the third sense, that being change due to random variations and natural selection is a fact when applied to microevolution, but what about macro evolution which lies at the heart of this debate?

As molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote in 1985, "However attractive the extrapolation, it does not follow that, because a certain degree of evolution has been shown to occur, therefore any degree of evolution is possible."

In fact, not one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859 has validated the idea of macro evolution. In other words, of the several different meanings of "evolution," Darwinian macroevolution is the least supported by the evidence.

Those who adhere to the religion of evolution tell us all the time and very passionately that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and it is, if by evolution, you mean change over time. But if you mean macro evolution via natural selection and random variation, then the body of evidence that you have to present is underwhelming at best.

Fossils establish beyond a reasonable doubt that change has happened over time, but the fossil record is an embarrassment to anyone who is attempting to use it to support the Darwinian theory of macroevolution. It is possilble to directly observe microevolution through random variations and natural selection but that observation shows that such change occurs rather gradually and there are no radical discontinuities from one generation to the next. Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, then one would expect to find any number of transitional forms of any animal in the fossil record. Such is not the case.

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. These sudden appearances and disappearances, separated by absence of change, have been termed "punctuated equilibria" Punctuated equilibria are most evident where the fossil record is the most complete. Marine invertebrates for example. The most striking example of punctuated equilibria is the geological period known as the Cambrian. It is conspicuously marked by the rather sudden appearance of all the basic forms of animals now in existence. There are no transitional forms between them, and no new basic forms have appeared since then.

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.

The fields of molecular biology and biochemistry are producing scientists that say simply that Darwin's mechanism is simply incapable of producing the mechanisms by which organisms would use energy, move around, detect light, heal wounds, etc. The theory of macro evolution becomes less supportable the more we learn about the "biomechanical machinery" of living cells.

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.

 

If anyone is interested, read this:

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

It's a great read.

 

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.

 

Thanks, Lilly.
Hopefully I'll have time to look into it eventually.