Creationism vs. Evolution

[Glenni 1,444]

i beleive all this evolved and is still evolving after over 6000 million years.

The 6 days one just seems to unrealistic to me...

[coolotter88 2]

Think of it this way, life probably isn't that special. if you roll a die 6 billion times, what are the chances of you getting at least one 1? see, if you look at the big picture, it ISN'T that hard for a "simple" molecule like RNA to be created when lots of energy is applied to a "hot soup" of carbon molecules and stuff. of course the origin of life is different than evolution and this is what creationists SHOULD be arguing against.

[Romaq 18]

Life can still be 'special', even if it's common. That is, for certain elastic definitions of 'life' and 'special'.

Astrophysics does tell us that 'all of everything outside Planet Earth is really REALLY really big. Really big.

"The number of external galaxies beyond the Milky Way is at least in the thousands of millions and perhaps in the hundreds of thousands of millions, each of which contains a number of stars more or less comparable to that in our own Galaxy. So if you multiply out how many stars that means, it is some number--let's see, ten to the ... it's something like one followed by twenty-three zeros, of which our sun is but one. It is a useful calibration of our place in the universe. And this vast number of worlds, the enormous scale of the universe, in my view has been taken into account, even superficially, in virtually no religion, and especially no western religions." --From: Skeptical Inquirer | Date: 3/1/2007 | Author: Sagan, Carl http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-159963532.html

As far as we can observe, we are the only member species capable of documenting our communication. At least, we've yet to find the Whale Library or the Porpoise Internet. That said, if 'mankind' is it, as far as having a hope in hell of reaching out and communicating with 'like mind,' then the rest of existance off planet Earth is a terribly vast waste of space.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[redhed55 0]

you cant prove creation

you cant prove evolution

so i guess you could be right and say it is pointless to argue about which one we came from.

but as a lot of people have said, evolution is obviously happening right now to other organisms.

it is very hard to be a strong believer in creation, as i am, knowing this is true.

i guess what im trying to say is that its everyones choice to pick which one they believe in

well thats just my 2 cents

[Romaq 18]

One can not disprove a non-existance, therefor one can not *disprove* creationism.

The theory of evolution is a model for the development of species through natural selection and adaption. *This* model has been demonstrated to occur in species that have short generational spans, such as breeding bacteria, fruit flies and such. The model is being used by geneticists who are tracing the evolution of cats back and forth across the Bering Straight (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/science/06cats.html?ex=1294203600&en=4b75c4da1cdc2167&ei=5090). The model 'Theory of Evolution' is being used to trace the development and migration patterns of mankind.

Evolution is as factual and as real as the sun putting off heat. To say 'Evolution can't be proven' is the same as denying GPS works, that satellites exist and that photos of the planet are faked. The earth REALLY IS flat like a disk, like the UN flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society). All of this 'so called evidence' for a round earth is simply conspiracy. It's OBVIOUS the earth is flat. Just look around you!

The very best evidence we have that the earth is *not* flat is on par with the evidence showing the natural development of species through natural selection. There really isn't more to 'prove' evolution than a time machine, just as there is not more to prove in a 'globe shaped earth' than taking a spaceflight personally. But the case for natural selection is quite clear. Evolution is fact. The fact remains, facts have no defense against faith.

[cp702 2]

Personally, I'm fine with creationists believing what they want. (from Barbarossa's sig: "I do not agree with a word you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.") My problem is when they try to force creationism in various forms like "intelligent design" in science classes. Creationism is *not* science, and too many people pass it off as such.

[Romaq 18]

And I would have to agree with you on that one, cp702. The fact of the matter is, things like 'Origin of the Species' were against the grain in their day, and scientists of that day already 'knew' that Darwin was wrong and the whole thing was hogwash. You simply can not have progress without doubt, skeptcism, disent, differences of opinions and ideas. I have a sister I love dearly and my parents that are still Fundamentalist Christians, as I once was.

Just as much as I hold it a valuable right for *me* to view and live in the truth I believe as I see fit, with harm to none, so I grant that right to others with whom I totally disagree. The key being 'with harm to none'. If people want to believe in something that provides them comfort through their dark days, let Jesus help them. With harm to none. "The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the supression of ideas." -- Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World, p. 429

However, if someone wishes to discuss *science* in the classroom, that is *not* an appropriate place to discuss the merits of astrology and intelligent design (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/19/national/19evolution.html?ex=1180670400&en=a7551567347dbeb5&ei=5070). Neither astrology *NOR* intellgient design are appropriate in a classroom on science simply by definition of the concept of science and affirmed in court litigation in spite of purgery by so-called Christians.

"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or you can inoculate." -- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, p. 30

The 'science' of ID does *not* create polio vacines. The science that creates things like the theory of evolution does. Christians are invited to pray all they want. Most seem to go for the vacine also.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: redhed55 you cant prove creation

you cant prove evolution

so i guess you could be right and say it is pointless to argue about which one we came from.

but as a lot of people have said, evolution is obviously happening right now to other organisms.

it is very hard to be a strong believer in creation, as i am, knowing this is true.

i guess what im trying to say is that its everyones choice to pick which one they believe in

well thats just my 2 cents

quote>

The word "proof," in a scientific or mathematical sense, is the method of coming to logical statements following various statements that lead to a conclusion. The theory of evolution, in fact, is such a "proof", as it provides statements (backed by data) that can be logically followed to the next point, and so on and so on to prove it's conclusion, which is modern zoology is the result of millions and millions of years of random and sporadic natural and unnatural selection.

As Romaq pointed out, you can not prove the existence of a deity or any creation theory that goes beyond scientific reason and into the realm of the supernatural. It is the essence of the supernatural that makes it unprovable. The debate is not over who is right or wrong, but in the choices we make concerning the two sides as it affects our culture.

Is it right to teach creationism in the classroom? Perhaps the focus of religion should be less on the beginnings of their beliefs, but in the moral teachings that come from such texts. I see no moral benefit to teaching a creation story.

[DanWalker8 3]

In one of Dawkins' lectures he pointed out that what religion you are is strictly based on what culture you are born into. There is no real reason why you are a certain religion besides your culture.

Since creationism is just a way to bring in the Christian culture's creation myth into the school, I see no reason why it should be included, much less put in the same class, or even the same textbook as evolution. If you want to teach the Christian creation story, you must teach the stories of all cultures, they are all equally credible as the Christian myth. It is incredibly easy to have a "credible" story about the way the world was created. All you need is people to believe it, a couple traditions, and a common history. Nothing justifies something like traditions and history.

Science makes no claim outside of repeatable, peer reviewed findings, it is objective and does not have to worry about losing its followers.

P.S. Evolution happens every day. Just look up "Drug Resistant Bacteria"

Long live ST!

[Romaq 18]

'unnatural selection', of course, being breeding influenced by humans. We want certain characterstics in our property, we breed for it. Oh... I can't find the reference in the short time I have, but the influence of breeding domesticated plants and animals by mankind has had a profound impact upon *wild* plants and animals as evidenced by DNA research. Corn is a mutation of grass. Mankind took that mutation, went wild with it, and that has had an influence against wild grass. Bananas are really in trouble because they no longer breed sexually, so they are sensitive to parasites and pathnogens (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2664373.stm). Humankind 'forced' the 'evolution' of these plants through 'unnatural selection'. But we do, in fact, have historical *recent* record and documentation of this process, and we've used it for thousands of years before we had the slightest clue as to what it was. Dogs clearly are not wolves. But they *were*. The same with houscats coming from their 'wild cousins', and if written record and archeology were not enough, we are learning to 'read' the DNA to trace these changes throughout history, even within humans (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/28/MNGG7OCIFQ1.DTL). One could say 'God causes this', and might be right. But these things in fact are recorded as happening. This is as much fact as the GPS in your local Best Buy, based on the fact 'the world is not flat'.

[deadperson21 3]

I would just like to make a few points clear that I believe are missing from this discussion.

We should also consider the billions of "random" mutation that have create the species Homo sapiens. The sheer odds of this happening could possibly point to an outside entity that drives evolution in some sense.

Most leading scientists, including Darwin and Einstein, believe(d) that a higher power is the most reasonable underlying explanation for most biological, chemical, and physical phenomena. We can attempt to describe the manner in which things occur, but in the grand scheme of things, if you really think about it, it doesn't make sense without God.

For those that try to use the Bible to disprove evolution or prove creationism:

The official stance of the Roman Catholic Church, according to the Vatican, is that Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament were written after centruies of oral tradition. The Book of Genesis is meant to be interpreted metaphorically. The Church does not believe that God created the world in six days. Those six days are part of a metaphor that is used to suggest that God created the Earth. We will never know exactly how the world was created.

In Genesis there are two creation stories. The second comes much later in the book. Which one are we to go by?

The Roman Catholic Church supports the Theory of Evolution. The theories surrounding the formation of life and earth show events occuring in a manner similar to which the Bible has them in. Nowhere in the Bible does it explicity say how God created the world and life. It simply says that he did it. Catholics believe that Evolution is simply the means by which God created the human race. We do not believe in a purely Creationist ideology and there is no evidence to support such though.

In my opinion, there is not legitimate debate on whether Evolution is valid or not.

The true debate is whether there is a higher being or not, and that is a personal decision you must make.

[jglei701 8]

There's a great big difference between MICROevolution and MACROevolution. Microevolution is the evolution of one species, adapting to its surroundings and changing. A prime example is the peppered moths in London England in the 1800's. The smog, soot, and smoke from the Industrial revolution caused the trees to be darker and more gray in color, which meant that the moths who were NOT white, that were gray or black, survived and mated, creating more gray colored moths. This is survival of the lucky, not survival of the fittest... but it IS fact that the moths that survived were better suited for their surroundings and created other moths that were, as well, better suited to their surroundings.

THIS is fact of evolution, of a single species adapting to the changing world around it. It is not, as neither is ANY instance of microevolution, any evidence for evolution on a grand scale.

What is unfortunate is that evolution has been accepted as fact with very little, if any, true evidence of evolution between species. Darwin himself said that evidence of evolution would be shown by the fossil record... and that was 150 years ago. This has yet to happen.

What is ironic is that Darwin was truly using the scientific method. He initially observed something made an initial hypothesis, making more observations and testing the hypothesis, then modifying the hypothesis. Now, with a comment like his that evidence would be shown by the fossil record, and by the fact that this hasn't happened yet, it would probably have caused him to change his hypothesis.

All of this casts doubt on evolution. Yet many here say that evolution is fact. If it was fact, then why is there doubt?

[paperboy15 4]

Originally posted by: Glenni i beleive all this evolved and is still evolving after over 6000 million years.

The 6 days one just seems to unrealistic to me...quote>

As if one can't be an old-earth creationist? That would be me, by the way.

[offgreen 1]

I believe this debate is useless. There is no conflict between religion and science, or at least the people who really care about those issues. Real people of science are not going calling religion garbage, there do their job and that is that. Not even the catholic church views this as a debate. I recall some time ago reading how the previous pope stated that evolution did not violate the religion. And how could it? Does belief in scientific fact make you godless ("theory" in scientific terms does have a concrete meaning)? I don't even care if people promote creationism with a 6,000 year literal definition (please someone tell me how that number was derived so many years ago...) because its a matter of faith. While I may believe these people are ignorant to say the least, I can't exactly spend my life in an attempt to prove the existence, or lack there of, a higher powers. When your argument is "because god made it that way" I think I will just leave the room and get on with my life.

In terms of in the classroom, I can think of several occasions when creationism was ruled not to be taught, but not the other way around. What to do teach as "counter-theory" is a joke, and if you believe that you are a moron. I rather you just say you take the bible at its word than different species of hominids where nothing more than large apes with deformities.

of course the origin of life is different than evolutionquote>

100% right. How life changes in relation to its environment has nothing to do with its origin. I believe that is a fact of the nature of the science.

[DanWalker8 3]

Originally posted by: deadperson21 I would just like to make a few points clear that I believe are missing from this discussion.

We should also consider the billions of "random" mutation that have create the species Homo sapiens. The sheer odds of this happening could possibly point to an outside entity that drives evolution in some sense.

quote>

The universe is a big big place, and billions of years is a long long time. If you think it is very random that humans evolved through billions of random mutations, what are the chances that we happened to be designed by some high in the sky, supernatural creator, that was around at the exact moment in time? I guess creationism's greatest ally is irrationality.

Dawkins says - Evolution is a one way street, things go from simple to more complex. What are the chances that something vastly complex enough to design a human being, on the first try,(wow, talk about unlikely)  existed before humans themselves? Now throw in designing every living system on earth. Not likely.  perhaps my thoughts are too bound in the world i am familiar with

[coolotter88 2]

they certainly aren't all random mutations, the changes in the environment decide which alleles are better suited.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: jglei701 There's a great big difference between MICROevolution and MACROevolution. Microevolution is the evolution of one species, adapting to its surroundings and changing. A prime example is the peppered moths in London England in the 1800's. The smog, soot, and smoke from the Industrial revolution caused the trees to be darker and more gray in color, which meant that the moths who were NOT white, that were gray or black, survived and mated, creating more gray colored moths. This is survival of the lucky, not survival of the fittest... but it IS fact that the moths that survived were better suited for their surroundings and created other moths that were, as well, better suited to their surroundings.

THIS is fact of evolution, of a single species adapting to the changing world around it. It is not, as neither is ANY instance of microevolution, any evidence for evolution on a grand scale.

quote>

This is just one example of one small concept in evolution. Its a nice simple one and colour is a very visible change, hence its popularity in teaching. But its by no means the whole proof of evolution. Just one tiny illustration. It does show however that populations can change over time. There are many other examples though.

Originally posted by: jglei701

What is unfortunate is that evolution has been accepted as fact with very little, if any, true evidence of evolution between species. Darwin himself said that evidence of evolution would be shown by the fossil record... and that was 150 years ago. This has yet to happen.

quote>

Actually it has happened and keeps on happening. A few years ago people used the examples of whales. When I was young I had a bit of an interest in whales, much the same as some kids love anything to do with dinosaurs. In some of my books, there were pictures and text of the evolution of whales, which I'm sure many of you are familiar with. This was in the '70s and early 80's. At the time, the ancestor and "intermediates" had been hypothesised but very little was known about the evolution of the whales from the fossil record. Naturally the creationists argument was similar to above, ie no evidence in the fossils.

Then something extraordinary happened in the '90s. Fossils of ancient whales and whale like creatures were found. They were as predicted by the "theory" of evolution.

However the fossil record is not one of the most important evidences of evolution. The fossil record can confirm that change has occured. It can give us an idea of how fast the changes occured and the direction of those changes.

But the main forms of evidence come from fields such as comparative anatomy, biochemistry, genetics, ontogeny and biogeography. Its just confirmed by the fossil record. And there are plenty of examples of that confirmation.

[Romaq 18]

The true debate is whether there is a higher being or not, and that is a personal decision you must make.

If it's a personal decision, the possible existance of God really isn't useful as a topic of debate is it?

As far as 'evolution' being a 'one way road' from 'simple' to 'more complex', it isn't. Complexity has a price, and there are numberous examples of creatures that live in darkness loosing eyesight, snakes loosing legs, and and so on. I do agree with Sam, that the fossil record is only a very small part of the picture, but what a picture it paints! It's just the problem of how fossilization works. Or... tends *not* to fossilize at all in the vast majority of cases.

But none of that matters in light of faith. Faith overcomes all obsticles, including reality.

Just remember that a little faith goes a long way. The less you use, the further you'll go.

[Zelgadis 638]

I have to say, one of the things that miffs me a bit about debates like this is that when people say "Creationism" they mean the Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation. It it can be argued that "Creationism" is the truth, the counterpoint can't just be evolution, but the dozens of other "Creationisms" out there. Christianity isn't the only religion.

Some people want "Creationism" or even "Intelligent Design" taught in schools.  Even if it were desirable, it's simply impossible.  In order to do so correctly, one would have to teach every religion's creation.  That's a Ph.D, not a high school science class.

Things are best when science is science and religion is religion.

ISF

[Jasoncw 11,840]

Which, of course, includes the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[paperboy15 4]

Originally posted by: Jasoncw Which, of course, includes the Flying Spaghetti Monster.quote>

Yup...this further strengthens Zelgad's point.

[Hopelandic 0]

Hi, I used to be an athiest, and believed the lie of evolution. I happen to believe that God DID in fact create the heavens and the Earth in 6 days. I just think it's ridiculous that people still believe in things like Carbon Dating as mentioned earlier, as it has been proven as Faulty and unreliable, where one rock carbon dated could be 3000 years old and the same rock 1 week later could be 4000040404848737 28374928364r723874r239r7238r787 million bajillion quadrillion years old. But you have the freedom to believe what you want. *sigh* lol, I don't mean to make anyone mad by the way because this is an emotional issue for me at least.

[Explodingsims 3]

I am amoug the many that belive God did create the Universe. The Earth is really not as old as scientists say it is, and dinosaurs where alive alongside Humans, it mentions it in the Bible.
There's too much evidence that this could not be created By God, there is far too much order. Like a flower that opens up when the sun rises, thats not to say science can't explain it, but I just say that It seems too implusible for that to happen by chance.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Hopelandic  I just think it's ridiculous that people still believe in things like Carbon Dating as mentioned earlier, as it has been proven as Faulty and unreliable, where one rock carbon dated could be 3000 years old and the same rock 1 week later could be 4000040404848737 28374928364r723874r239r7238r787 million bajillion quadrillion years old. quote>

As far as I recall, carbon dating is hardly ever used in studying evolution. Certainly its not used as much as some people seem to think. A professional scientist who uses it understands that its practical limits are about 50k years. This time span is way too short for studying most of evolution. It would be like measuring the distance to the moon with a metre ruler. Carbon dating is very useful in archaeology though, as 50k years just about covers the period of interest, but that's a whole different field.

Originally posted by: Explodingsims

I am amoug the many that belive God did create the Universe. The Earth is really not as old as scientists say it is, and dinosaurs where alive alongside Humans, it mentions it in the Bible.

There's too much evidence that this could not be created By God, there is far too much order.

quote>

While your statement is interesting, I would find your evidence to support your statement more interesting.

Originally posted by: Explodingsims

Also scientists with hold information about fossils they test.

quote>

And you have the appropriate evidence to back this serious accusation?

I think one of the ground rules of this discussion and the Simtropolis forums is to treat everyone with respect and to avoid attacking them personally. Accusing them of professional and personal dishonesty is not very respectful in my view.

In any case, as I mentioned earlier, fossils are not the sum total of evidence in favour of evolution. In fact its only a very small part of the evidence used to confirm (or falsify) other evidences of evolution. Much of the evidence for evolution comes from the sciences of comparative anatomy, biochemistry, genetics, biogeography etc.

Originally posted by: zelgadis I have to say, one of the things that miffs me a bit about debates like this is that when people say "Creationism" they mean the Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation. It it can be argued that "Creationism" is the truth, the counterpoint can't just be evolution, but the dozens of other "Creationisms" out there. Christianity isn't the only religion.

ISFquote>

Zel I agree with you on that. I think it would be good though for comparative religion courses to be taught in schools.  I have no problem with Christianity being taught in state schools (as long as it is not in a science class) but I think students should also be taught about the alternatives, ie different religions and world views, such as Islam, Budhism, the Earth religions, humanism, atheism etc, not so that they have a choice, but so that they can better understand other peoples' points of view (and their rights to have them).

[coolotter88 2]

What are you talking about Hopelandic? you have no idea how accurate carbon dating is. the half life of radioactive materials stays constant (hmm, maybe that's the reason why we can't speed up the decay of nuclear waste!). for carbon 14, the half life is 5730 give or take 40 years. plus or minus 40 years is not going to result in a very large difference in time like between 4000 and whatever the huge nonexistant number you typed. I'm sorry but you seemed to have left one "lie" and fell into another, this time, it really is a lie.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Explodingsims

I am amoug the many that belive God did create the Universe. The Earth is really not as old as scientists say it is, and dinosaurs where alive alongside Humans, it mentions it in the Bible.

There's too much evidence that this could not be created By God, there is far too much order.quote>

Can you produce the chapter and verse for that claim? The bibles I've seen have never mentioned giant predatory lizards. I'd love to read that bit.

Also scientists with hold information about fossils they test.

quote>

Why? Did they decide on the secret weekly meetings that they couldn't let anything that doesn't stroke with their previous ideas become public? Were the Illuminati involved? No wait, I bet it was the Jews. It's always the Jews in the end.

Science depends on new information, and on the challenging of old ideas.

It's great to have a different point of view, but when you randomly start making stuff up, no one is going to take you seriously. Hopelandic's little rant about the "lie of evolution" is a great example. Nobody has really mentioned in this thread how utterly ridiculous a lot of religion is, we're supposed to respect the beliefs of others here, right? But hey, believe in the big J-man and you're above all that!

No need to even present a half decent argument, just say that "theres loads of evidence" and of course "that it's all in the bible". You can get away with saying that it's in the bible. No one could possibly have read that old thing, so they won't challenge that statement. It's not like it's one of the most widely known books in the world is it?

[coolotter88 2]

"and jesus walked towards jerusalem when a lizard crashed out of the woods with a mouthful of teeth. And jesus said "thou shalt not eat me". And the lizard was vanquished"

"And as the sinners were walking around, they were attacked by a vicious pack of velociraptors. And the velociraptors killed the sinners for the sins they had done."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672.stm

OMG creationists get instapwned.

edit: you know, the bible is such a big book with so many different ways of interpreting each passage, anyone can use it as material for the argument. later today I'll be looking through my bible to find passages that support evolution....AND I'LL POST them.

edit2: look at what I found, a passage from the bible that supports evolution

2 Corinthians 3:18 bible version new international

"And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit."

the bible says that we are continually changing to resemble God and his glory. obviously the bible means evolution is continually making humans look more like God.

philippians 3:21

"who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body."

God is the guy who invented evolution so we can transform our lowly bodies (like when there weren't humans) into a better, higher, body. hmmm sounds like evolution to me!

so is anyone going to argue against the bible? it's ALWAYS right you know.

[Micah 16]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Originally posted by: Explodingsims

I am amoug the many that belive God did create the Universe. The Earth is really not as old as scientists say it is, and dinosaurs where alive alongside Humans, it mentions it in the Bible.

There's too much evidence that this could not be created By God, there is far too much order.quote>

Can you produce the chapter and verse for that claim? The bibles I've seen have never mentioned giant predatory lizards. I'd love to read that bit.quote>

 

Dinosaurs are mentioned in Job. It even mentions dragons. (I saw all of this on the History Channel ). I just don't know the chapter or verse though...

Coolotter: You're taking those out of context. It's talking about spiritual transformation, not physical.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa