Creationism vs. Evolution

[simcity4fan12 13]

Children really shouldn't even hear this until they are alot older. I don't even want to teach my veiws to young children or even teens that are my age. It is most likely the best that they learn this when they are older, even older than Highschool Students. In my opinion, after Graduating High School, is when people should find out their true beliefs. It insults me that Creationism is taught like a school subject.

Mattshizzle- Well that maybe, but I don't think it's really nessecary. Certain things of Biology can be just merged with other science classes. Good that you are atheist. But I am not. I wish everyone would just respect others' beliefs rather than insult them, for example, like you have.

"We have enough ancient manuscripts" Hmm, not quite exactly enough in my opinion. Look at the world now. It's just unbarable to my pursuit of happiness to know how the Bible is misundertood. Nonsense to you, logic to some, and a history book at times.

I spent awhile saying that this shouldn't be debated, now look at me. Gah, I'm getting sucked into it. How about this "debate" is just changed to talk about it, rather than go against beliefs?

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: MattShizzle

You pretty much have to teach evolution if you want to teach biology at all. Teaching Biology without evolution would be like teaching Math without teaching multiplication or division.

We also know the Bible was first made into one book in the 4th century in what is now Western Turkey. We have enough ancient manuscripts to know at least what it said about that time. I'm an atheist and personally see it as nonsense.quote>

And there are plenty of us who see atheism as the height of nonsense to the nth degree. What of it? Whaddya gonna do? Same as always, take your shots and feel really self-righteous. 

Now I'm going to take issue with something... I get lambasted by none other than Meg for the mild sarcasm I displayed that happened to touch on her particular set of beliefs. My every word is examined for the slightest hint of disrespect by a few mods/admin, but others can say what they damn well please without sanction.

Thanks, mods, for displaying the idea that moderating is best practised in moderation. It's not the debate that is a problem, it is the double standard in almost every hot-button thread on ST.

[Boggy1 45]

manticorefan: Uh, hello, did you not just see the beration I gave MattShizzle for his offensive images, and then the general warning to keep things civil?

EDIT: And now I am beginning to loose my temper and breaking my own rule that I just set down not an hour ago. For heavens sake. 

Back to the often-nice, generally-polite, debate and discussion (with just the mild bit of attempted-conversion) that this thread generally has, please.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: MattShizzle

We also know the Bible was first made into one book in the 4th century in what is now Western Turkey. We have enough ancient manuscripts to know at least what it said about that time. I'm an atheist and personally see it as nonsense.quote>

I'm an atheist, and I don't see it as "nonsense". I see it as a famous piece of literature. Largely ficticious, yes, but I wouldn't call it "nonsense" any more than I would call The Advenutres of Tom Sawyer "nonsense". Even if it's not a true story, that doesn't mean it has no value. It merely means that treating it as the infallible word of god is going too far.

Originally posted by: simcity4fan12

Children really shouldn't even hear this until they are alot older. I don't even want to teach my veiws to young children or even teens that are my age. It is most likely the best that they learn this when they are older, even older than Highschool Students. In my opinion, after Graduating High School, is when people should find out their true beliefs. It insults me that Creationism is taught like a school subject. quote>

Teaching neither would be a way of sidestepping the issue.

But it has its own problems. Evolution is an important part of biology, ignoring it is skipping over a huge piece of the puzzle. Besides, a lack of information breeds misinformation. Don't teach kids the facts about evolution, and some of them will no doubt start learning about it from decidedly biased sources - which results in indoctrination. Never a good thing.

They will have to decide what to believe whether you teach it to them or not. Better that they make the decisions armed with knowledge.

[simcity4fan12 13]

?I'm an atheist, and I

don't

see it as "nonsense". I see it as a famous piece of literature. Largely ficticious, yes, but I wouldn't call it "nonsense" any more than I would call

The Advenutres of Tom Sawyer

"nonsense". Even if it's not a true story, that doesn't mean it has no value. It merely means that treating it as the infallible word of god is going too far

Wow, I never heard of an atheist actually saying the Bible as a piece of literature. Hats off my friend!

?Evolution is an important part of biology, ignoring it is skipping over a huge piece of the puzzle. Besides, a lack of information breeds misinformation. Don't teach kids the facts about evolution, and some of them will no doubt start learning about it from decidedly biased sources - which results in indoctrination. Never a good thing.

They will have to decide what to believe whether you teach it to them or not. Better that they make the decisions armed with knowledge.

That is true, most kids might and will go to wrong sources. But at least, it could be taught differently or not as much.

I watched a video in my Biology Class recently, it annoyed me to see it mentioning things like "most of the Bible isn't true" in certain manners. That is what shouldn't be taught. It's like trying to force a different view on kids, and there was a sheet of questions about it that mentioned "Who was Eve?" which, in the Bible, was Adam's wife in the beginning. The answer, was something like "She never existed", and said something like a tribe in Africa somewhere was how the Earth began to populate. For that answer sheet, I risked failure for my beliefs, I put down "Adam's Wife" for that answer.

I don't consider evolution "nonsense", but I consider it a Scientific Theory not well proven, since no one, no matter what, actually knows the answers about life. In my opinion, I consider it, at times, far fetched and ficticious. Only in certain ways however. Not trying to start an arguement, just stating my view on it.

[fukuda 351]

Wow, I never heard of an atheist actually saying the Bible as a piece of literature. Hats off my friend!quote>

I also find it a piece of literature, it is one of the most influential books of human history after all.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: simcity4fan12

I watched a video in my Biology Class recently, it annoyed me to see it mentioning things like "most of the Bible isn't true" in certain manners. That is what shouldn't be taught. It's like trying to force a different view on kids, and there was a sheet of questions about it that mentioned "Who was Eve?" which, in the Bible, was Adam's wife in the beginning. The answer, was something like "She never existed", and said something like a tribe in Africa somewhere was how the Earth began to populate. For that answer sheet, I risked failure for my beliefs, I put down "Adam's Wife" for that answer.quote>

Okay, if you were actually getting that in science class, that's wrong.

Although I daresay, I never saw anything like that in grade school.

College, on the other hand... yeah, there's been some liberal slant here and there.

• A couple years ago, everyone in the Engineering department had to watch An Inconvenient Truth.
• My professor for "Death as a fact of life" used "losing your health insurance" as an example of a loss that makes people grieve on several occasions and, on the very first day of class, mentioned "this nonsense of 'death panels' - sorry if there are any Palinites in the room I offend by saying that, but I feel the need to dispel misinformation and it is pertinent to this course..."
• Both my English professors have been noticeably liberal. The first had Obama's Memoir as assigned reading. The second used Bush and WMDs in Iraq as an example of a straw man argument, and has berated Fox News.
• And, not part of any class although visible, you have things like the Campus Ministry groups staging anti-war protests, a panel on healthcare that curiously decides overwhelmingly to favor a single-payer system, etc.

Mostly, though, things have been pretty well behaved. Maybe it's just my major. Hard to put a political slant on fluid mechanics or structural analysis!

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: simcity4fan12

I watched a video in my Biology Class recently, it annoyed me to see it mentioning things like "most of the Bible isn't true" in certain manners. That is what shouldn't be taught. It's like trying to force a different view on kids, and there was a sheet of questions about it that mentioned "Who was Eve?" which, in the Bible, was Adam's wife in the beginning. The answer, was something like "She never existed", and said something like a tribe in Africa somewhere was how the Earth began to populate. For that answer sheet, I risked failure for my beliefs, I put down "Adam's Wife" for that answer.quote>

Okay, if you were actually getting that in science class, that's wrong.

Although I daresay, I never saw anything like that in grade school.

quote>

Yes, if it actually happened that way then it is definitely very wrong. Religion of any kind has no place* in science class or science exams, and it's up to the teachers to be competent enough to be able to tell the difference and teach their students that difference.

(* the exception would be in historical or anthropology related fields)

I have never seen any such video or exam question in any of the science classes I've had dealings with. Even if it had nothing to do with religion it wouldn't even be a good exam question.

However, are you sure you were not being asked to answer a question about female mitochondrial ancestory? (which actually has nothing to do with religion at all).

Originally posted by: MattShizzle

You pretty much have to teach evolution if you want to teach biology at all. Teaching Biology without evolution would be like teaching Math without teaching multiplication or division.quote>

Agreed. Theodosius Dobzhansky was spot on when he said "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution". And he was a Christian.

Originally posted by: simcity4fan12

It's sad that this stuff is taught in schools. What ever happened to just Math and other actually important core subjects? Now, in private schools they teach religion, and in public schools, they teach evolution. If these two key things were removed from schools, I believe that things like this would go more smoothly.

quote>

It is not the function of school to make things go "more smoothly". It is to equip the students with the skills and knowledge they will need to survive and take their place in their society, and for their society to continue to thrive. Taking things out of the curriculum just because some people don't like them, even though they benefit society, is an exercise in futility and will doom that society and those in it to ignorance, poverty, disease and misery.

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

I've read the females can actually be fertile, creating something that's 3/4 of either horse or donkey

its probably not a hard and fast rulequote>

It isn't. Its not a yes/no, on/off, either/or thing. Its a matter of degree. Some things are more distant than others and have a harder time interbreeding, but there are many intermediate points. Horses and donkeys just aren't quite as separate as they are to other species.

Originally posted by: Meg

um . . . so horses and donkeys are not separate species?

 

quote>

Just not as separate as some others.

Originally posted by: Duke87

Hate to rain on the parade here, but...

the definition of what makes two separate species separate is that they cannot reproduce with each other.

quote>

Its one definition and not necessarily a very practical one at that. One reason as mentioned is it doesn't apply to a lot of living things. Another is that it is generally not convenient to try to breed things to see if they are the same or different species. With many species that could be rather time consuming. It also tends to be problematic when the definition is used on dead things - its a bit hard to get them to interbreed. There are other definitions based on phenetics and phylogeny.

Originally posted by: Duke87

No exact rule exists for deciding when a group of animals constitutes a separate species. That question “is rarely if ever asked,” as speciation isn’t something that scientists have been fortunate enough to watch at the precise moment of divergence, except in bacteria and other simple creatures. But after at least three generations of reproductive isolation, the Grants felt comfortable in designating the new lineage as an incipient species.

...

They certainly could eventually become a separate species, yes, but they aren't yet.

quote>

quote>

Probably why the phrase "incipient species" was used, i.e. an early stage of speciation during which reproductive isolation is only partial.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

This nonsense has gone on long enough!  Anyone who thinks he knows the mind of the Creator is committing a deadly sin of Presumption.  If the Creator wanted us to know how he did it, he would have left unmistakable evidence, and not a lot of maundering by primitive people whose languages are now deader than the Dodo.  No matter what authority you consult, there are no witnesses that would be acceptable to any thinking man today.

The six days of creation are allegorical.  I tend to agree with Dr. Einstein that "God doesn't play at dice".  But who is to say just how subtle the Creator is?  He is an imponderable, something like the number of angels that dance on the head of a pin.  All this argument is both ineffable and nugatory.  We are expending energy on something we will never learn, no matter how good we think we have got.

This thread should be closed, because it is getting quickly nowhere, and is destined to increase entropy at an accelerating rate.

[Boggy1 45]

N_O_Body: The point of this thread is not to presume the workings of any Deity. Far from it. In fact, the majority of this threads 47 pages has been mutually respectful debate. On both sides of the coin.

In fact, many many pages haven't been so much of a Us verses You, but a look at Educational Policy in the modern day world, the impacts of various cultural beliefs and political ideologies on the fields of science and religion, new scientific studies, and the like.

Many of the participants in this thread have learned much from each others beliefs.

Although sometimes we have had arguments, heated feelings, debates that have gotten out of control, in the end generally things cool down.

By closing this thread you would be in fact removing a very popular vessel of speech from the website. Since when has harmless debate ever been pointless?

Needless to say; we ain't closing this down just yet.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[airmale007 3]

Speaking as a trained biologist (graduating in May! )  who also happens to be an atheist, I've been exposed to probably just about every form of argument that individuals or groups employ to attempt to discredit evolutionary theory. Largely, I have found that these arguments are at best based on a poor understanding of evolution, or no understanding at all. This might by indicative of the relative failings of the school system to present evolutionary theory adequately, as I will readily admit that much of the body of evidence requires some real study to comprehend.

Still, the revolution of the discipline of biology around evolution as a central tenet is not a case of presupposing the accuracy of that tenet. Rather, evolutionary theory is one that has repeatedly been tested and observed. Without going into too much detail or jargon, the Lenski lab has succeeded in inducing a strain of bacteria to synthesize a novel protein, and spontaneous mutations in bacteria giving rise to antibiotic resistance are yet further evidence of so-termed "microevolution."

Microevolution as itself is often seen as not representative of the theory as a whole, but this view seems inconsistent with reality and further serves as an assertion of ignorance by the expounder. To suggest that very small changes occurring at repeated instances resulting from selective pressure would not create an observable phenotypic "macroevolutionary" change is similar to the idea that adding very small numbers (ie, 0.1+0.1) would not, given an indeterminately large number of iterations, result in an appreciably larger number.

[richi1173 0]

Just my two cents:

Atheism has as much to do with evolution as its got to do with gravity: none at all

[DominikS 0]

I think this strictly American discussion and problem is pointless: I live in the United Kingdom, I have lived in Poland too, and I currently go to: Saint Peter's Catholic School and Specialist Science College, and here, in Europe, even Catholic children learn about evolution and how the universe was created by the Big Bang. I think that the same should be done in the US, because, well, why not?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: DominikS

I think this strictly American discussion and problem is pointless: I live in the United Kingdom, I have lived in Poland too, and I currently go to: Saint Peter's Catholic School and Specialist Science College, and here, in Europe, even Catholic children learn about evolution and how the universe was created by the Big Bang. I think that the same should be done in the US, because, well, why not?quote>

The Vatican does not actually have any objection to evolution. Literal Creationism is more of a Protestant, particularly Fundamentalist/Evangelical thing.

[airmale007 3]

Originally posted by: richi1173

Just my two cents:

Atheism has as much to do with evolution as its got to do with gravity: none at allquote>

While this is certainly true, it does not prevent opponents of evolutionary theory from gleefully associating the two in order to take advantage of the negative connotation that "atheism" has in present society, particularly in the United States.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: airmale007

Originally posted by: richi1173

Just my two cents:

Atheism has as much to do with evolution as its got to do with gravity: none at allquote>

While this is certainly true, it does not prevent opponents of evolutionary theory from gleefully associating the two in order to take advantage of the negative connotation that "atheism" has in present society, particularly in the United States.quote>

The logic would seem to go somewhat like this:

- atheism and religion are opposites

- evolution and creationism are opposites

- creationsm is a religious idea

- therefore, evolution is an athest idea

It is, however, flawed. The progression that the antonym of a synonym of an anyonym must be a synonym is invalid. By that same logic, we can make claims like:

- old and new are opposites

- mountains and valleys are opposites

- mountains are old

- therefore, valleys are new

or:

- men and women are opposites

- eating and starving are opposites

- men need to eat to survive

- therefore, women nead to starve to survive

quod est absurdum, as they'd say.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Hudizzle17 1]

Being a late-comer to this particular discussion, I would like to have something to add here, but after 47 pages and a couple of years, anything I might say will likely have already been said somewhere in the previous pages, but, oh well. I am an Atheist, fully in support of Evolution and still learning more about it as I go along, along with natural explanations for the things many people still try to explain away with simple superstition. Atheism is not a religion. We Atheists don't claim to know everything, or even, at least for most of us, to KNOW that there is no god. We go by things like evidence and probability, and we are content with not knowing the answers for everything. We do not dogmatically hold our views, will change them when actual convincing evidence comes around, we don't have churches and we do not worship anything or anyone (though many Atheists are fans of other Atheists or might have Atheist "heroes"), we do not have a single, or any set of doctrines or rules, and we have no holy books. Many creationists will attempt to downplay the reality of evolution by saying that Atheism is a religion, and that it is only an Atheistic "belief", therefore evolution is merely a religious belief and subject to not being part of an objective reality or fact...

Creationists do not push their positions or beliefs by offering any actual evidence, logical explanations or objectively verifiable facts and empirical evidence, but with supposed authority from supposedly holy scriptures, childish, credulous or over-simplified logic (such as "The sun always rises in the East, therefore it must be designed" or "Cars exist, and have a designer, and we exist, so there must be a designer there as well) , numerous fallacies, false dichotomies (also pertaining to what I mentioned about "childish logic"), old, tired and already-refuted arguments, misguided "knowledge", straw-man arguments, opinions and most of all, "faith", which on its own is not proof or evidence, and is a position that must be taken without such things, pretty much by definition.

The previously-mentioned methods of debates and arguments are often used by creationists to try and refute evolution. Evolution is wholly misrepresented by the creationist campaigns and those who push creationism the most seem to have no idea what evolution actually is, what it entails or is supposed to explain, and seem to have no ability to understand it or to imagine, how it can or does work, while also being mired in religious preconceptions.

Evolution is not about the Universe, planets, or stars.

It has nothing to do with the formation of those things.

Evolution does not and is not supposed to explain gravity, geology, the weather, etc.

Evolution does not say we just came from rocks or "lightning strikes in a mud puddle".

Evolution does not say we simply popped out of monkeys, and that the monkeys simply popped out of a few lower species, or even really simply popped out of anything. It is much more complicated than that, which I suspect is why many misunderstand it or reject it.

Evolution is not about or supposed to explain the first spark or instance of life.

Evolution is not "just an idea" that was simply "made up" by some guy over a hundred years ago. Neither is it "just a theory". Scientific theory is often misunderstood by creationists to imply that there is no truth to the "theory", and so it's just an idea.

Evolution is not a "belief" in any religious sense.

Evolution is not just a "random chance" or "accidental" process. Natural selection is not random (though most of the genetic mutations that bring about many changes are random).

Evolution does not say that dogs give birth to cats, and that crocodiles and ducks can be mixed.

Evolution is not synonymous with, limited to or required by Atheists and Atheism, and is not opposed to theism.

Evolution does not say that we simply came from monkeys, or that a monkey gave birth to a human.

Evolution is NOT a religion, as some creationists claim for reasons already mentioned. There is no such thing as "Evolutionism".

Anybody who says evolution is or says any of those things is presenting straw-man arguments, or making simply absurd statements. (No offense to anybody who is a creationist around here, but then again, the truth, or the suggestion of truth is sometimes offensive.)

All evolution is, at its simplest: An explanation for the diversity and apparent "design" and "complexity" of life. It is a subject of biology, along with other fields of science related to biology.

As for the other things...

The origin and nature of the Universe is covered by cosmology, astrophysics, physics, etc.

Gravity is covered by theories and hypotheses in physics.

The formation of stars, planets, etc. is covered by various hypotheses and theories in astronomy, astrophysics, physics and astrochemistry.

The formation of life or or amino acids (usually considered the building-blocks of life) from non-life or inanimate matter is covered by chemistry and the theory of Abiogenesis.

Evolution does not fall under the categories of the previously mentioned subjects. All the previous subjects could even be a load of %$&$, and that would not make evolution any less real, plausible, evident or true.

Evolution is accepted and supported by the vast majority of scientists, between %95 and %99 (or more) of them. Those scientists who don't are likely most, if not all, trained in other fields of science, and not biology. Simply being "a scientist" does not meant they must reject creationism, though creationism is not scientific. For instance, a physicist, engineer, medical doctor, astronomer, or chemist might reject evolution, but that doesn't take away from the truth or evidence of evolution because those people, while they may be scientists, may not know a single thing about evolution, and are not trained in the field of biology, where evolution is a huge part.

A few of those scientists may not be actual scientists at all, but fraudulent "scientists" like the convicted fraudster (Tax fraud, though undoubtedly revealing his true colors) creationist Kent Hovind, who received a fake, cheap "Ph.D.", "masters" and "doctorate" from an unaccredited "university" called "Patriot Bible University", where the only books they use are ones that present absolutely everything in the Bible as fact, if not the Bible itself as a textbook. He simply had a "Christian education", and claimed to teach "high school science" for 15 years, but that was in private Baptist schools. He was not required to have "teaching credentials or accredited qualifications" for teaching at these schools.

Creationism is not a scientific theory, but is instead "pseudoscience". It's based on uneducated assumptions by ancient people who were ignorant and devoid of any understanding of reality or the world around them, is taken on faith alone, and is pushed by its biggest proponents through all out lies, deceit, misunderstandings and all-out ignorance.

That's all I will say on the matter. There are a couple series of videos on youtube that some here might be interested to see, if you have not heard of or seen them yet, evolutionists and creationists alike, especially the latter, though it could help to bolster the knowledge of those who accept evolution as well.

This first series, called the "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" is by a Youtube user called "AronRa", who is well educated on the issues being discussed here, and who talks about evolution in a much more in-depth, educated, and eloquent way than I ever could.

It's in 15 parts. The first video is here:

The playlist is here:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=26253645640BB808

The second series of videos is a series called "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?" by Youtube user "Thunderf00t", who is also well-educated and a scientist.

It currently has 31 parts.

the first video is here:

The playlist is here:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FDB764E86EB6CE2E&search_query=wdplac&page=1

Finally, there is another youtube user named "Donexodus", who is also not only well-educated on the subject, a proponent of Evolution, but also a Christian theist, or at least was, I don't know if his position or beliefs have changed since mid-2008, and doesn't seem to make it entirely clear elsewhere on his channel what his stance is now. Anyway...

Check out his channel for more videos on Evolution and other creationist matters:

http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2#p/u

There are also a couple videos there on the subject of Abiogenesis.

That is all. I hope I didn't say too much that would offend, at least not much, I just feel passionately about this issue, and I hate when people continue to have these misunderstandings about evolution. I and others can be very frank about it, sometimes to the point of apparent "arrogance" or outright offensiveness.

I hope everybody had a great Christmas (the secular meaning, for me), and I wish you all a happy new year, Atheists, creationists, and everybody else alike.

[specializedguy 193]

Hi folks. I just came on and saw this thread and was rather shocked to see a topic like this-I just didn't expect it. My opinion is short and I'll just share very quickly: Every view has some point of merit to it (even if the one who has the view doesn't know what merit it has). It all comes down to faith in my opinion-you're going to believe what you want to believe, sometimes despite evidence. Being on the Internet for a few years you see different kinds of posters - the uninformed posters, the poster who thinks they have heard every argument against their belief, the poster who holds to a view of faith without evidence, the poster who is right and everyone else is wrong, the poster who doesn't use logic, etc. Anyway... my encouragement to anyone who is reading this is do some of your own homework and using a combination of logic and reason, come to your own conclusion-I am not preaching relative truth with that statement either, but sometimes people cannot be convinced of something true, but I think everyone needs to draw some type of conclusion. And since you're probably wondering which side I've taken after doing my homework, I do believe in creationism - namely the creation laid out in the Scriptures (a.k.a. the Bible). I hope stating that doesn't make you blot out the things I have said before it.

[astronelson 339]

Hudizzle17: Have you seen the videos by cdk007? They're very good too.

JGellock: I'd be interested to hear the logic you've used to come to this conclusion. Personally I think evolution is correct, for various reasons.

1. Evolution makes predictions about what would happen to a species when circumstances change - namely, that members of the species better suited to the new conditions will have more offspring than those that are less suited to the new conditions. Over time, the average member of the species will be better suited to the conditions. With enough time, the average member of the species will be completely different from the average member of the original group. Creationism makes no predictions.

2. Evolution puts forward a way through which species can adapt to the new conditions - random mutations in the genetic code. Negative mutations (those mutations that make a member of the species less suited to the conditions) die off quickly, positive mutations (those mutations that make a member of the species more suited to the conditions) survive. Over time, the net trend is positive. Creationism puts forward no way for species to adapt.

3. Evolution has been observed to occur, both in nature and in the laboratory, something creation (divine or otherwise) has yet to do.

4. Evolution works within the known laws of physics. Creationism does not. (A note on the argument involving the Second Law of Thermodynamics: The Sun provides energy, which is used and converted to waste heat. There is no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics)

There is little chance of me changing your mind, or of you changing mine, but I would be interested in hearing your logic, so long as you can do so without referring to the Bible.

[Hudizzle17 1]

"And since you're probably wondering which side I've taken after doing my homework, I do believe in creationism - namely the creation laid out in the Scriptures (a.k.a. the Bible). I hope stating that doesn't make you blot out the things I have said before it."

Well, I wouldn't say I'd "blot it out", but it makes me raise my literal, as well as metaphorical, eyebrow quite a bit, and makes me take it less seriously.

This is so because logic and reason are pretty much never associated with creationism, except by those who are creationists, of course. Not just that, but that one would claim not only that creationism is true, but that the specific creation myth of the Bible is true, out of the myriad other myths to choose from. Anybody who actually does their homework, as well as uses actual logic and reason, will surely not come to the conclusion that evolution is false, in any way. Creationism or creation myths, in their various forms, are merely stories and made up explanations for things that could not be explained at the time of their writings. Those who believe the creation myths usually use similar "logic" or "rationality" to that of the kind you might find at various creationist websites. I was just strolling through the website of "The Institute for Creation Research", and I couldn't believe the level of BS in even just one article alone. As I mentioned in my last post, they wholly misrepresent the scientific community and science in general. What they try to push as "science" does not contribute to humanity's understanding of the world, assumes one specific scripture to be true, and relies entirely on "faith". Choosing scripture over all else like these people do is, in my opinion, Lazy thinking and intellectually dishonest.

I agree with astronelson.... I have to wonder what "logic" you used to come to the conclusion that Genesis is in fact... fact.

As he said "There is little chance of me changing your mind, or of you changing mine, but I would be interested in hearing your logic, so long as you can do so without referring to the Bible."

If you cannot tell us why creationism is true and evolution is false without referring to the Bible or faith, then we might be all ears... That's assuming you don't use the kind of logic as mentioned in this bit from "God Is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens:

"One of the creationists' "questionnaires"

purports to be a "yes/no" interrogation of the following:

Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder?

Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter?

Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?

If you answered YES for any of the above, give details."

You don't have to answer, and I don't know if you will anyway, but it's certainly a curiosity, but I don't expect to hear anything new in the creationist argument from what I've already heard... If there was actually a valid argument for creationism, then it would be creationism which would be taught in public schools, creationism which the scientific community accepts and studies, creationist videos on youtube with the highest ratings and best comments, creationism with the least laughable ideas, and creationism which would be supported by the most scientific facts....

If you're going on faith alone, though, don't expect us to take it seriously.

I could say that the Lord of the Rings is actually a true book, that the characters, places, magic and events in it were real, but that it must be taken on faith alone..... But that would not make it true, and nobody would take me seriously if I said it was.

Speaking of which, I also heard a particularly dumb and hilarious argument from a creationist who tried saying that the Bible must be true because "It is such a thick book, and that the writing was so small and there was a lot of it, and nobody would write that much about something if it wasn't true"... So by that logic, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc. must also be true.

And yes, astronelson, I have seen cdk007's videos. Should have mentioned him earlier as well.

[BattleshipAgincourt 1]

This is my first post to this topic.

Evolution all the way!

Why? Because there is some actual evidence to support the theory. Creationism completely negates the value of evidence if it were accepted. If God created the universe, he could very well have created it thousands of years ago. He could just as easily have created it billions of years ago and it would be all the same.

Going by the bible, the universe is thousands of years old. God very well could have done that. He could just as easily created the grand canyon EXACTLY as it would have been, had it been one minute or one million years ago. He could have created uranium with the proper half life to provide the evidence that a sample looks billions of years old.

If God is all powerful, he COULD have done this. That being so, you could reasonably explain anything away by saying it was God who created it. If God exists, you could reasonably consider him the cause for everything and anything. This negates all scientific methods.

Before I would consider creationism as a possibility, one must first prove God to exist. The whole theory hinges on that one variable, so it's not unreasonable to demand proof that god exists. If that proof cannot be provided, then the theory has no leg to stand on. If God is proven to exist, I will not only consider the theory, but support the theory in its entirety. Until then, I will go off real evidence.

And all real evidence shows that the world was a creation of nature. We still cannot explain certain aspects of Earth's history, or in evolution, but a lack of evidence does NOT constitute proof that the counter argument must be right. Before creationists start commenting on the holes in the evolution theory, they should look to the holes in their side on the argument. There is even less reason to believe in God as much more of the world and the galaxy become known. As we learn more, we move to dismiss God as the cause of everything and find answers that make much more sense to us. When we understand the science, we can actually understand why the Earth is a certain way... leading us to think maybe God isn't the creator after all.

[Raysfan16 5]

Just wanted to give my two cents here.

I believe in evolution. My reasons have been outlined above, so I would be wasting my time if I restated it.

I don't have a problem with creationism though.

What I am sad about is religion posing as science in the classroom. Science (as defined by dictionary.com) is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. While it is perfectly okay to believe in creationism, it simply is NOT based on observation and experimentation. If you guys have heard of Pastafarianism, it is one of those examples. It mocks God, but does get its point across.

[specializedguy 193]

Hi there. As my last post, this one will not be long. A couple of years ago I dove into the realm of apologetics and have found that arguing for hours without any fruit is precious time wasted. I think whether you're a creationist or evolutionist, you can agree on that. I thought I answered your question, astronelson, in my previous post: I did homework. I considered both sides arguments and drew a conclusion. I read arguments from scientists on both sides, creationists, evolutionists, read debates, etc. Sometimes in going through that process some of the arguments and such become redundant. In any case, at the end of that process is where I am today. I had a girlfriend once, several years ago actually. She believed in evolution too. I didn't hate her for it, or try to prove to her how my view is superior or any kind of attitude like that. I shared with her in detail little things here and there-two things fell apart-our relationship and her belief in evolution. We just talked through it-but the key was, she was willing to be moved from her view if it could be shown. That's just something personal I thought I'd share. I don't plan on going into that detail here. As I mentioned in the beginning of this post, time is precious. As I mentioned, do some serious homework and have an open mind and consider an argument seriously, and don't toss it out just because it goes against what you have previously thought. That's what I did.

P.S. - You don't need the bible to put evolution to rest - you just need facts.

P.S. 2 - As a parent of an 8 yr old, its my sincerest desire to see our school systems teach both evolution and creationism. As I mentioned before, we all have choice to believe what we want to believe.

[BattleshipAgincourt 1]

Based on your last post, I can't directly pose a contradictory response that doesn't demean your views.

I don't believe it's the education system's responsibility to teach creationism, nor to pose opposition to it.  The way the schools teach students is to present to them the facts as we know them.  There should be no need to bring anything from religion into the classroom, nor should it be presented only to be disproved.  The whole reason for segregating church and state is to avoid such conflicts.

If someone wants their child to grow up believing in god, introducing creationism in the classroom would only serve to throw down that religion.  There is simply no means by which you can teach religion in schools without having to teach them it's wrong.  Evolution is considered fact in the classroom.  Creationism is considered a belief within a religion.  If there were to demand that creationism be taught in the classroom, it would do nothing more than detract from the value of the belief.  Or it would detract from the education process.  What a father teaches his child/ren is up to him.  A school will teach children that religion doesn't belong in science.

Obviously one who believes in creationism won't be moved by my 'expert opinion.'  So I would simply ask anyone who supports it to forget everything he believes and everything he knows for a moment.  When you can put aside all that you think you know and all that you believe, only then can you free yourself of all bias when making an opinion.  And when going back and considering all the facts, make sure you make your own opinion.  Don't let the opinions of 'experts' influence your judgment.  Look at their own reasons and judge for yourself.  If your opinion differs from that of an expert, it doesn't mean you're the one who's wrong.  If you don't agree with someone because you formed another opinion out of the same facts, then you should trust your own opinion more.  Otherwise you're just conforming to the beliefs of someone else.

As a geologist, I strike down all claims about the Great Flood which destroyed the world.  There is absolutely no evidence to support such an event happened within the last 100,000 years since humans existed.  If there were such a flood, there would be evidence of flooding which don't exist.  Some areas in the world haven't seen enough precipitation to generate runoff in over a million years.  Those areas couldn't exist if the entire world was flooded.

This is only one bible story which simply couldn't have happened.  Any scientist who tries to sell this to the less informed may succeed, but they would fail miserably to convince people who are majoring in such fields.  I would admit I've been sold on a variety of subjects a few years ago, but have since learned much more about the world since high school.  I'm not implying that people are stupid or simple, but many are just uninformed.  You have to go to REALLY extreme lengths in order to form your opinion.  You have to get to the point where you consider yourself an expert before you can really trust your opinion to be both informed and free of bias.

[astronelson 339]

Originally posted by: JGellock

I thought I answered your question, astronelson, in my previous post: I did homework. I considered both sides arguments and drew a conclusion.quote>

So did I. Only one side had logical arguments in support of it, only one side worked within the reakms of science, only one side did not require any sort of divine intervention. And lack of divine intervention is a cornerstone of science.

You haven't answered my question though, which I shall rephrase and extend as a pair of questions:

Question 1: What logical steps can you give, based on reliable evidence and working within the laws of science, that leads to the conclusion that Creationism is a better system for describing the variety of species than Evolution by Natural Selection?

Question 2: What is one scientifically possible way through which Creationism allows species to adapt to changing conditions without divine intervention?

P.S. - You don't need the bible to put evolution to rest - you just need facts.quote>

So far ALL relevant articles in reputable peer-reviewed science journals have been in support of evolution. Decades of research supports it, so much that calling it a mountain of evidence is too small. Where are your facts?

P.S. 2 - As a parent of an 8 yr old, its my sincerest desire to see our school systems teach both evolution and creationism. As I mentioned before, we all have choice to believe what we want to believe. quote>

You may believe what you want, but we should only teach things that have supporting evidence. Which, I note, creationism doesn't.

[Hudizzle17 1]

Well, JGellock, you are right about one, and only one thing... Debating would be pointless in this case.

To debate someone who's steeped in religious apologetics would, of course, be pointless.

But I can't help but say....

"You don't need the bible to put evolution to rest - you just need facts."

If that's true, then this thread would not exist, would it? There are tons of creation myths out there, and none of them have ever been able to debunk evolution. The only way to come to the conclusion you have is by looking at everything through the blinders of religious apologetics, which could rationalize myriad beliefs and myths and religions out there, not just Christianity, though Christian apologetics seem to be rather sizeable compared to others. Christianity is not the only religion that claims to have "the truth". There is even a system of Mormon apologetics, and Mormonism has to be one of the most obviously fraudulent and manufactured religions in history. Apologetics can be used to justify many systems of belief and is very dishonest.

"its my sincerest desire to see our school systems teach both evolution and creationism. As I mentioned before, we all have choice to believe what we want to believe."

Until creationists can actually make a good argument for creationism without relying on faith, without scripture, without biased and dishonest religious apologetics, without misrepresenting facts, data, definitions, etc., without lying, and without the kind of logic that I've mentioned a few times already, and in a scientific way with objectively verifiable evidence that can withstand even the toughest peer review and beat evolution easliy in all areas and increase our understanding of and better explain the complexity and variety of life than evolution, creationism will still be held as a subject of religion, theology, pseudoscience, and myth, and shall not be taught in any public schools as an official or plausible or actual theory.

Especially if one is demanding that one specific creation myth of one specific religion is to be taught. This is why creationism loses in court, with a judge who is a conservative Christian, as something that can be taught in schools. What is taught in public schools is not a subject of what you want to believe and what you don't want to believe or what makes sense in your own mind. It is not for propagating relative truth. It's about teaching skills and facts and learning about an objective reality, and the best objective explanations we have, whether one chooses to accept that reality or explanation or not, whether that person understands it or not.

When it comes to matters of religion, either send your child to a religious school, to church, or teach it to your child yourself... I say that to anyone who thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.

But as said before, it's pointless to debate in this particular case... You know we won't change our position, we know you won't change yours. We feel that you're missing out on something, you probably feel we're missing out on something. We think you're wrong, you think we're wrong..... It could go on and on.

So, believe what you want, anyway, as much as that may irk me and my co-thinkers, you do have that right, after all, no matter how wrong it may be, and no Atheist would take that away, only suggest something different and hope that you slowly drift down to reality. Of course doing so does not mean you have to forfeit belief in a deity or even Christianity in some way or other. There are plenty of reasonable Christians who are willing to accept facts as they come along, and they don't resort to the corrupt tactic of apologetics to try and validate every word of the Bible. We only directly intervene when religion tries to inject itself into education and secular areas. Everybody has freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. I can only hope that in the future these issues are settled and we no longer have to have these debates, at least when it comes to evolution.

Cheers.

[BattleshipAgincourt 1]

Originally posted by: JGellock

As I mentioned in the beginning of this post, time is precious. As I mentioned, do some serious homework and have an open mind and consider an argument seriously, and don't toss it out just because it goes against what you have previously thought. That's what I did. quote>

Then please share some of this research you've done which convinced you that God exists.  We already know your opinion, as you know ours.  What we really want to see is how you came to the conclusion that God exists... and that through him, creationism could be explained.  Without God's existence being proven, then all creationism theories can't work.  

I'm not just asking you to waste your time... I will seriously consider any evidence you present.  If there really is a god out there, I would not like to continue showing such disrespect for everything he created.  If the facts I've seen don't point to God, then it's up to you to show them... if you wish to prove god and creationism to others.

Originally posted by: JGellock

P.S. - You don't need the bible to put evolution to rest - you just need facts.quote>

Evolution still remains a theory, but it is still the best theory we have, based on the available facts.  It is also a theory riddled with holes.  We have seen many species with certain characteristics from millions of years ago, but we can't really connect it all... yet.  We can say that we have yet to see some remarkable deviation from the pattern of evolution which would suggest divine intervention took place at some point in Earth's history.

That doesn't rule out that God created life... evolution doesn't rule out God.  But to say God created humans thousands of years ago doesn't go by any evidence, proof, or facts we've collected.  In fact, coming to the conclusion that God created the universe only thousands of years ago would unravel many more working theories than it would answer.  By saying it was creationism, you then must go to explain how these theories of geology, matter, and energy can fit with the new theory/conclusion.  

It simply doesn't work because it doesn't fit without disrupting many other other working theories.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: BattleshipAgincourt

Evolution still remains a theory, but it is still the best theory we have, based on the available facts.  It is also a theory riddled with holes.  We have seen many species with certain characteristics from millions of years ago, but we can't really connect it all... yet. .quote>

Thats because we dont have all the evidence yet to connect those species,  we may never  be able to connect every thing. The process of Fossilization is random and rare, and there may be whole species lines that just didnt leave any fossils behind. Extrapolation is the best they can do to conncect species lines to prove evolution goes back billions of years. but they did use trial and error to come up with these ideas of how life evolved.