No Subject

You say you didn't budge on your creationism, but that's not surprising because Darwin wasn't actually attacking creationism, he was just making a case for evolution. I'm curious..if this book didn't convince you about evolution, would you be willing to consider evidence that came in after the book was written? If so, would you be willing to accept evidence from professional biochemists, geneticists, geologists, etc? What exactly do you mean when you say a "lack of evidence?" What kind of evidence would be compelling to you? Would you be willing to consider opinions of professional geologists on your last point about how fast rock erodes?

i would really like to know which country/state/province/whatever your school is in because its very rare that a high school teaches Origin of Species, i think because its so controversial. its a shame because the book is definitely important and if we avoid talking about evolution how will anyone be able to make an educated opinion about the origin of life?<br><br>so please, where is your school

Sorry to be the whisteblower, but you are either nuts or misinformed if you think there's a "lack of evidence" for evolution. There is an overwhelming mountain of evidence from all walks of scientific life. Evidence from geology and molecular biology are especially convincing: all fossils found at appropriate depths, a wealth of fossilized intermediate forms, DNA over 90% the same in all living things, embryological "maps" of evolutionary relationships, etc. If someone says evolution is not well supported by evidence, look at their credentials and see if they have a hidden fundamentalist agenda, because that claim is simply false. At 17 and with your amount of intelligence, you will have no problem accepting that evolution happened if you read up on the evidence and really keep an open, rational mind.

I am 16 and i seen all the facts between boths sides and there is evidence to support creation and evidence that evolution is wrong u guys just make up story that dont have any evidence

One thing that I think is fairly important to point out is the fact that Darwin was a Creationist. That is the real reason why he didn't knock on creationism because he fervantly believed in it.

<br> I am 17 and I am reading Origin of the Species for school. Before I read it I was lead to understand that Darwin was pointing out all of the faults of the creation theory (which I believe to be true) and saying why by backing it up with his evolution theory. I may be mistaken but I saw only maybe two instances where Darwin said the Creation theory was false. Nowhere does he say he is trying to replace the Creation theory and I think he lacked the evidence the same as we lack the evidence to uphold the evolution theory today.<br> Before I read the book I believed in Creation and after reading the book he failed to even budge me off of my position although I admit he made some very good points. An example on why he failed to change my position is shown on Page 182 when Darwin discusses man and beauty, 'it ought to be shown that before man appeared, there was less beauty on the face of the earth' That to me is an odd statement wouldn't the world be more serene, beautiful and peaceful without all of man's inventions and our destructive habits?<br> Another point that raised my eyebrows and which I will focus a part of my essay on is in his chapter the Geological Record. Darwin's friend Sir Charles Lyell asserted that 1,000 feet of solid rock would be disintegrated over a course of 6 million years. I am not disputing how accurate or not this is, but how can you honestly figure out how long it took for a certain piece of land to erode. Lets say for example the beaches near my house erode 3 inches (of sand) a year on average. If a tsunami comes obviously a lot more sediment and rock will be eroded away. The Cliffs of Dover for example I believe a huge chunk of rock broke away from that. In no way in my opinion can you ACCURATELY find out how fast (or slow) water erodes rock. I could expand a lot more, but obviously you can see what i am getting at.<br><br> Joel

[Jilvin]

Joel, make sure you bother to actually read it through more carefully, and view the MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE ACCUMULATED IN THE LAST 144 years since the Origin. Darwin doesn't need to assert explicitly very many times that creationism is false. If you are unable to derive (especially his of his considerations of potent geographical distribution evidence) that these were not solely to promote his theory of natural selection, but to show that special creation was intellectually bankrupt. He does not need to state more than a couple times explicitly that creation is false for him to firmly believe so and to derive the message from the book.

Please get updated on the modern consensus amongst scientists, and of some of the evidence.