Evolution vs. Creation

And we can only say gravity is there because stuff falls.<br>There is this wierd thing in science. When you provide proof towards a theory, it becomes a Law<br>For all you non-believers out there check out this site, its great<br><br>http://riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/things.htm

Quoting Darwin out of context is not a legitimate way to prove your point. I hope that you did it mistakenly and not with the intention of misleading people.<br><br>To quote Chapter 14 more fully:<br>"Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in members of the same class, by utility or by the doctrine of final causes. The hopelessness of the attempt has been expressly admitted by Owen in his most interesting work on the "Nature of Limbs." On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is; that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan; but this is not a scientific explanation."<br><br>When Darwin says "we can only say that so it is," he's telling us that the independent creation of each being can't be posited with any supporting evidence; it can only be arbitrarily declared. That's why he goes on to disqualify it as a scientific explanation.

Isn't it funny how he writes in chapter 14 "On the...view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is; that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan.." <br>Darwin, who gave root to these evolutionary theories which condradict the presence of God, actually backs him up! This is evdience that Darwin understood that what he wrote was ONLY a theory...

[JamesN]

Charles Darwin was NOT trying to back up Creationism with "Origin of Species". Yes, he believed in God when he published "Origin of Species", though later in his life he became Agnostic, but he was in no way trying to spread any sort of religious propaganda - he was giving a SCIENTIFIC explanation for the introduction of new species based on natural laws - - he called these laws "natural selection".

Also, Evolution by natural selection is not contradictory to Creationism; it does not necessarily need God in order for it to work, but you can still believe in both - though faith and science have very little in common.

[EMB]

Yes, you can believe in both, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. God could plant a seed, and once planted, grows in its own world, develops its own way though still under God's umbrella. That is, all creatures become individual and unique.

ED

[qwertyuiop]

I Cannot For The Life Of Me Imagine God As A Monkey Sat On His Throne With A Banana.
Are There Really People That Truly Believe That We Come From Apes.
My Goodness Poor Apes.

[ShoutGrace]

Originally Posted by qwertyuiop

I Cannot For The Life Of Me Imagine God As A Monkey Sat On His Throne With A Banana.
Are There Really People That Truly Believe That We Come From Apes.
My Goodness Poor Apes.

As far as I know, the most widely accepted Theory of Evolution doesn't hold that modern man is a descendant of Apes; rather, it holds that both modern man and modern apes share a common ancestor. This distinction is of monumental importance. I think that when attempting to either question or bolster the idea of evolution we need to first understand what it actually is.

I hope that I'm not misrepresenting the idea of evolution here.

[smartblonde2010]

Originally Posted by JamesN

Also, Evolution by natural selection is not contradictory to Creationism; it does not necessarily need God in order for it to work, but you can still believe in both - though faith and science have very little in common.

no way. the bible says man came from DUST which in no way ties to "ape to man". if u believe in both, you are just ignoring the facts

[JCamilo]

Originally Posted by Simon james

Isn't it funny how he writes in chapter 14 "On the...view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is; that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan.." <br>Darwin, who gave root to these evolutionary theories which condradict the presence of God, actually backs him up! This is evdience that Darwin understood that what he wrote was ONLY a theory...

Why misquoting a phrase that was posted just before your post where we can say we is using the given "Creator" part as an argument and saying it is not a scientific Theory at all?
Darwin do not back up God, creationism -in fact the pretty much destroyed creationism during his life and it is funny how it returns with the same argument despite the strength of his theories just grow up with genetics.
Darwin was already agnostic when he wrote the species. In his correspondence, his "faith" was shaken when his favorite daughter died very young. However, he was always very respectful/carefull because his wife was responsable for the revision of his texts and he was very afraid of public humilliation that it would cause when published. However any can say, while Darwin's evolution was responsable for a big damage on God's image, the theory does not attack God's existence (a terrain Darwin was too self-concious to step in) even because it does not deal with the creation of universe/life, just with evolution, which is the change of species.

Now, at this age, with so much books to read people using such arguments?
Darwin never claimed man came from monkeys, it was a low shot from religious bigots who are unable to understand his theories in the XIX century. Using it again...
It is only a theory. But however who bothers with science enough is well aware that a Theory is the ultimate level of hipothesis used to explain a natural phenomen. It does not get any "better" (it does not turn in laws either, a law is a part of theory, not it. And there is considerable laws originated from evolution theories, specially in the genetic field). So, when someone say it is "Only a theory" it is just saying "I am trying to look smart, but truly I have no idea about science, so I will repeat this falacious argument I heard before". It is only a theory, that means it explains better a natural phenomen (evolution) than any other theory.

[HannibalBarca]

Adam and Eve were monkeys, people.

[HannibalBarca]

or maybe there were no adam and eve, maybe its just a story that tells us not to defy God

[HannibalBarca]

Ah, dont listen to me. I'm only a historian.

[Dark Star]

Originally Posted by smartblonde2010

no way. the bible says man came from DUST which in no way ties to "ape to man". if u believe in both, you are just ignoring the facts

Not really, it's entirely possible for people to take the story of Adam and Eve as something metaphorical or an allegorical tale rather than a literal story about the creation of the Earth.

[impishmonkey]

Adam and Eve were real people.

[impishmonkey]

Originally Posted by HannibalBarca

Adam and Eve were monkeys, people.

they were real people who dis-obeyed God