Evolution vs. Creation

[kilted exile]

I disagree with your statement of Creationism having less evidence then evolutionism. And on the side of creationism we don't just have the Bible and faith because historical documents have been found that prove biblical people actually lived. There is historical evidence that Jesus walked this earth, and that so did Moses and other major Biblical figures. There is also proof of the "great flood". Please don't assume there is no evidence on the side of God existing and creating the world. Also, did you ever consider that "the missing link" hasn't been found because it doesn't exist?

This is not about whether biblical figures lived, I have no doubt that there was a man called Jesus, I am not willing to believe however that he was a son of God. He may have been a thinker, religious leader, social activist, concerned citizen - This is not in debate, what evidence other than the bible/faith (which I have no problem of) for the theory of Creationism is the main point.

[hyperborean]

It's about time we have some members like lily adams sticking up for evolution.

Evolution (physical evidence proving it) vs Creationism (no physical evidence proving it, just faith). What gets me aggravated are the people that are Christian who strictly believe in creationism. I'm going to repost this link in case some of you didn't see it: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

You can still believe in God, but you can't deny evolution at this point.

[ennison]

'Evolution (physical evidence proving it)' The evidence is being interpreted as an act of faith in evolution whereas most is only evidence of change - a common sense idea that almost everyone agrees with. This thread is somewhat tiresome as it seems to produce little result and I feel mighty sympathetic to Rezep frequently ploughing his lonely furrow. I probably agree with nine tenths of what he says. I have resolved this issue to my own satisfaction years ago - and no I do not believe the universe was created in 144 hours though I believe it could have been and as far as human existence is concerned we could obliterate our relationship totally and permanently with this universe in a lot less than 144 hours. Thanks to wonderful wonderful science and its never-get-it-wrong acolytes

[hyperborean]

Evolution is a fact that is explained by theory because that's how science works. Whether you accept or reject it is up to you. Creationism is a belief that is explained by the Bible alone. Whether you believe in it or not is also up to you. The point is: In evolution the evidence is put into data both physical and theoretical, which have been analyzed and made sense of for years over, constantly changing so as to be more accurate over time. In creationism the evidence is testimonial evidence displayed through the Bible which may or may not be the word of God. There's no "evidence" of creationism displayed in any manner, outside of attempts to disprove evolution. The entire creationist argument is centered 99% on disproving evolution, instead of proving its own "theory" of creationism because, as most might say, we're not meant to understand God's plan for creation. Or if you want to be blunt: 'I don't know, but I believe you're wrong anyway' mentality.

Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, based on my experience with how each side works. Evolutionary biologists almost never take creationism seriously for good reason: They've got evidence of their theory, whereas all creationism has sought to do is pop illogical and emotionally driven holes in evolution that have nothing to do with the theory itself.

It doesn't get clearer than that. This thread is filled with comments from Christians that "beat around the bush". You cannot discredit evolution if your own theory is based on absolute faith.

[Lily Adams]

This is not about whether biblical figures lived, I have no doubt that there was a man called Jesus, I am not willing to believe however that he was a son of God. He may have been a thinker, religious leader, social activist, concerned citizen - This is not in debate, what evidence other than the bible/faith (which I have no problem of) for the theory of Creationism is the main point.

Precisely.

My thoughts exactly for the above post as well.

[quartzer]

I voted for evolution as the ongoing random process initiated 14 billion years ago in the "big bang", as a result of which began not only all matter and energy in this universe, but also its physical characteristics which must be precisely as they are for us to be here asking this question.

Here's a random thought: space and time being relative, God's "day" might be two billion earth years long to us, but only 24 earth hours long to It...

[Pendragon]

The answer to the "But they've found fish fossils in mounatins!"statement is here: It's down a little ways. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Just because fish fossils have been found in mountains doesn't mean that there was necessarily a "flood" caused by God there. There was just an ocean in that particular spot. What about places on land where they can't find fish fossils, hmm?

I wondered when someone would think about this. I know a good place in my mountains here to get fossil seashells and things. I have some of my nicer finds as paperweights. I will not argue the point, as anything I say will be dismissed, but IMO the rock strata seems to argue against the ocean floor, as the fossil bed is narrow, but I love the ocean, and know scallop shells when I see them!

About the "missing link" debate, it's simple. There was no "missing link" in the first place. It was just dreamed up by someone who didn't believe in evolution and didn't want to admit they were wrong, etc.

No. It wasn't dreamed up by anyone who didn't believe in evolution. It was because there is no direct link from apes to humans that science could discover. The steps progressed in a fairly logical chain until the leap from ape to man. They speak of a "common ancestor". They never found it. So there is a missing link.

[manyreddevils]

hmm.
seems like everyone has some expert or other who's willing to confirm what they believe. well, i don't believe in experts. so there. nor am i terribly fond of words that end in "-ism". Only lead to trouble, in my experience.
i don't know a whole lot about the scientific details, or the scriptural support, or whatever. perhaps it is possible that God created a suspiciously phallic spaghetti monster and gave it dominion over a world teeming with apes and walking fish. maybe it's possible that God doesn't exist at all, and the dreams of millions of sweaty-palmed, poorly respirated young men will one day come true and X-men will walk the earth in all their spandex and glory.
my only point, if there is one, is that atheism

a) seems really lame if it's true. (and those who claim it are consistent in their beliefs, or lack thereof) it's kind of tough to argue for free will, and the subsequent dignity of mankind, unless you acknowledge something from outside the physical series of action-reaction. it also kind of reduces any semblance of worth or beauty in human experience to biological processes, facts that can be or mean no more than what they are.

b) provides within itself nothing to suggest i should believe it, even if it's true. why shouldn't i believe something completely "irrational", just because it is? materialism can state facts, but doesn't seem to give you a lot to do with them. (i.e. why should i believe facts? survival value? why should humans, merely one more organism, and a destructive one at that, out of millions survive?)

c) gives me a headache when i talk with people who are arguing about it.

My philosophy is that no one has it completely right. You're only wrong if you think that you do. Searching for truth and beauty and happiness isn't something you get out of your system by the time you graduate college. I guarantee you that no one alive has found it completely. So keep looking, and for God(or whomever)'s sake, don't try to impose whatever you think you know on other people. If it's as great as all that, you won't have to.

(if i've digressed here, i apologize. the last thing i want to be is "that guy." He's pretty lame.)

[Jetxa]

My philosophy is that no one has it completely right. You're only wrong if you think that you do.

I have finally made peace with being able to say, "I don't know."

"I've got a great adventure ahead of me; the search for what God is, what I am, the meaning of my life. That should take a whole lifetime and the searching will be enough." ~ Unknown

[Pendragon]

I have finally made peace with being able to say, "I don't know."

The single most sensible statement I have heard in a long time. There is no shame in saying, “I do not know.” Nor is there shame in saying “I cannot explain this.” An honest answer is better than a flurry of righteous indignation, or scientific facts tossed about that in the end are still “best guess”.

Let science do its job, we cannot do without it. Science uncovers many valuable things that make life easier for us, a man is curious, so Science endeavors to satisfy that hunger.

Man has always looked for a higher power, a God. Let Religion have its place. Faith is the focal point that keeps many from a life of letting their baser side take over and rule them.

The world and all that is in it exists. Maybe instead of fighting over how it came to be, we should carpe diem, and enjoy what is here. Life is too short to spend it fighting.

God bless.

[Redzeppelin]

Where I begin to get annoyed is when it is suggested that there is the same amount of evidence for either theory, there is not. For the theory of Creationism there is the Bible and faith.

Hi there. I suggested no such thing. Here's what I said: "what I want the evolutionist to acknowledge is that evolution is no more "provable" (at least to the level of certainty that many seem to claim)." Nothing in that statement implies that the evidence is "equal." Both theories are ultimately unprovable - that's all I was saying.

For the theory of Evolution there is a large amount of scientific evidence (in the form of fossils, closeness in DNA, observances of speciation taking place in other organisms etc), however we are still in need of the "missing link" and that is why we call it a theory.

Hence my second statement: "Mountains of evidence don't equal certainty; they equal significant probability."

As far as certainty goes, the theory as it stands may not be 100% -

That's the only point I was trying to make.

I wouldnt mind if proponents of Creationism just said until definitive proof of evolution is found I choose to believe the bible instead, but please dont suggest the amount of evidence is similar.

I didn't.

[kilted exile]

Zep, I realise you clarified your statement (hence why I left it in the part where I quoted you) my main issue is that as a rule believers dont.

I realise I worded things poorly, but what do you expect - I failed English.

[Redzeppelin]

Zep, I realise you clarified your statement (hence why I left it in the part where I quoted you) my main issue is that as a rule believers dont.

I realise I worded things poorly, but what do you expect - I failed English.

No harm, no foul, buddy. Of the many non-believers whom I converse with, you are one of the more courteous. Thanks

(PS - your English is fine)

[hyperborean]

"what I want the evolutionist to acknowledge is that evolution is no more "provable"

I know this has been said over and over again, but the fact remains that evolution does have physical evidence supporting it. There is nothing to debunk here. One theory has evidence and the other doesn't. That's it...believe in what you want to believe and carry forward. I don't know how this thread is still thriving with rebuttals.

[Matrim Cuathon]

I know this has been said over and over again, but the fact remains that evolution does have physical evidence supporting it. There is nothing to debunk here. One theory has evidence and the other doesn't. That's it...believe in what you want to believe and carry forward. I don't know how this thread is still thriving with rebuttals.

yes! evolution has been proved as well as any theory may be. and you can gain the same results yourself where as in creationism all you have is one book which you can never prove to someone without god actually coming and saying its true.