evolution or creationism???

I lean more towards evolution because there are more facts to support it where as creationism is based on religious beliefs and faith.

You might be interested

Comments

Reply Attach
  • 5

    If plants didn't breathe in CO2 and we didn't breathe in O2 then we would have evolved into a completely different being, or, at the very least, our breathing apparatus would have evolved differently. They didn't just happen like that, perfectly balanced to bounce off and use one another. We evolved to take advantage of the oxygen rich atmosphere, an atmosphere largely a result of the already existing plant life. The proof is there, this makes it a FACT not a theory (it cannot be both).

    With regards to the human body: it's not perfect. The closest 'part' to being perfect is the eye, an organ replicated in almost exactly the same way over a number of species as evolution so very nearly got it right. But even that is not 100% (eg, the blind spot). Appart from minor imperfections like this, how do you explain away the appendix, an organ that we no longer use and is infact larger in rabbits than us due to our lack of dependance on it over the years. Equally, we no longer require wisdom teeth and yet they continue to give many of us a huge amount of pain. Our body is not perfect, infact it is continuing to evolve.

    Reply
  • 3

    Hmmm....How about you try to make a monkey evolve into a human? And scientists have found no proof that we actually are related. And also why haven't they found a fossilized human that's literally half monkey? And also how do you expect the earth to be perfectly in position so that we don't burn and we don't freeze. And how do you explain the fact that plants just happen to breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen and we just happen to do the opposite so we always have a supply of air? And how do you explain males and females to have the right body parts to reproduce? And how do you explain the human body just being perfect? I believe in adaptation but not evolution. And for you evolutionists, I'm sure you've heard these arguments before and you can't prove them wrong but I sure as hell can't prove your ideas wrong either so until that day comes I respect your views, but as for me? I'm Creationism all the way.

    Reply
  • 3

    Essentially, the goal of evolution ends up being to slow evolution. The fewer the generations, the slower the process of natural selection. The more natural selection works, the longer the life span of a species. The longer the life span, the less natural selection works. Almost paradoxical, but eventually I think there will be an upper bound on the life span of the human race.

    Also, death isn't the only factor. In our society, you are more likely to procreate more often if you are in a generally worse place on the social ladder. Yay for conundrums, eh? : P.

    Reply
  • 2

    1. Monkeys did not evolve into humans, chimpanzees did, and this is well documented. Simply do a search for "hominid evolution" and you will have what you need. There is an abundance of proof, the strongest of which in my opinion is Genome Sequencing, including ERVs (Endogenic Retro-Viruses).

    2. A fossilized human being half a monkey would, in fact, completely falsify the theory of evolution. That's all it would take. Having a human torso and monkey legs (as I assume you mean) or vice versa is not at all what the theory of evolution predicts. If you think so, I suggest a visit to talkorigins.org.

    3. Earth has life on it because it has the conditions necessary for life's development. There are billions upon billions upon billions of planets, it only follows, probabilistically, that at least one of them would have Earth-like characteristics. Like Earth does.

    4. This is a result of photosynthesis, and the development of chlorophyll/chloroplasts through naturalistic means. It wasn't always this way.

    5. Once again, these body parts were selected for. There is no "just right" method of reproduction, there are millions of variations on the activity in the animal kingdom, and they all work just fine.

    6. The human body is not perfect. What designer would ever put a necessary respiratory opening anywhere near a consumption orifice? And cancer, a defect that occurs because of the body itself, is astoundingly common, and an obvious defect in the body's "design."

    7. Adaptation (or micro-evolution) and Macroevolution are the same phenomenon. One just takes more time.

    8. I am pretty sure I soundly trounced your process. And no, you cannot prove the entire scientific community and the 200,000+ scientific articles authored on the subject of evolutionary biology wrong. I promise.

    9. Your lack of understanding about the subject is shown by your inability to distinguish between evolution and cosmology.

    10. I am no more an "evolutionist" than I am a "gravity-ist" or a "germ-ist." I subscribe to a scientifically validated fact, not a baseless belief system.

    Reply
  • 2

    You're right, it shouldn't matter. However, even though life simply is a continuous cycle, my personal belief includes caring about the general progression of society as a whole. As I would hope many people agree with. Since the debate over origins is affecting progress, I think it matters : ).

    Reply
  • 2

    You rely on scientific theory not fact. What you believe is fact is actually in all reality theory. There is no way you can say 100% that you're correct and I can't say I'm positive either, but there's one thing we have in common, we both have faith in our belief. And that can make us friends or enemies, personally, I choose friend its up to you now.

    P.S. Sorry if I personally offended you by calling you an evolutionist. I'll just say you have high faith, which is good by the way. :)

    Reply
  • 2

    In all realism Logos, I can't win against you. You base your belief in science and I in faith. I literally have zero scientific evidence that creationism is real but I do have faith and that's what makes my life easier, believing that there's a God that created me and you that I can take my problems to. You may think that's stupid but that's how I live. And if I'm wrong I'll live a good life anyway.

    By the way, you have given me a run for my money on this subject, I've never had such a deep explanation about evolution (I'm a freshman in highschool and I'm sure you have some higher education than me).

    Reply
  • 2

    I approve as well: well done, sir. : ).

    Reply
  • 2

    I saw something on Discovery channel a few months ago, and it said that a solar system setup like the one we have is very rare. To have a planet like Earth the perfect distance from the sun, and to have a planet like Jupiter to pull in almost all of the stray meteorites and comments is almost impossible to find anywhere else. I'm not saying this religiously either. I used to go to church, and one of the few things that I actually remember is that there is other life out there that is just like us. The fact that we haven't found anybody yet doesn't mean that they don't exist. It simply means that we can't see far enough into space, or we haven't looked in the right places. Alot of the other solar systems that scientists have found have a planet the size of Jupiter the same distance away from its own sun as Mercury is to ours. Someday technology will grow to the point where we can actually go out to these other solar systems and look around from there for any evidence of other life. They are out there. Its very improbable that we are in fact alone in the universe. The universe, as we know it, is never ending.

    Reply
  • 2

    yes, I've heard those stray comments can be quite dangerous

    Reply
  • 1

    awesome, i approve

    Reply
  • 1

    i believe in god, not in the institution we have come to know as religion. i look at the world around us, and cannot believe this is all by chance. everything is so intricate and perfect (when its not interferred with by humans) and works so well with eachother that it couldnt have not been intelligent design.

    Reply
  • 1

    but its what some wars are based around so it is a problem.

    Reply
  • 1

    Chance and by naturalistic means are two very, very different things...

    Reply
  • 1

    Actually you weren't there so you can't possibly know and I know you say there's stuff like carbon dating and fossils and crap but I'm pretty sure no ones been around long enough to figure out how long that takes. And again I can't prove me right or you wrong.

    Reply
  • 1

    That post was quite naive. Through many independent dating methods, including about 20 types of radiometric dating, parallax dating, cepheid variables, dendrochronology, ice cores, plate tectonics, DNA tracing, Sedimentary layering, etc etc, things on Earth and off of Earth are dated with extreme precision. But most importantly: ALL of these methods agree with each other absolutely independently, with very, very small margins of error. If you wish to challenge this, you wish to challenge the basis of modern scientific understanding.

    If you really think you have a good enough case, publish an article in the peer-reviewed literature. Seriously, go ahead. Who's stopping you?

    Just don't be surprised when you are soundly defeated.

    Reply
  • 1

    No, I really don't think it does matter. We live, we die, life cycles round and round. I dont think HOW it started really matters at this point, its just an interesting idea for us to think about :)

    Reply
  • 1

    Evolution is both theory and fact. A scientific theory means, "an explanation of concept/idea that is supported by evidence and/or many experiments/trials and is widely accepted by the scientific community." This is far different from what theory means in the colloquial sense. The fact of evolution is that there is change in the allelic frequency in a population over time, the theory involves natural selection and describing the process. The theory has 150 years of evidentiary basis.

    Gravity is also a "theory." Germs? A "theory." Plate tectonics? A "theory." Cells. A "theory." Atomic theory, molecular bonding, radioactivity, and even matter. These are all scientific theories. If you wish to disregard all of these as well because they are just, "theories," feel free, but I would advise against it, for they built the society which functions today.

    There is no way I can say I'm 100% correct, but that is simply because nothing can ever be proven 100% in the philosophical sense. In that sense I'm 99.9% correct, the .1% being the chance that reality is not reality.

    I do not have faith, I have reasoned opinions based on observable fact and evidence. I provided many rebuttals to your statements above, and your best response was that I have faith. I view this as a failure to rebut.

    I have nothing against you as a person, as a friend if you wish, as a human being. However, against your Young Earth Creationist viewpoint? I will forever fight. Simply because it is based upon scientific ignorance.

    Reply
  • 1

    Overboard's overview regarding the O2 and CO2 situation was spot-on, and better than I could've articulated it. I also agree with his statement about the body. Well done sir, if I could applaud over text I would.

    However, Overboard, evolution most certainly is both theory and fact. Two different definitions of the same word, describing two separate parts of one concept, have two different labels: one theory, one fact.

    Evolution as a fact: Allelic frequency in a population changes over time.
    Evolution as a theory: "Allelic frequency in a population changes over time" because of selection, genetic drift, predation, etc etc etc.

    Evolution as fact describes an observed phenomenon, while evolution as theory describes how that phenomenon functions. The "theory" connotation of evolution is a model taking into account hundreds of thousands of facts, all of which agree with the model. Observed speciation, predation, genetic trends and changes, genome sequencing, the fossil record, and many more facts support the theory/model of evolution.

    Evolution is a fact/theory in the same way gravity is. Things fall to the Earth: that is a fact called gravity. Mass is attracted to mass because of the bending of space: that is a theory called gravity. This is what I'm getting at.

    Now, ghettoshen: Go ahead and believe things on faith, but make sure you don't attempt to say that your beliefs are based on anything but faith. To believe something on faith and then erroneously say that your understanding is based in science is not the way to go about things.

    If you care about faith, go for it. But if you care about reality and science, try doing a lot of research into this kind of subject. It's fun, informative, and really easily done. All it takes is a google search! : D.

    PS. Age truly does not matter, what matters is the willingness of the mind to search for the information. I'm simply in High School as well. Thanks for the discussion.

    Reply
  • 1

    I agree, religious values are important. I myself could probably lend my values to many different religions as the core ways in which each religion preaches basically boils down to 'be good to yourself and others and you'll get along fine'. if you wish to believe that a 'creator' devised theres moral standards then great, good luck to you. But, as Logos discussed earlier, inflicting these beliefs in the classroom can have detrimental affects on education. Creationists would have us believe the world is a mere 3000 years old. There is evidence concluding this is not the case. Ok, this is a minor example but unfortunatley it goes on - teachers are holding back on teaching fact in case they offend the religion of the pupil.

    Logos, here's a topic for debate (i'm sidelining the fact and theory issue as I think it could get...lengthy!):

    We have 'evolved' as a species to over come illness with the use of medication. However, does this not get in the way of evolutions key tool; survival of the fittest? Medication is the product of an evolved intelligence but have we slowed down physical evolution as a result? Somthing to ponder, I would be interested to hear your views

    Reply
  • 1

    now that's the knid of chat I'm talking about! I like you Logos385, I like you a lot.

    Reply
  • 1

    Reply
  • 1

    Science contradicts itself on many many points, and the bible goes together into one cohesive story, as if written by one person. it was actually written by SEVERAL(40+) authors over a wide variety of backgrounds, in which could no way agree on a single subject unless intervened, but thats a different discussion.
    In science, they have a law called The Law of Biogenesis that states that, in sum, life comes from life. In science, they say that life came from a mixture of inorganic things, meaning non-living things. So, in turn, if life comes from life then how may the first living mucus species on earth come from a cloud of NON-LIVING, INORGANIC materials?

    Reply
  • 1

    Life comes from a cell that merges with other cells and evolves into a living organism. Every single thing, living or not, is composed of cells much like the cloud of non-living, inorganic materials.

    Reply
  • 1

    Why thank you : ). I appreciate that. You aren't so bad yourself.

    Reply
  • 1

    I approve of your post. Lots of very good points.

    Reply
  • 1

    it helps that i am good at science, am open minded, and my mom is a preacher (so i have access to books on theology) but most of it is extrapolation from basic ideas

    Reply
  • 1

    bro, Law of Biogenesis exists, just google it.

    Reply
  • 1

    Excuse me, I mis-typed. I did not mean there was no Law of Biogenesis, I meant there was no Law of Biogenesis in the way you were touting it.

    The origin of this law is in Louis Pasteur, who did away with the notion that maggots spontaneously arose from decaying flesh/meat. His Law of Biogenesis states that life as we see it today does not come from non-living matter. The important part is the "as we see it today." Pasteur's research had nothing to say on what would occur relating to the origin of life, or what would occur on a microscopic scale. A macroscopic, complex life form can not arise from non-living matter. This is what Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis states. Now, I point you again to the rest of my above post. Sorry for the omission of a phrase causing confusion, I apologize.

    Reply
  • 1

    also, that link you posted... pbs says it's not there, can't find the link.

    Reply
  • 1

    “It was not until the mid-1800’s that Louis Pasteur, a French chemist, showed
    conclusively that living things do not come from non-living materials…The work of Redi,
    Spallanzani, Pastuer, and others provided enough evidence finally to disprove the theory of
    spontaneous generation. It was replaced with biogenesis, the theory that living things come
    only from other living things” (pg 11).

    Daniel, Lucy, Ortleb, Ed, Life Science, © 1999, Alton Briggs, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,
    Thompson, Bert Ph.D. (1995, revised edition) The Scientific Case for Creation, Apologetics
    Press, Inc., Montgomery, AL

    Reply
  • 1

    Seeing as your source is from a Creationist textbook, I am not surprised it prevents this skewed view. Even if it was a true McGraw-Hill publication aimed at not just the Creation ideal (I am confused by your citing, so this very well could be the case) this statement is grossly over-simplified, possibly as a way to teach the idea of Louis Pasteur to the younger ages.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html
    This link explains what I am talking about. Louis Pasteur conclusively showed that Spontaneous generation on the macroscopic, complex scale was out of the question, yet said nothing about simple, microscopic life. No matter how many definitions you throw out, the bottom line is that the Law of Biogenesis came out of his experimentation, and his experimentation dealt with macroscopic, modern situations, not microscopic, pre-biotic Earth situations.

    PBS link again: the problem was with the ending period being included.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html

    Please respond to my other points, for whether or not you believe the Law of Biogenesis to hold true in every situation, there is an entire field of science (Abiogenesis) devoted to the origin of life.

    Reply
  • 1

    That's simply untrue, please provide a source. The chances of evolution occurring, as much to our human knowledge, is 1, because it has occurred. We have no way of saying that there is any possibility other than evolution occurring. To make a probability less than one, there must be two observable options. The only observable option is "Evolution has occurred on Earth." "Evolution has not occurred on Earth" has not been observed.

    Also, even if Evolution is actually invalidated (which it has not been), ID would still need to pass the test of a scientific theory. So, what's the evidence/why do you side with it?

    Reply
  • 1

    religion is the doctrine of the church to be specific

    Reply
  • 1

    Now that is truly a valid and reasonable debate on the topic, so I applaud all parties involved. I enjoyed reading the statements in the above posts.

    Reply
  • 1

    What if the human body is imperfectly perfect?

    And the arguments above are not scientific ignorance. We know the facts and interpret them in a different way.

    Reply
  • 1

    creationism isnt based on fact, so therefore there is no evidence

    Reply
  • 1

    Openness to new ideas that are alien to your own does not stunt the growth of mankind's knowledge, but rather increases it. What if Einstein did not propose the idea of General Relativity, where would we be now?

    Reply
  • 1

    I will use God in this but only in place of "intelligent deisgner". Before we look at life on earth, we must look at the solar system. If the Earth was 10 miles closer to the sun, it would be to hot. 10 miles farther away, it would be to cold. How, except very small chance and luck, could we have a very large planet like Jupiter to hold the asteroids, that could bombard our planet, back with gravity. Now on to live on Earth. Cell Theory says that all cells come from other cells. So, where did the first cell come from? This is what my high school chemistry teacher has said -"Where did Humans come from? chimps. Where did chimps come from? some ancient mammal. Where did the anciet mammal come from? some reptile. where did the reptile come from? an amphibian. where did the amphibian come from? fish. where did fish come from? an amoeba. where did the amoeba come from? specks of dust that decided to be cells." The point that i had orginally made came from the same chemistry teacher and he was quoting a popular science magazine, i believe.

    I believe that God created our universe, planet, and such. I believe that he created each creature uniquely an individually(species wise). I believe that he planted the fossil evidence as a test of our faith in Him. Believe what you like but you cannot answer the question "Where did the first cell come from.?" And if you can please enlighten us all.

    Reply
  • 1

    That first statement is fallacious. The "Goldilocks Zone" is between .725 AU and 3.0 AU, roughly. This translates to being in the range of 67.425 million and 279 million miles from the sun. The Earth is a mean distance of 93 million miles from the sun. This means that if the Earth was 25.575 million miles closer to the sun, we would have a problem. Also, if the Earth was 186 million miles farther away from the sun, we would have another fiasco. The Earth varies MUCH more than 10 miles in distance from the sun during its non-spherical orbit. Aside from that, yes, Jupiter is a large gravity suck. But that has nothing to do with design. Also, if collisions are a factor in design, why is the Andromeda galaxy headed straight for our tiny, lonely Milky Way?

    The first cells came through an immensely complicated process called abiogenesis. This is a growing and exciting field of study, which has proven many things.
    1.) Amino acids form spontaneously in many possible pre-biotic Earth environments
    2.) Vacuoles (essentially a cell sack) form spontaneously in temperatures the pre-biotic Earth's ocean(s) would possess
    3.) Nucleotides exist in many more, less complicated forms than DNA and RNA, and are inducted into vacuoles through completely nonbiological processes.

    Although it's difficult to imagine, the process of the beginning of life was most likely not as improbable as one might think. See, on Youtube, Cdk007's fantastic Abiogenesis video.

    Once again, evidence? And really, the fossil record is a test of faith? How about all light we receive from sources greater than 6,000 lightyears away? Is that just for our enjoyment (consequently making our entire universe an elaborate deception)?

    And then again, how about the fact that over 99.54% of our Earth would kill human life rather quickly? And the fact that about 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999927% of our Universe would kill human life just as fast, if not faster? And the fact that we humans, ourselves, have quite imperfect bodies, organs, and immune systems?

    Also the fact that every field of science relating to biology supports evolution?

    You don't necessarily have to answer the questions above, just the objections to your specific post.

    Thanks for the ongoing conversation, it's greatly appreciated.

    Reply
  • 1

    Of course openness to new ideas is extremely beneficial. But creationism is not new, and can never increase our knowledge. The scientific community has been open to creationism, but now it has been falsified over and over and over again, and does not stand up under any scrutiny, let alone close scrutiny. Keeping this falsified hypothesis in an intellectual playing field most certainly does retard intellectual progress.

    We would most likely be set some years back. Which is why every idea gets a chance in science. But once it has failed, it is rejected. As it should be.

    Reply
  • 1

    Many people believe that, thanks to the influence of modern technology and the advancement of medical science, humanity has ceased to evolve. After all, isn’t Darwinism sort of meaningless in our over-protective society? You could go out right this very moment and crash a waverunner into a Taco Bell and, rather than throwing a short but joyous party on top of your mangled, spicy corpse to celebrate the effectiveness of natural selection, the bystanders will probably still call an ambulance to try and save your life. There is literally no point at which society considers you too retarded to save. Of what use is evolution, if the race is strong enough that even the grandest and most spectacular of idiots live long, healthy, reproductive lives?

    Reply
  • 1

    Well, we haven't ceased evolution, just slowed it. The longer our average age and the longer our generations survive, the slower the process of natural selection becomes.

    Also, those who are more in poverty tend to procreate more.

    But as it stands, natural selection does not do much selecting. Nice point : ). Science is fun : P.

    Reply
  • 1

    you cant point to many parts of the bible that arent true, for exampleee, Noah's ark, in the bible it gives the dimensions of it, and its just NOT possible to fit all the animals on a boat of that size, especially since its more than a pair each, according to the bible its something like 7 pairs of clean animals and 1 pair of unclean.

    • cosbert
    • December 2, 2009, 3:01 pm
    Reply
  • 1

    zeitgeistmovie.com

    • Zink
    • December 3, 2009, 9:29 am
    Reply
  • 1

    Zeitgeist can be interesting... but much of it is under-researched or fabricated. Ignore the 9/11 part everyone... please... so deluded.

    Reply
  • 1

    Why can't people believe in evolutionary-creation? I just think that of is too complex to just happen by chance. I think god pushed things along.

    Reply
  • 1

    Well, let's see. Creationism consists of these beliefs, to name a few:
    -The world is less than 10000 years old
    -The world was created in 7 days
    -The first woman who ever lived was created from a man's rib
    -All animals alive today did not decent from common ancestor species, rather they have always looked and behaved as they do now, including humans

    All of which is absolute bullshit and has been proven time and time again as such. The only creationists I've ever met are incredibly weak-minded people who have a nasty habit of ignoring reality, when the reality is:

    -This planet is billions of years old (which we can prove through Uranium dating, or other elements.)
    -Through observation of other species, DNA evidence and fossil evidence (as well as several other methods), we can conclude that not only did animals (this includes humans) evolved from lesser creatures, but continue to do so.

    When it comes right down to it, science is based on fact, while creation on mythology. To even hold them in the same regard or consider them to be equal is an insult, not only to our intelligence, but to the scientific community in general. The scientific theory of evolution is arguably the most well defended, has some of the most evidence supporting it (Also, we find more and more evidence to support it all the time!) as well as being infinitely more interesting than creation. It also shatters the entire Christian belief system. (If there was no Adam and Eve, there's no original sin thus no reason for Jesus to sacrifice himself for our sins.) This is why creationists aren't worth arguing with. They know full well that it destroys their belief system. You'd probably have a more interesting conversation with a brick wall.

    Reply
  • 1

    Evolution here.

    Reply
  • 0

    Science, at least modern science, points nowhere near a creator. How does it?

    And as far as I know, every single claim I have heard of biblical passages explaining theories has been invalid. Any examples for me?

    And either way, the Bible points to a 6,000 year old world and universe. And that is all kinds of stupid.

    Reply
  • 0

    Bobiffer....
    1.) That is not scientifically peer-reviewed literature.

    2.) Carbon dating is accurate to 50,000 years. As the site says, Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium dating, and other dating methods all are used for dating samples older than 50,000 years. This is because their half-lives are longer. The site then makes the bogus claim that these are inaccurate. Without citing a source. Good job random article.

    3.) The Bible is far from a cohesive story, but that isn't a conversation that should be present here. If you wish to continue that, I'd be happy to respond in a new post or in a Private Message on any medium.

    4.) There is no Law of Biogenesis. Please cite the source that gives this term a definition. Inorganic "things," or, "matter," as I think you mean, are most certainly not "non-living" things. Inorganic matter is matter that does not contain the all-important-to-biology element Carbon.

    5.) The pre-biotic sea was far from inorganic, and very conducive to life's formation. As experimental studies have shown, amino acids arise spontaneously from nutrient baths: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html. This has been known since around the 1950's. Also, vacuoles are known to form in high-pressure or heat scenarios. All it takes at that point is the induction of nucleotides into the vacuole, and then classic natural selection may begin.

    6.) Even Dendochronology, the dating of the world using tree rings alone, states that the Earth is over 10,000 years old. You have no scientific leg to stand on.

    Reply
  • 0

    Right. The bible was written by several people, none of them being god. So who really cares what's in it?

    Reply
  • -1

    science actually points to a creator. Science can be used to explain some stuff in the bible or the bible tells of theories that came about like twohundred years ago. just stuff like that.

    Reply
  • -1

    It does matter, because the general belief in Young Earth Creationism retards intellectual progress. As more of our children are prevented from learning the true scientific standards in biology, physics, geology, astronomy, anthropology.... etc etc, the less chance we have of them contributing to society's intellectual progression.

    Less intellectual progression, less societal progression, a worse society... etc. So yes, it does matter.

    Why do you believe in creationism?

    Reply
  • -1

    kradon666 is a complete faggot

    Reply
Related Posts