Evolution vs creationism ?

I don't think 'belief' comes into it. The word suggests faith. If you are a fundamentalist Christian your faith might suggest that you should ignore scientific evidence and go with the irrational option.

Evidence - scientifically gathered, painstakingly analysed with no agenda and no thought for the conclusion other than where the evidence leads, tells us that evolution was and is real.


..and what a handsome fellow you are! : )
 

One doesn't 'believe' in science. One examines the evidence and if it is strong enough, one accepts the theory.
The evidence supporting the process known as evolution is overwhelming so I accept this ground breaking theory as valid.
Creationism is a negative reaction to a scientific idea and has as much scientific validity as the phlogiston theory of combustion.
 
I do agree with evolution but that really doesn't answer much, because how did evolution start? How did anything start? I haven't seen any kind of explanation yet.
 
Warrigal said:
One doesn't 'believe' in science. One examines the evidence and if it is strong enough, one accepts the theory.
The evidence supporting the process known as evolution is overwhelming so I accept this ground breaking theory as valid.
Creationism is a negative reaction to a scientific idea and has as much scientific validity as the phlogiston theory of combustion.
Click to expand...
I don't understand your last sentence Warri; could you put it in different words so I can understand?
 
Last edited:
I am a Creationist, and believe in a young earth, one that is thousands of years old, and not millions of years old. I believe that we were created by an intelligence that was infinitely greater than ourselves, and created by design, and not by random evolution.
Obviously, I am also a Christian and believe in God, but even people who do not believe in the Bible are coming to the conclusion that we were created by intelligent design. They simply believe that it was by some kind of space travelers who came here thousands of years ago, and created man to help mine for gold.
If a person has an open mind to look at both sides, there is actually more evidence for creationism than there is for evolution.

 
Olivia said:
I do agree with evolution but that really doesn't answer much, because how did evolution start? How did anything start? I haven't seen any kind of explanation yet.
Click to expand...

An excellent thought.

Evidence that life has evolved over time is overwhelming and is found in the fossil record , comparative anatomy, embryology and genetics. The mechanism of evolution is more controversial. Darwin's theory was pivotal in focusing attention on adaptation to changing environments and competition for resources. Genetics has helped us to understand the role of sexual reproduction and mutations. With each scientific advance, the original theory is being refined. That is how science progresses in any field.

The question Olivia raises is much harder to answer. How did non living matter give rise to living molecules? It must have happened, but how? That is the question that is still wide open.
 
I believe creation initially had taken place, and that the ability of species to evolve(adapting to changing conditions) is a subset of the original coding.
 
Warrigal said:
One doesn't 'believe' in science. One examines the evidence and if it is strong enough, one accepts the theory.
The evidence supporting the process known as evolution is overwhelming so I accept this ground breaking theory as valid.
Creationism is a negative reaction to a scientific idea and has as much scientific validity as the phlogiston theory of combustion.
Click to expand...
The theory of phlogiston and calx was a valid scientific theory in that it offered an explanation and was subject to disproof. It was, in fact, disproved. Creationism offers an explanation, but it is not subject to disproof. Therefore, it has no scientific validity.

The following has nothing to do with the above; I just like dragons. :)

DRW1xSuW4AEOOB-.jpg:large
 
Most of us, especially those of us who live in the United States, remember the volcanic eruption of Mt. St. Helens in May of 1980. The eruption initially caused huge flooding of the Toutle River, and destruction of most of the area around the volcano.
The ash cloud was carried eastward and covered all of Washington State on the eastern side, as well as parts of Idaho and Montana.
After the eruption, the whole geography of the area was dramatically changed, and scientists have now started looking at the similarity between the canyon and layers of rock left around Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon.
Even though we were all taught that it took millions of years for the river to cut through the rock to form the Grand Canyon, it is entirely possible that this is wrong, and it could have happened rapidly, just like happened with the Mt. St. Helens volcanic eruption.
Here is a short video that explains how this happened in 1980-1982, and presenting the similarities with the formation of the Grand Canyon.
However, there many other videos on this subject that go into everything in much greater detail, if someone wants to do more research about this. This short one does give you the basic gist of the idea.

 
Ruthanne said:
I don't understand your last sentence Warri; could you put it in different words so I can understand? Sorry, am dumb today.
Click to expand...

Sorry Ruthanne, I did not notice your question.

There are two parts to my last sentence

"Creationism is a negative reaction to a scientific idea". Prior to Darwin publishing his work "The Origin of Species" biblical creationism was not a popular notion. In the Middle Ages creationism referred to the idea that God created our unique souls; an event that took place at the moment of birth. Darwin's theory was unfairly and incorrectly interpreted as proposing that mankind had evolved from monkeys and this set off a firestorm of religious objection and biblical fundamentalism became the powerful counter movement. You will remember the famous Scopes monkey trial depicted in the movie "Inherit the Wind".

The second part of the sentence refers to a discredited theory about how substances burn.

The phlogiston theory is a superseded scientific theory that postulated that a fire-like element called phlogiston is contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion. ... The theory attempted to explain burning processes such as combustion and rusting, which are now collectively known as oxidation.
Click to expand...

Experiments carried out by the French scientist Lavoisier demonstrated that oxygen is necessary for any substance to burn. After that the phlogiston theory died away. There never was any such element as phlogiston.

There is a similarly discredited theory of evolution proposed by Lamarck which said that characteristics acquired during life are passed to succeeding generations but genetics put that one to bed. You simply cannot produce taller children by having yourself stretched on the rack.

Science is full of discarded theories including a flat earth and the Earth being the centre of the Universe. However, in tiny pockets of the world, there are still some discredited ideas being kept alive.
 
You are right, Fuzzy.

As a person of faith and a former science teacher I have no problem with this question.
A long time ago I came to understand that the most important religious question for me to consider is, "Who is my neighbour?"
The answer to this question informs my everyday life and is much more important than "Is there life on other planets?" or "What caused the Big Bang?" However, all such questions are interesting to us because Homo Sapiens is a very curious species.
 
Evolution!

Who ever heard of Man supplying a Rib to create Woman?

And on Creation: God "spitting out" the Seven Seas?

Are there people of sound mind who actually believe those tales?

I am a Lutheran who stopped going to Church many decades ago, when I began to think rationally.

HOWEVAH, I still believe in a Universal, Superior "intelligence", whether its adherents are Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Islamists, etc.

These are Faiths, and one must have a faith in something. I happen to choose Nature as my God, and I mean the Nature that is governed by Physics, and extends throughout the Universe, not just here on Earth!

HiDesertHal
 
Last edited:
Evolution?

Heh,takes more faith to believe that one.
When the medical profession can settle down to something definite in regard to what’s good for you, and not keep changing/reversing their stance, then I might begin to consider whatever the latest ‘scientific discovery’ tells us.

The premise of things evolving is akin to taking, say, watch parts, putting it all in a bag, shaking the crap outa it, believing that one day, say, a gazillion years, you’ll have yerself a watch..and if you, after a gazillion years, peeked in the bag, and all you saw was watch parts, well, heh, it that’s because it actually takes a bazillion gazillion years…times two.

Now,creationism, if that’s what it’s called today, is contained in the Bible, along with the book of Daniel, of which contains prophecies that are so pin point, so precise, well, one need not have all that much faith to believe.

I think the faith deal comes in accepting His forgiveness for our dastardly selves

Yes, I believe in God

Not man's science

Not religion

God

...and what's left of His creation

zCXLZFN.png
 
HiDesertHal said:
Evolution!

Who ever heard of Man supplying a Rib to create Woman?

And on Creation: God "spitting out" the Seven Seas?

Are there people of sound mind who actually believe those tales?

HiDesertHal, a Lutheran who stopped going to church many decades ago when I began to think rationally.
Click to expand...

Last I knew, the only or maybe one of very few bible stories that may have some basis in reality is the great flood. Apparently many pre-written cultures have a great flood story with many shared features. However, the part about some guy building an ark to save all of the world's species stretches credulity beyond the breaking point.

I vote evolution.
 
The evidence supporting evolution is over-whelming. Take one small example: the modern horse descended from a tiny creature about the size of a small dog. We have the fossilized bones of every stage between "Eohippus" and the modern horse, which we are all so familiar with. There are thousands of such examples.

The mechanics of evolution revolve around an animals abilities, or lack thereof, to survive in it's environment. Any animal that can not locate food and reproduce, goes extinct. Mutations occur quite randomly. Most of those mutations work against its survival. Periodically, however, a randomly occurring mutation helps the creature survive, and reproduce, and gives it an advantage over others of its species. Thus it lives longer and produces more offspring which also have the same mutations as one of its parents.

It should be noted that evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with what the animal wants. Take the giraffe for example. It did NOT gain a long neck because it wanted to. Tens of millions of years ago, one single animal, was born with the genes to have a slightly longer neck. This allowed it to "out compete" with others of its kind, and thus it could reach higher and get more vegetation than others of its kind. Those genes were passed on to its offspring.

Simple common sense tells us that an eagle with better eye sight has a huge advantage in the quest for food. If that eagle happens to be male, he has a greater chance of being selected by the female as a mate. In other words, he is a better provider. Thus the chicks have those better genes and they are fed more food by the parent and they survive.

That is what evolution is all about. Random mutations give an animal a better chance of surviving and producing more offspring.
Quite simple really.
 
My 2 cents; Evolution is the process that I believe God uses to create human beings as well as all creatures. So what if it takes billions of years? It's a big universe, things take time; all according to God's plan, in God's time, not ours.

I wouldn't be surprised if mathematics is the language of God.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top