Creationism vs. Evolution

S

Showtime

Police Officer
The Economist - April 21-27 2007
The "Atlas of Creation" runs to 770 pages and is lavishly illustrated with photographs of fossils and leaving animals, interlaced with quotations from the Koran. Its author claims to prove not only the falsehood of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, but the links between "Darwinism" and such diverse evils as communism, faschism and terrorism.
Click to expand...

This issue of The Economist is an especially good one to check out. Its got columns on pretty much everything, ranging from Corruption in China to Google Click to the Virginia Tech massacre. The first one that caught my eye, however, was the headline God vs Darwin: this time it's global.

I believe that evolution is irrefutable - the proof lays in fossils, our DNA/RNA, and really the world around us, but, as always, this is not the case for everyone. Father Vsevolod Chaplin says that the theory of evolution is "based on pretty strained argumentation" and that physical evidence cited in its support "can never prove that one biological species can evolve into another." Even Pope Benedict XVI, our current Pope, says that it cannot be conclusively proved; and that the manner in which life developed was indicative of a "divine reason" which could not be discerned by scientific method alone.

What are your thoughts on evolution? Do you follow a 100% scientific view on it, or do you think (a) God created it all? Or did (a) God just create the Earth, and left the proteins to assemble themselves?

And a friendly reminder to please refrain from trolling, or anything else that will purposefully offend someone.
 
This subject has confused me for a long time. I am not religious, but I grew up in a religious family and learned all about the Creationism side of the argument. I am more of a scientific thinker though, and know that science proves we evolved from primates. I always wonder where the original idea came from though, that a God created us, how someone got the thought in their head, and how its the same thought all around the world. I always end up at the conclusion that if so many people from different cultures and countries think the same thing and have for so long, there HAS to be SOME truth in it... I honestly don't know what to believe on this subject, because either way you look there's a logical argument...
 
I am not religious, and I do support the Darwin theory all the way. Like said above, its clearly visable in our DNA, the fossils.. all scientific proof is there..Basically, I am a scientist. I have nothing with religion whatsoever. I wouldn't call myself an atheist, but on the other hand.. come to think about it, I think I am. Somewhat of an atheist. Which doesn't make make me support the theory of God creating the Earth.
 
Ok this is gona be interesting I just wana warn every1 now that i DO NOT BELEIVE IN DARWIN I read a book on him and he seemed a little strange to me and I DO NOT BELIEVE HIS THEORY.Just to let every1 know where I stand i KNOW God created the earth and everything in it!I believe very strongly in God and very strongly against evolution.Im sry if i have already offended some pple in this post alone and will do everything possible to NOT offend any1.Now evolution has many flaws,many of which have been provin several years ago.There are many things that I know and that any1 can know if they look for the facts.Im just gona put a quetion out there right now that no1 has ever really questioned, the evolutionest(sp?) theory says that you date the rocks by the fossils,yes? But it also says the the fossils date the rocks.That is circler(sp?) resoning and does not make sence.If the fossils date the rocks and the rocks date the fossils how do you get a date on either the rock or the fossil?And carbandating has been proven wrong a long time ago,so that dont work.Again if I have stepped on any1s toes with this post Im sry but this is how I feel and its a legit question.
 
If you look at everything from a logical point of view, the only thing that makes sense is that God created the earth and everything in it. I'm telling you, once you go through all of the facts, you'll realize that even though Creation does put up a good fight, there is nothing to the theory that God had nothing to do with our creation.
 
i would consider myself agnostic, i dont know if there is any divine entity out there and there is no way to prove/disprove it. however i do not 'believe' in evolution because it is not something to believe in. just like i dont believe in gravity, or photons, or atoms, science doesnt need popular opinion to be true. i used to go to catholic school and i never thought of the bible as anything more than stories, but when i found out about evolution it clicked for me.

there is so much evidence out there, evolution is the best supported theory in science, but it gets lost in all the misconceptions that seem to circulate and not go away. when a creationist came to my university to debate one of our professors anytime he used 'science' to disprove evolution everything he said was completely wrong. it was incredibly frustrating to sit through because our prof was too passive to call him out on his lies.

i think creation/intelligent design creates more problems than it solves. mainly sub-optimality, if all of life was put together on purpose then someone didnt know what they were doing. humans are the best example of what has been dubbed 'incompetent design' which can be explained through evolution but not if some intelligent designer was behind it.

the best resource i have found is talk origins and it is really good at explaining the controversy and clearing up myths and misconceptions.
 
Raging4Ryan said:
Im just gona put a quetion out there right now that no1 has ever really questioned, the evolutionest(sp?) theory says that you date the rocks by the fossils,yes? But it also says the the fossils date the rocks.That is circler(sp?) resoning and does not make sence.If the fossils date the rocks and the rocks date the fossils how do you get a date on either the rock or the fossil?And carbandating has been proven wrong a long time ago,so that dont work.
Click to expand...

That is a question that's been asked before, and it is legit. I hope you don't mind if I try explaining carbon dating.

In short, everything is made up of atoms, which are made up of protons and neutrons and electrons. The number of protons in the nucleus determins what type of properties it has (iron, cobalt, plutonium, etc). And isotope is an atom with an irregular number of neutrons.

Carbon is the atom that makes up almost every living thing on our earth. The isotope Carbon-12 is most commonly found, but for every X number of Carbon-12, there is on Carbon-14, which is a radioisotope (a radioactive isotope). Radioisotopes decay at a set rate, called a half life. One half life is the amount of time it takes for Carbon-14 to decay to half of its original matter (about 5730 years). When it gets to half, it takes another 5730 years to decay to a quarter of its original matter, and it goes on.

They know approximately how much carbon-14 there should be, so by measuring how much carbon-14 there is at the time, they can date it to its age. If they measure the age of the rock to be 1.3 billion years old, but then find the fossil is 2 billion years old, they know they've gone wrong somewhere. However, they usually find the fossil and the rock to be about the same age, therefore having them consolidate the other
 
just to add to that, there are many different atoms they use for radiometric dating. yes, c-14 has a limit to its accuracy but there are other radio active atoms that have half lives over a billion years so they are used to more accurately date older material ;)
 
Is this still a debate??

Well, every time I find people on the internet who are against evolution, they have a hard time grasping just the basic understanding of evolution. I don't think you can equate the two theories, just because there is NO evidence to support creationism, and that theory is based on faith alone. You can't compare the two...and I don't think proving evolution right proves creationism wrong.

Just look at the DNA evidence, with new studies in evolutionary genetics, they are confirming assumptions made with fossils and radiomentric dating. There is no question that evolution happens to some degree, just look at how bacteria is evolving to become resistant to our medicines. There are plenty of science theories out there that have less evidence that has been accepted, but this one conflicts with religion the most.
 
Im just gona put a quetion out there right now that no1 has ever really questioned, the evolutionest(sp?) theory says that you date the rocks by the fossils,yes? But it also says the the fossils date the rocks.That is circler(sp?) resoning and does not make sence.If the fossils date the rocks and the rocks date the fossils how do you get a date on either the rock or the fossil?And carbandating has been proven wrong a long time ago,so that dont work.
Click to expand...
If you want hard facts, why do you believe in God? There are definetely no hard facts about him.

Evolution is happening all around us. There is proof in the way that new species are developed when isolation occurs, etc. You can't ignor the fact that new species are being made all the time. Think about what happens when you breed a tiger with a lion, you get a Liger or a Tigon Granted the males are sterile, and the females are fertile, but you get the picture.
So if this has happened, why can't humans have been brought about like this? Not by magic?

I have heard of religious scientists, who believe that evolution is all God's doing though, and they seem to be able to cope with it both ways. Maybe there isn't a right or wrong answer?

Some people against the theory of Evolution say that there isn't enough proof, which is true, there are gaps in the knowledge, sure some fossils have been found, but what about the millions that are still buried? Maybe if they were ever found (impossible :lol:) then a different theory could be proven, even concluding that God did in fact create the Earth and all it's wonders.

As you can see, I understand both sides of the argument, but I just have more leeway toward the evolution, I like hard facts myself. ;)
 
I'm definately going with Darwin's theory of evolution on this one. There's too much evidence to suggest otherwise. The transition between dinosaur to bird has been found in fossils... our DNA similarities between primates that leads back to our common ancestors. The whole 'survival of the fitest' is very evident... VERY evident! I can't dismiss that and say that absolutely everything was created by a God all at once, it just doesn't work.

Although I'd like to think that some higher being started it all. Like, they created the first atom or something and it all just evolved from there into the world that we know today. But I'm not too keen on any of the stories of creation from any of the world religions. Something had to have started it all off but some of the creation stories are just ridiculous in my opinion, and I mean no offense to any of those who beleive in them. This is merely my two cents on the matter.
 
contrary to popular opinion there is a mountain of evidence in support of evolution. in the past 90 years alone (this is how far back a pub med search went) there are almost 200 000 peer review articles published on evolution. granted some of them are reviews but the majority are going to be primary literature of experiments and research into evolution. my evolution course in the fall was probably my favourite university class, and i had access to lots of information i had not encountered before.

if believing a deity created the universe and set evolution in motion works for you, thats fine. the two dont have to be mutually exclusive. it doesnt really work for me but i keep an open mind. its when people try and shoot down one idea because of their belief in the other that problems happen.
 
oops, theyve done it again! :lol:

the school board of polk county florida has voted to include intelligent design in the science curriculum. when will these people ever learn?? this has happened twice before, in dover and kansas. in both of those cases there was a massive lawsuit, the judge ruled intelligent design is not science, and the members of the school board who voted for it were fired.

the pastafarians have already started a letter writing campaign to express the need for the flying spaghetti monster to be included in any curriculum that includes intelligent design. it will be interesting to see how this one pans out...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top