46 replies to this topic

[Stevphfeniey]

The title is simple enough. What are your opinions on Evolution/Creationism? Do you believe in either, and why? Have at it, kids.

[Hydrogeek]

/me grabs and waits to see the fireworks....

[Stevphfeniey]

The tough questions cannot be avoided, Hydro

[Zmapper]

I think the Christians need to evolve their creationist message to be more popular.

[Mr Tree]

I am an evolutionist, because of the supportable evidence provided for the theory.

[GroundHOG-2010]

From learning a lot about eather sides theory, the creationism theory is a old theory that basicly trys to do the same as the evolution theory, prove where we have come from. Because of the advancement in knowledge since the creation of that theory, its basicly out of date (though only remains to be since a religon has formed around it, and tryed to make it seem true). There is very little evidence that points to it, and alot against it. I therefore do not see it relevent to mention.

Evolution is a much more advanced theory, and is the best thing we have at the moment to fact. But there isn't enough supporting evendence to prove it, therefore remaining a theory. Aventually it will have enough though, and we will be able to call it fact unless something strange happens, in which case a new theory will come out and the cycle will repeat itself.

[Ioh]

Actually even scientists are not absolutely sure about evolution, it is only a theory. A lot of scientists don't even believe the evolution theory.

[Stevphfeniey]

An excellent point, Ioh, but I'd like to point out that things taken as fact are only theories. Like atomic theory, the cell theory of biology or ,my favourite, the theory of gravity. And yet these concepts are taken as fact to the majority of people, so why not the theory of evolution? You see, Ioh, there is a distinct difference between "theory" and "scientific theory" (if you'd like to read more into it, here's a link to the Encyclopedia Brittanica entry on "http://www.britannic...entific-theory"). Now, am I saying that every theory pumped out by science is true (scientists used to believe that everything revolved around the Earth)? Of course not, by design science should be constantly revised, in contrast with religion which more or less refuses to have itself revised in a progressive manner. So it is my firm belief that science should not dabble about in religion and morality, and conversely religion should not dabble about in science.

[crackerjack19]

I am an evolutionist, because of the supportable evidence provided for the theory.

Exactly! And what do Christians have? ...the bible, which is no more plausible than Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings

[egwrhw3rhwrh]

Evolution - Teach this, the scientific community will love this. However, the uber religious people would whine.

Creationism - Teach this, the scientific community will whine. However, the uber religious people would extremely love it.

Definitely Evolution. Despite me being catholic, we should purely teach creationism in church and teach evolution in schools.

[X-Wing @Aliciousness]

I think steve makes an excellent point, and it's one that people often forget. For something to be taken as fact in science, it must be 100% proven. Seeing as even the theory of Gravity isn't even 100% proven, the idea that evolution would have enough proof that it would become scientific fact is ludicrous.

Another thing to remember, is their honestly enough proof to say that Creationism is a more likely theory to explain where we came from? Of course not. the amount of evidence that supports creationism is moot compared to the amount of evidence we have to support Evolution.

[Sheepy]

So... who's meant to have created the creationists (i.e. those who apparently created the earth and universe and stuff) anyway?

[Ioh]

But I suppose if you believe in god, then evidence is worthless when it comes to his acts, you take them for what the bible says.

[Stevphfeniey]

You can only go as fast as the slowest person, that's all I'm going to say about that Ioh.

[QK Flight Industries]

So... who's meant to have created the creationists (i.e. those who apparently created the earth and universe and stuff) anyway?

Every hear of someone named God that's always been?

Personally, I believe that creationism was where the world was started 4000-odd years ago with older material to give it a base (e.g. plants have nutrients in the soil to much on), since it is implausible for the millions upon billions of years to evolve to become us. Too many coincidence for me to think that everything happened by chance. Animals may have adapted (evolved) since then, but that is not how the world started.

[Stevphfeniey]

That's an interesting observation, QK, considering that written records date back roughly 5000 years. And assuming the Earth is 6000 years old, that gives humans about 1000 years to go from protoplasm to building the Tower of Babel. But I digress. On another point, if I were the "intelligent designer" or "creator", I personally would come down in a very public place, and clear up any controversy or disagreement. But again, I digress.

[X-Wing @Aliciousness]

There is clear, scientific evidence showing that there are things on earth significantly older than 5 or 6 thousand years. It seems odd to explain that the earth is only 5 or 6 thousand years old when Human history dates back significantly further than that, and there are objects on earth dating back into the billions of years.

As my mother says, and she is a Greek Orthodox, the bible is not meant to be taken literally. Parts of the bible condone slavery, other parts say that anyone who commits adultery should be stoned. If we took the bible literally, society today would be a vastly different place.

[Stevphfeniey]

Also QK, for every successful species or type of life to inhabit the Earth, there are hundreds upon thousands upon millions of failed life species. The evolution of life is by no means a clean, one after another process. It's trial and error played out over an extremely long time. So the idea that it's taken some 3 billion years for life to reach today's level isn't so implausible. I recall a quote from the Greek philosopher Hippocrates that goes to the tune of "Men think epilepsy devine, merely because they do not understand it. We will one day know what causes it and cease to call it devine. And so it is with everything else in the Universe." We do have a very good idea as to what causes the evolutionary process (natural selection), and yet we have not moved on to different questions. You may believe what you wish, QK, but the evidence for evolution is great, and intelligent creation is an ever receding pocket.

[QK Flight Industries]

That's an interesting observation, QK, considering that written records date back roughly 5000 years. And assuming the Earth is 6000 years old, that gives humans about 1000 years to go from protoplasm to building the Tower of Babel. But I digress. On another point, if I were the "intelligent designer" or "creator", I personally would come down in a very public place, and clear up any controversy or disagreement. But again, I digress.

Who said that man wasn't created by the intelligent designer? Who says that the intelligent designer is just ROFLing as we become more advanced and "sinful"?

There is clear, scientific evidence showing that there are things on earth significantly older than 5 or 6 thousand years. It seems odd to explain that the earth is only 5 or 6 thousand years old when Human history dates back significantly further than that, and there are objects on earth dating back into the billions of years.

As my mother says, and she is a Greek Orthodox, the bible is not meant to be taken literally. Parts of the bible condone slavery, other parts say that anyone who commits adultery should be stoned. If we took the bible literally, society today would be a vastly different place.

Let me clarify how I view the Bible before I proceed with my rebuttal (such an ugly word): the Old Testament is to be used for history and for instruction, the New Testament is the covenant that we need to live by (Hear | Believe | Repent | Confess | Baptism). Human history may date back a bit further, but what exactly are you talking about? Homo sapiens, or the steps in between?

And, for example, follow the nation of Israel. I think it is safe to consider that the world would still turn out the way it is today if the biblical version of creation happened.

Also QK, for every successful species or type of life to inhabit the Earth, there are hundreds upon thousands upon millions of failed life species. The evolution of life is by no means a clean, one after another process. It's trial and error played out over an extremely long time. So the idea that it's taken some 3 billion years for life to reach today's level isn't so implausible. I recall a quote from the Greek philosopher Hippocrates that goes to the tune of "Men think epilepsy devine, merely because they do not understand it. We will one day know what causes it and cease to call it devine. And so it is with everything else in the Universe." We do have a very good idea as to what causes the evolutionary process (natural selection), and yet we have not moved on to different questions. You may believe what you wish, QK, but the evidence for evolution is great, and intelligent creation is an ever receding pocket.

Can I ask you for your explanation as for the gaps in the fossil record? Also, I'm not disputing that there is evidence leading to primitive life before the biblical creation occured, but I do dispute that there were major changes (bacteria became fish, became reptiles, became mammals, became apes, became humans) because of the lifespan of the would make that process impossible (10,000 years). There is no feasible way that there was lovely, life encouraging conditions for millenia before that. Also, there are many scientists that are shunned for their belief in intelligent design (see the documentary Expelled). So, who knows how many stories we are not hearing from some very bright minds in the scientific community?

[Stevphfeniey]

But that's you assuming that the Earth is only 10,000 years old, QK. I agree that such monumental changes cannot happen in 10,000 years (homo sapiens have only existed for some 30,000 years). However there is also solid evidence through radiocarbon dating and the likes, that the Earth is some 4.2 billion years old and our best guess is that life arose some 3 billion years ago, which gives life far more time to develop and evolve when compared to your Young Earth theory. As for the gaps in fossil record, fossils only develop in very specific conditions, so only an infinitesimally small fraction of animals that die get fossilized. Which A. Explains why there are so few fossils, and B. Explains why there are apparent "gaps" in the fossil record. As for there not being "lovely, life encouraging conditions for millennia before that", our best guess that for the first few hundred million years of Earth's existence, it was a hellhole that was very analogous to Venus. After that, conditions became more or less suitable for a variety of life (with some notable outliers like the postulated 'Snowball Earth' of billions of years ago). I must repeat myself, QK, you may believe what you wish, but the realm of intelligent creation is an ever receding pocket, retreating in the light of evidence that contradicts it.