# Creationism and Evolution



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 9, 2008)

Now I am warning everyone now this topic can get heated. I ask everyone to respect everyone else's opinion here. I'm sure the mods will agree with that. Don't say you are stupid because you believe creationism. Or you are stupid because you believe evolution. It is not needed. If you cannot argue without making personal attacks then leave it at the tips of your fingers and don't type.

This topic came up at our sunday dinner. (Although it is really a late lunch). My family every other Sunday goes up to my grandparents and partakes in a meal together now most the time I stay out of any squabbles because it just makes everyone mad. I'm more of a peaceful person. However my aunt proceeded to tell people they needed to go to this sunday school and listen to this preacher about evolution. Saying that we did not come from a rock. I spoke up and said that is not what all evolutionist believe and she then started getting peived because I spoke up against it. This is where I get mad a people from each religion. When they knowing they are of influence go and only talk about extreme ends of a theory. I never once in my conversation said I believed one way or another. I simply stated it is being twisted in an attempt for people to find falts in it. As are religions. She finally just said whatever i am right and you are wrong. Now I simply said you are entitled to your opinion and as are others to theirs. I did not say does your preacher have scientific proof of god. Earlier she had mentioned he backed it up by scientific proof. I did not say it but I should have said did you witness this proof. I was not arguing for evolution which is what she though I was doing. Just because I was not in that preachers line of view I was wrong. I dismissed it because once people get a conviction like this in there head they often don't listen. 

However my personal belief and opinion is both creationism and evolution have something to offer. I for one am not at one end or the other. I am someone that has a different style of "religion". It is actually hard to explain but that is not my point here. Why is it that people cannot be open to both. Why does it always have to be one or the other. To me we not see any of it proven past a theory. We will never have "proof" of any one of these issues. Why get so upset about either. Am I automatically wrong by arguing. I argue against both points, because I do that some would say I'm misguided and you have to believe one or the other. I say I don't have to believe anything. 

Here is a link I have found. I could not find any that argued both sides. So this one is kind of calm compared to the extremists on both sides. Oh and I have found a lot of things about Darwin treating Africans as not "human" but these people never mention how Christians once treated certian groups of people. As for what should be taught in schools. I say either both or neither. 

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/04/pope_benedict_b.html


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 9, 2008)

Actually it was hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional creatures searching for the Question corresponding to the Ultimate Answer of Life, the Universe and Everything that are responsible for the whole mess 

Sorry, couldn't resist, I will go now


----------



## Brother John (Nov 9, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Actually it was hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional creatures searching for the Question corresponding to the Ultimate Answer of Life, the Universe and Everything that are responsible for the whole mess
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist, I will go now



yet we think that digital watches are a pretty neat idea!!!

....where's your towel?

Your Brother
Zaphod...
...er...
John


----------



## MBuzzy (Nov 9, 2008)

42

But seriously - my biggest question is how the fossil record is justified.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 9, 2008)

Brother John said:


> yet we think that digital watches are a pretty neat idea!!!
> 
> ....where's your towel?
> 
> ...


 
:lfao:

You mean the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have

Well I keep mine in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard

Don't Panic


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 9, 2008)

I believe in both... yes, both... the things that were created were also created to evolve as time goes on.


----------



## girlbug2 (Nov 9, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> I believe in both... yes, both... the things that were created were also created to evolve as time goes on.


 
That is a very eloquent way of putting it! "Created to evolve".

I think something similar but never thought to phrase it that way.

The way I see it, the biblical account of creationism is true, but I doubt that God used magical flourishes to set everything into being. As in, "poof! There's the Earth. Poof! Here's the vegetation." Etc.  More likely evolotion was the mechanism by which He created many species of life (but not all).Somehow I don't see God as being all that Poof-y.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 9, 2008)

> Somehow I don't see God as being all that Poof-y.



That is one of the best statements I've ever read.....lol.


----------



## kailat (Nov 9, 2008)

I would like to add my own theory and thats all it is, nothing else nothing more..    It could be as crazy as any other belief out there. After all nothing is "PROVEN" in any religous belief.. All are just theories.

 GOD: a being so omnipotent that we as humans do not have the right to even see or know him/her/it...  He is the alpha and omega the beginning and the end!

 could it be that GOD himself is that of alien life form?  There have been however proven or at least "eye witnessess" of Alien's and UFO's.  Although the govt has deemed all who claim this as "CRAZY" but why?  aren't there unearthed scientific proofs that at some point in our civilization in the egyptian, mayan, incan, european, ancestories have some sort of outer space or life beyond earth?

 The bible was supposedly written by many a man.  There was the OLDTEST that was written BC (before christ) with tons of weird stories that are hard to belive.  but who's to say during that time GOD used these times as testing phase.  God used aliens or some form of life being just another term for ALIEN or Intelligent life form (ILF).   

 So in order for us to  evolve man destroyed itself because GOD was new at this developmnt thing.   There are many books of the bible that are missing and or never made in print today.   http://www.thetruthaboutdavinci.com/missing-books-of-the-bible.html

Could GOD be a larger entity of a more intelligent life form just using us as an experiment?  As the bible was printed because man had to have printed the bible to hand out to the masses..  Anytime MAN is in charge of anything over time its bound to be mischeif or some form of hidden agenda thru many secrets societies etc..

 There is a spirit world that we cannot explain and we have to wnder why these so called spirits run thru the unknown!  Is there a hidden answer to all this?  Is religion really just something passed down from a higher being to see how we as a more intelligent species after the birth and death of Christ (AD) to see how we as a species develope over a long period of time.  As we go into the 21st century we are so strong we communicate and nothing is beyond us as a WHOLE now... not just a race, or people but as a WORLD!! this is a smaller picture in a larger frame!!  Something will break soon and I have a feeling life is more meaningless than we make it out to be.. 

 If there is really a heaven and hell there needs to be more proof of it.. Im not so convinced that either exist.. But i am convinced that there is a "GOD" just not sure what exactly his positon is and what he expects of us.

 Christianity was supposed to be a way of LAW of a more civilized group of people.  What better way for a civilization to succeed and not follow the path of those of the old testament!!  start a new civilization, give forth a set of rules and a belief system that people can trust and believe in and this way they can grow as a civilization and see if they can do more good than bad.. sure that all follows the premis of the BIBLE but there is something missing..  Something just seems to be missing in the whole picture..  EVOLUTION?  NO I DON"T THINK SO..  CREATION!  to some degree but there's more.. we are not given all the answers.  Someone somewhere knows the truth but its not being put in our hands..  WHY??


----------



## Ray (Nov 9, 2008)

BlueDragon1981 said:


> However my personal belief and opinion is both creationism and evolution have something to offer.
> ...
> As for what should be taught in schools. I say either both or neither.


Science should surely be taught in schools.  Evolution has been shown to have a scientific basis that is undenyable.

Creationism is horribly bad science.  I'm not even sure creationsim is scriptual.   There are those who surround the scriptures with ungodly amounts of speculation which, in turn, become accepted as by some as fundamental beliefs.  Why people try to read more into the scriptures than is there, I don't know.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 9, 2008)

Creationism is a purely Judeo-Christian take on the creation of the universe.  It isn't science.  It isn't just bad science, _it isn't science at all._

Should it be taught in public schools?  Not in science class, certainly.  

The problem with creationism is that it doesn't merely dispute evolution...it disputes all of biology, astrophysics, geology, geophysics, chemistry, meteorology, astronomy, anthropology, archaeology.  Did I miss any?  

The issue of whether it should be taught in schools or not has been settled, legally, as being unconstitutional.  Most recently, in 2005, Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruled that the latest permutation of creationism, "Intelligent Design," is a violation of precedent establishing that creationism is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

I personally think that teaching about creationism in a social studies class is acceptable, as it is a part of the current American "culture wars."  In a comparative religion class I could see it studied as well, alongside the Hindu creation myth stating that in the beginning the universe was a vast sea, with a curled cobra floating in it and cradling the sleeping Lord Vishnu.  We could teach the Islamic creation story of man, which has us fashioned out of a clot of blood.  

How many here would approve of teaching these two perspectives in science class?

If we teach alternatives to evolution in science class, we need to teach them all, correct?  Or do we bias ourselves to an uninformed majority opinion, what we were taught by our social group, or that which pleases us?  

Shall we also teach alchemy?  Astrology?  Divination?  Water dousing?  The concept of telekinesis?  Shouldn't be have students try and experiment with perpetual motion machines in order to get "free energy?"   

Regarding those, shouldn't we "teach the controversy?"

No.  Because they aren't science.  



Regards,


Steve


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 9, 2008)

Science should be taught at school, it's where I got my love for it at least. Science teaches things other than how things are made but also teaches how things work and why. 
But creationism should be taught at Sunday school and the _difference between the two_ should be taught at *home*. 

If done right a child grows up with enough *information* to make an intelligent decision _on their own _as to what they believe or not believe.


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 10, 2008)

Keep the creation myths out of sience class. It has even less to do there than teaching that the earth is flat.


----------



## Brian S (Nov 10, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Science should be taught at school, it's where I got my love for it at least. Science teaches things other than how things are made but also teaches how things work and why.
> But creationism should be taught at Sunday school and the _difference between the two_ should be taught at *home*.
> 
> If done right a child grows up with enough *information* to make an intelligent decision _on their own _as to what they believe or not believe.


 

 Yep! Couldn't agree more! Home is where the values and morals should be taught more than anywhere else.


----------



## bostonbomber (Nov 10, 2008)

I fully concur with many in this forum that creationism should be kept out the science class.  This is not a judgment about creationism: anything that can not be scrutinized by the scientific method should be kept out of the science class.  This is not limited to the origin of life.


----------



## MBuzzy (Nov 10, 2008)

I don't understand why it is that one story that is so important to some people to be taught in schools.  Why aren't we teaching that there was a massive flood that eradicated mankind?  Or why not that you can survive in the belly of a whale unharmed for weeks at a time?  Or how about that people should just go walking into Lion Dens?  Or killing giants with sling shots?  

The creation story is only one allegory in the old testament and yet so much of our population focuses on that one as being important as being taught.  I don't understand why they aren't clamoring for the others to be taught.  Personally, I see it as much more ridiculous when put in that context.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 10, 2008)

hardheadjarhead said:


> Creationism is a purely Judeo-Christian take on the creation of the universe.



It's also mostly an American thing. In Europe they accept evolution, for the most part.



> It isn't science.  It isn't just bad science, _it isn't science at all._



That's worth repeating. Creationism and science are totally separate and IMO mutually exclusive ways of viewing the world. Many people do try to weld them together, of course.



> The problem with creationism is that it doesn't merely dispute evolution...it disputes all of biology, astrophysics, geology, geophysics, chemistry, meteorology, astronomy, anthropology, archaeology.



Yup. It also asks things of evolution--it's more anti-theory than theory, after all--that no one asks of other theories. Ask a creationist why things fall when you drop them. How does that dropped rock know where the center of the earth is? The gravitational (and electromagnetic) field is a convenient mathematical fiction that lets one maintain the illusion of conservation of momentum. What is spacetime that it may be warped? (Don't start asking what mass is--that leads to the new collider in Europe which is trying to answer that question.) Gravity is poorly understood theoretically, yet people fly in planes.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 10, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> I don't understand why it is that one story that is so important to some people to be taught in schools.  Why aren't we teaching that there was a massive flood that eradicated mankind?  Or why not that you can survive in the belly of a whale unharmed for weeks at a time?  Or how about that people should just go walking into Lion Dens?  Or killing giants with sling shots?
> 
> The creation story is only one allegory in the old testament and yet so much of our population focuses on that one as being important as being taught.  I don't understand why they aren't clamoring for the others to be taught.  Personally, I see it as much more ridiculous when put in that context.



It all boils down to faith. Again and again things in the Bible are items to question your faith, your belief that these things you read are true. We who choose to believe are tested all the time on the level of faith we have. It's not only just believing but what we do/say that helps define the level of faith we have, hence the phrase "faith without works is dead..." 
Yet our greatest gift is our ability to choose (free will) to believe or not believe, as well as our choice on how/what we believe. 
It is wrong, to say that a person who chooses to believe is right/wrong just as it is wrong to say a person who choose NOT to believe is right/wrong. It's an individualized and personal thing. 

People get shaky when their beliefs are challenged, hence the arguments, fights, name-calling and animosity towards the other(s). This is on both sides of the fence. 

Science has proven* a lot* of things and it's idiotic to disbelieve it because it's on fact. However; science has failed repeatedly to DISPROVE the existence of a creator/God and it probably will never be able to because it's on faith. 

Maybe it sounds like I take the easy way out by saying (earlier) that I believe in both creation and evolution... but... that's my choice... my right... my free will to do so. 

:asian:


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 10, 2008)

I believe in both, and I'm sorry Arni/HHJH... I don't think that if you believe a supreme being created the universe you can't believe in things like gravity... that the silliest thing I ever heard.

But I'm going to oversimplify a couple basic theory's AGAIN:

You have nothing.  For whatever reason, nothing SUDDENLY EXPLODES and turns into stuff! Then, while stuff is spinning and cooling a precise lightning strike happens to hit just the right combination of goo, which suddenly forms a protein string (just going off of what is theoretically possible in a lab, so bear with me) which later mutates into a life form, which, subject to random mutation over the course of billions of years defy everything we we are taught about things like, survival of the fittest, and not only mutates into BILLIONS of other forms of life, but super-complex lifeforms that are not as fit to survive and/or thrive... going so far as to require  multiple sexes to have evolved at the same time in the same place for an extremely large number of those lifeforms to thrive.  Yet despite all that here we are.

Or

We have a divine being, or an Alien Inteligence, or somthing, that placed everything like legos or Sim City.

*Shrug*

Now, Thats not to say I don't beleive things evolve, we have evidence of evolution:  But on the science end, What we lack, is solid proof that a fish can become a chimpanzee, or that empty space, devoid of air and matter can explode and create matter. Theorys, to be sure, but lacking strong evidence to support them.  Even when you see things like Tiktaalik fossils, the science people are very quick to go "oooh, look this is a fish with legs, it's clearly an intermediate in the fossil record proof of evolution" while ignoring the simple possibility:  it was a fish with legs.  Always was. (Actually one article I read on the subject of the find suggested the skeleton was more crocodile like, so perhaps it IS proof of evolution, amongst crocodiles)

I especially love this quote: 



> "We designed an expedition to find a transitional fossil and, bingo, we found it."



So, they went in with the idea they would find some, so of course, they found something new and its their transitional fossil.  Doesn't seem very objective to me.  

In fact, How do we know it wasn't a transitional state between the larval, and adult states similar to a Mexican salamander? (the kind that spend almost all of their lives in that state) It would explain the legs, gills and lungs, without being a "missing link".  But no.  It MUST be the missing link.  
​


----------



## MBuzzy (Nov 10, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> It all boils down to faith. Again and again things in the Bible are items to question your faith, your belief that these things you read are true. We who choose to believe are tested all the time on the level of faith we have. It's not only just believing but what we do/say that helps define the level of faith we have, hence the phrase "faith without works is dead..."
> Yet our greatest gift is our ability to choose (free will) to believe or not believe, as well as our choice on how/what we believe.
> It is wrong, to say that a person who chooses to believe is right/wrong just as it is wrong to say a person who choose NOT to believe is right/wrong. It's an individualized and personal thing.
> 
> ...



I agree with every word that you said!  I suppose this is something that I even struggled with when I was religious.  I could never accept that all of the stories were based on fact.  I believe them as allegories of how to behave and stories with morals - and of course, a part of just being written by a culture and time period when people did not have other explanations for things and depended on religion to explain the things they did not understand.  I do see many of them as a test of faith though.

What anyone believe and has faith in is a completely internal thing and between them and god.  But these things do not have a place in modern science courses.  Science is not based on faith, it is based on fact and provable, testable ideas.  

Now - I DO strongly believe that kids should be taught about opposing theories.  I see nothing wrong with a survey of religions class or a class in which multiple theories are covered.  But in a science class, creationism simply does not belong.


----------



## bostonbomber (Nov 10, 2008)

Evolution theory simply describes the origin of different species and how species change with time, it says nothing about the origin of life itself.  Most scientist accept the big bang theory and this theory describes quite well current observables in the Universe.  Big bang theory however does not explain why the event happened in the first place.

I don't have a problem with people letting their faith fill that gaps that science can not, at this time, explain, whether it is the origin of life, what happens after we die, or whatever.  The problem occurs when blind faith impedes the progress of science.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Nov 10, 2008)

This is usually a subject I try to leave alone....

I think everyone should have their own theory on creationism and evolution.  I think that studies should definitely be done to better help understand evolution, as it is a scientifically sound occurance.

I don't believe in creationism, per se, as it is defined.  I do, however, think *something* had to create the basis of things to evolve from.  I don't think we were "poofed" here, but everything had to begin somehow.

That's the best basic way I know how to put into logical terms how I see things.  It's actually something I have a hard time talking about sometimes, as I have struggled with my beliefs in the past.

I think it's all a very personal thing...it's up to each individual to discover what you believe, and that's not something that can be taught in school.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 10, 2008)

Thanks to all of you by the way for keeping this to a calm arguements. I appreciate it and hate personal attacks for ones beliefs.



> This is usually a subject I try to leave alone....
> 
> I think everyone should have their own theory on creationism and evolution. I think that studies should definitely be done to better help understand evolution, as it is a scientifically sound occurance.
> 
> ...



This pretty much sums up what I say also. I am also for teaching opposing theories. Simply because there is to much I am right you are wrong attitudes. Its like we can't even teach acceptance of differences, which of course is another thread.



> I don't have a problem with people letting their faith fill that gaps that science can not, at this time, explain, whether it is the origin of life, what happens after we die, or whatever. The problem occurs when blind faith impedes the progress of science.



I also agree with this statement.



> I don't understand why it is that one story that is so important to some people to be taught in schools. Why aren't we teaching that there was a massive flood that eradicated mankind? Or why not that you can survive in the belly of a whale unharmed for weeks at a time? Or how about that people should just go walking into Lion Dens? Or killing giants with sling shots?
> 
> The creation story is only one allegory in the old testament and yet so much of our population focuses on that one as being important as being taught. I don't understand why they aren't clamoring for the others to be taught. Personally, I see it as much more ridiculous when put in that context.



As for the stories in the bible. Even some priests will atest they are similiar to fables. Embelished stories upon facts. They don't actually believe some to be true in the actual context they are written. Its based on faith great things happen because of God, etc. Then again some do. The bible can be translated so many ways. We all read it and percieve it in different ways. Which is why there are "leaders" to put you on a path in which they believe it to be true. It gets very complicated.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 10, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> However; science has failed repeatedly to DISPROVE the existence of a creator/God and it probably will never be able to because it's on faith.



Science doesn't really disprove things; it advances support for certain theories that seem successful in explaining the world. Disproving things is logically challenging, and religion has largely removed itself from the game by claiming that God's omnipotence could keep science from being able to operate. If you believe that, falsifiability applies and science has left the building on this matter!



Cryozombie said:


> I believe in both, and I'm sorry Arni/HHJH... I don't think that if you believe a supreme being created the universe you can't believe in things like gravity... that the silliest thing I ever heard.​




In point of fact I didn't say anything like that, so I'm not sure where you heard it.



> You have nothing.  For whatever reason, nothing SUDDENLY



...produces an omiscient, ominpotent, immortal entity.



> or that empty space, devoid of air and matter can explode and create matter.



Eh, you might be surprised how well-attested (on the small scale) this is by experiments in quantum physics showing that mass or energy or mass-energy is conserved only on average, even in an apparently closed system. Hawking radiation is a well-known effect of this.



> So, they went in with the idea they would find some, so of course, they found something new and its their transitional fossil. Doesn't seem very objective to me.



What's the alternative to _designing_ experiments?
​


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 10, 2008)

arnisador said:


> In point of fact I didn't say anything like that, so I'm not sure where you heard it.



Sorry, confused what HHJH was saying and a statement you made... my bad.



arnisador said:


> What's the alternative to _designing_ experiments?
> 
> [/left]



Well, IMO,

"We want to see if"  and "We will absolutely find" are two different mindsets.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 10, 2008)

arnisador said:


> > Originally Posted by *MA-Caver*
> >
> >
> > _However; science has failed repeatedly to DISPROVE the existence of a creator/God and it probably will never be able to because it's on faith._
> ...


Yes, right. Disproving is not the best choice of words... but there are scientist who are working to try and prove God does not exist that everything is of random chance and nature's order and bla bla bla... They want to do away the idea of a Deity altogether, that there is no heaven, or hell waiting for us when we die because if there is then it says there's a God and a Devil at either end of the arc. Ergo no heaven or hell, no creation. Because it takes power away from God and puts it into the hands of Man. Vain, egotistical, narcassitic, maniacial Man. It's awful to feel powerless doesn't it?  




			
				MBuzzy said:
			
		

> Now - I DO strongly believe that kids should be taught about opposing theories. I see nothing wrong with a survey of religions class or a class in which multiple theories are covered. But in a science class, creationism simply does not belong.


 Absolutely, I agree here. Because if you bring creationism into a science class you'd have to explain _how_ it works. How confusing is that... especially when you cannot explain the power that God has.... if you believe in that. 

Like many others I too went on a "this is too much, too illogical, too confusing" kick and stopped believing. But I wanted questions answered. I still wanted to KNOW. So, I picked up believing again and guess what? Over the years I began to understand better the questions I was asking because I simplified the belief system. So now my head doesn't hurt as much.  

I liked what was said of how "religion is used to fill in the gaps that science hasn't explained..." makes things easier I guess for some people. It does for me anyway. 

I too also appreciate how this thread hasn't (yet) degenerated into a crap throwing contest. 
:asian:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 10, 2008)

I once had a college professor that said the whole evolution of man to him makes about sense as a tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747.... Not that it can't happen...it is just highly improbable

And I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with that, just throwing it out there


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 10, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> I once had a college professor that said the whole evolution of man to him makes about sense as a tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747.... Not that it can't happen...it is just highly improbable
> 
> And I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with that, just throwing it out there


I love it... absolutely love it.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 10, 2008)

My problem is ultimately both are speculaiton. So why get upset as to who believes what.

With evolution the earth evolved over millions of years. We can speculate as to how but do we with 100% accuracy know how. The same goes for GOD. We can speculate there is a god or gods but do we with 100% accuracy know that. No. I guess I just have a problem teaching either as 100% accurate, as some scientists and/or preist like to make it out to be.


----------



## Ray (Nov 10, 2008)

arnisador said:


> That's worth repeating. Creationism and science are totally separate and IMO mutually exclusive ways of viewing the world. Many people do try to weld them together, of course.


When people speak of "creationism" I think of the scientific spin that some try to put on the creation story of the old testament.  Not the creation account itself, but the way it is being couched in scientific jargon with heaps of bs.

Not that you can't believe in a creator and an evolving creation.  Kinda like MartialTalk.com - it seems to evolve even though it had a creator.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Nov 10, 2008)

Ray said:


> When people speak of "creationism" I think of the scientific spin that some try to put on the creation story of the old testament. Not the creation account itself, but the way it is being couched in scientific jargon with heaps of bs.
> 
> *Not that you can't believe in a creator and an evolving creation. Kinda like MartialTalk.com - it seems to evolve even though it had a creator*.


 
That's pretty much how I see it...and that's a great way of putting it.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 10, 2008)

BlueDragon1981 said:


> My problem is ultimately both are speculaiton. So why get upset as to who believes what.
> 
> With evolution the earth evolved over millions of years. We can speculate as to how but do we with 100% accuracy know how. The same goes for GOD. We can speculate there is a god or gods but do we with 100% accuracy know that. No. I guess I just have a problem teaching either as 100% accurate, as some scientists and/or preist like to make it out to be.


Things of science can eventually be proven to be true/false... things of faith have to be based on faith. 
There are people I've met who are 100% absolute in their belief that the things said in the Bible are factual events. Who am I to say they're wrong? It's what they believe. 

An old quotation says... "he that is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 10, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> But on the science end, What we lack, is solid proof that a fish can become a chimpanzee...


 
Sure.  It's a good thing then that evolution does not predict fish becoming chimpanzees.  They both had a common ancestor.  The difference is crucial to understanding evolution.



Cryozombie said:


> or that empty space, devoid of air and matter can explode and create matter.


 Virtual particles.  See also, Hawking Radiation.


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 10, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> I once had a college professor that said the whole evolution of man to him makes about sense as a tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747.... Not that it can't happen...it is just highly improbable
> 
> And I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with that, just throwing it out there


 
It's a highly flawed analogy.  A better one would be if the tornado kept on for 3 billion years, and once each piece of the 747 hit the right spot, it tended to stay there.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 10, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> It's a highly flawed analogy. A better one would be if the tornado kept on for 3 billion years, and once each piece of the 747 hit the right spot, it tended to stay there.


 
Oh come on, give the guy a break... it was a philosophy of religion class after all


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 10, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Sure.  It's a good thing then that evolution does not predict fish becoming chimpanzees.  They both had a common ancestor.  The difference is crucial to understanding evolution.



Go back father... that a simple protein chain /chains  eventually become EVERYTHING.

Or did I misunderstand and you are saying there have always been fish and chimps?


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 10, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Oh come on, give the guy a break... it was a philosophy of religion class after all


 
Hey, I took a philosophy class, that guy can take a science class!


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 10, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Go back father... that a simple protein chain /chains eventually become EVERYTHING.


 
Sure.  Everything that makes us us is DNA, and all DNA codes for are simple protein chains.  Experiments with bacteria and the minimal genome has shown us that it really doesn't take a whole lot to make life.  We humans, the pinnacle of the Earth as it were, only have the codes for about 30,000 proteins (genes).  

Other simple experiments have shown how powerful evolutionary algorithims are in creating complexity from simple beginnings.  When you have oceans of material to work with and 3 billion years to do it with, you can create quite a lot.  It's different from making all that in one go, since the beneficial changes tend to stick around (natural selection).  Besides, the hard part really is making that first cell, which is still fairly simple.  That took billions of years.  During the Cambrian Explosion, we went from simple bacteria to complex multicellular life in only a few hundred million.



Cryozombie said:


> Or did I misunderstand and you are saying there have always been fish and chimps?


 
*groan* You're lucky you're not sitting here, I would be throwing things.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Nov 10, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Go back father... that a simple protein chain /chains eventually become EVERYTHING.
> 
> *Or did I misunderstand and you are saying there have always been fish and chimps?*


 
That, sir, was terrible, and I'm very disappoi....

bah, ok, I'll give you that one.  But that was still bad.

And you know it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 10, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Go back father... that a simple protein chain /chains eventually become EVERYTHING.
> 
> Or did I misunderstand and you are saying there have always been fish and chimps?


 
Now isn't that cute....BUT ITS WRONG!!!!! :uhyeah:



Empty Hands said:


> *groan* You're lucky you're not sitting here, I would be throwing things.


 
I'd help


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 10, 2008)

arnisador said:


> *It's also mostly an American thing. In Europe they accept evolution, for the most part.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

This is correct and it's puzzling as to why America is so bound up in this argument. Evolution is taught in science in schools, I imagine theres a fair amount of people who believe in creationism but it's not a topic of debate over here as people just accept that others may have views that they disagree with. To be honest if you want to believe the world is flat that's fine. No one side is shouting very loudly about evolution/creationism....not when bank interest rates, taxes, unemployment and other really important things are all on people minds here.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 10, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> This is correct and it's puzzling as to why America is so bound up in this argument. .


 
Because Americans are _crazy_.

Really.We are. Quite mad.

When I first moved to Los Alamos back in '94, this very argument was taking place very publicly in the local paper (the Los Alamos Monitor, but you can see some of the letters archived here ) the school board and at the Lab itself-all marshalled by a few _Los Alamos scientists_ who should understand, at least, that "creationism" doesn't qualify as a theory.....

Quite mad, I tell you...:lfao:


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 10, 2008)

I would agree with elder999 we are kind of crazy at times. Don't get me wrong I love living in America but sometimes... we simply make to many mountains out of mole hills.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Nov 10, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> This is correct and it's puzzling as to why America is so bound up in this argument. Evolution is taught in science in schools, I imagine theres a fair amount of people who believe in creationism but it's not a topic of debate over here as people just accept that others may have views that they disagree with. To be honest if you want to believe the world is flat that's fine. No one side is shouting very loudly about evolution/creationism....not when bank interest rates, taxes, unemployment and other really important things are all on people minds here.


 
That's a valid argument, and I can only answer this as it applies to myself, being from the U.S.:

I feel that evolution should be taught in the school system.  It is a proven fact that things evolve...and I think it is worth knowing exactly *what* has evolved and *how* it evolved.

However, I do not agree with this being taught as an argument against religion.  I don't think the religious views should be brought up in a school environment, as there are many different ethnic backgrounds to consider, and besides, religion is based on *faith*, not *fact*.

I, myself, am a Christian, but not by the textbook definitation of the word.  I feel like I have my own way of believing in God, and that works for me.  I believe that everyone should have the same opportunity to choose what they believe.

But, what people believe ends up being such a touchy subject since everyone figures that their way of believing is the right way.  I think that it's very much like the martial arts:  there is no one-size-fits-all way of believing...it's all individualized.  

Science only goes so far as to what it proves.  It's up to each person as to whether they choose to fill the gaps that science has with religion as previously mentioned, or to only believe what can be proven through science.  Neither way is wrong.  Nor is either way right.  

It's all individual.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 10, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> This is correct and it's puzzling as to why America is so bound up in this argument. Evolution is taught in science in schools, I imagine theres a fair amount of people who believe in creationism but it's not a topic of debate over here as people just accept that others may have views that they disagree with. To be honest if you want to believe the world is flat that's fine. No one side is shouting very loudly about evolution/creationism....not when bank interest rates, taxes, unemployment and other really important things are all on people minds here.


 
First elder999 is correct...we're crazy...mad as hatters I tell you :headbangin: :tantrum: :lfao: :boing2::boing1: :erg: :anic: :eye-popping: 

Second, I beleive I read somewhere that of the developed nations of the world that America is by far teh most Puritanicle in it beliefs. Which I guess we owe to the Pilgrams... so you see...it is Englands fault after all :duh: 

Now if you&#8217;ll excuse me I'm Late! I'm Late, for a very important date ...no time to say hello...goodbye. ..I'm late, I'm late I'm late!


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 10, 2008)

BlueDragon1981 said:


> Now I am warning everyone now this topic can get heated. I ask everyone to respect everyone else's opinion here. I'm sure the mods will agree with that. Don't say you are stupid because you believe creationism. Or you are stupid because you believe evolution. It is not needed. If you cannot argue without making personal attacks then leave it at the tips of your fingers and don't type.
> 
> This topic came up at our sunday dinner. (Although it is really a late lunch). My family every other Sunday goes up to my grandparents and partakes in a meal together now most the time I stay out of any squabbles because it just makes everyone mad. I'm more of a peaceful person. However my aunt proceeded to tell people they needed to go to this sunday school and listen to this preacher about evolution. Saying that we did not come from a rock. I spoke up and said that is not what all evolutionist believe and she then started getting peived because I spoke up against it. This is where I get mad a people from each religion. When they knowing they are of influence go and only talk about extreme ends of a theory. I never once in my conversation said I believed one way or another. I simply stated it is being twisted in an attempt for people to find falts in it. As are religions. She finally just said whatever i am right and you are wrong. Now I simply said you are entitled to your opinion and as are others to theirs. I did not say does your preacher have scientific proof of god. Earlier she had mentioned he backed it up by scientific proof. I did not say it but I should have said did you witness this proof. I was not arguing for evolution which is what she though I was doing. Just because I was not in that preachers line of view I was wrong. I dismissed it because once people get a conviction like this in there head they often don't listen.
> 
> ...



we don't know the nuances, so neither side knows, so spare us the intelligent design ********. Its a way to shove creationism.


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 10, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> I believe in both... yes, both... the things that were created were also created to evolve as time goes on.



like many other things the answer is somewhere in the middle


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 10, 2008)

Ray said:


> Science should surely be taught in schools.  Evolution has been shown to have a scientific basis that is undenyable.
> 
> Creationism is horribly bad science.  I'm not even sure creationsim is scriptual.   There are those who surround the scriptures with ungodly amounts of speculation which, in turn, become accepted as by some as fundamental beliefs.  Why people try to read more into the scriptures than is there, I don't know.



I was once told by a creationist that man killed off the dinsosaurs, no basis of prove from evolution or creationist standpoints. They make it up.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 10, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> During the Cambrian Explosion, we went from simple bacteria to complex multicellular life in only a few hundred million.



Science Fact or Science theory?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Science Fact or Science theory?



It's what the fossils show.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 10, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Disproving is not the best choice of words... but there are scientist who are working to try and prove God does not exist



I think most scientists who are discussing ideas like this are functioning more as philosophers than scientists--someone like Richard Dawkins is discussing philosophy of science and religion, not forming a scientific theory of theism nor experimentally investigating it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 11, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Science Fact or Science theory?


 
A fact.  It's what the evidence shows.

BTW, "theory" is not synonymous with "wild-*** guess" like you seem to be using it here (creationists do as well).  Any scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation for facts in evidence.  It isn't just a random guess with no evidence.


----------



## Keith Kirkendall (Nov 12, 2008)

I will be a rebel and go with the creation idea. I believe this by faith...it is a faith issue. For me, knowing that I am created in God's image and likeness gives me confidence and assurance. I do not claim to have the answer as to how we were (what process) created...I do not know of any man that has the definitive answer for the "how". This may be something that needs to be kept an unsolved mystery for us.


----------



## Ramirez (Nov 21, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> I once had a college professor that said the whole evolution of man to him makes about sense as a tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747.... Not that it can't happen...it is just highly improbable
> 
> And I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with that, just throwing it out there



  I wonder what meteorology and aerospace engineering has to do with molecular biology.  That quote btw is usually attributed to Fred Hoyle who also believed that life on Earth was propagated by space aliens.

  I have a degree in statistics and I haven't seen a statistical argument against evolution that  was not complete nonsense,  usually those probability arguments are put forth by people who know nothing of statistics or probability and hope their audience doesn't know enough to question them.


----------



## BanannaSmoothie (Nov 21, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> It's a highly flawed analogy. A better one would be if the tornado kept on for 3 billion years, and once each piece of the 747 hit the right spot, it tended to stay there.


 

your analogy is just as flawed as the one you quoted.  evolution isnt the spontainous appearance of life from a disasterous event.  it is the non random survival of random mutations.  

i'll repeat that, it is the NON RANDOM SURVIVAL of RANDOM mutations.  

i'm not denying the existance of a higher power or creator, but to deny evolution is absurd.  evolution is defined as change over time with diferent species resulting from common ancestors.  intermediary fossil records have shown hundreds of "missing links" which never satisfies the creationists because the missing link arguement is never ending.  

example, i give you A and C and say they are linked.  you ask for the missing link.  i respond by giving B.  now, you ask for the link between A and B as well as B and C.  i give you A.5 and B.5 and now you ask for 4 links.  it goes on exponentially.  So, no amount of fossile evidence will ever satisfy a creationist.  

another thing i hear a lot is that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  i don't know where this got started, but there has never been an interpritation of that law that fit with creationism within the scientific world.  the 2nd law applies only to closed systems.  the earth is not a closed system, it's powered by the sun's radiation.  thus, the 2nd law does not apply here.  sorry creationists, no entropy cookie for you.  

Also, creationism lends itself to christianity.  i would say judaism, but as a jew, i can tell you that only a small minority of orthodox jews, who are a minority already, buy into creationism as christians say.  most jews accept that science has proven the earth is billions of years old.  

why should a religious based argument be taught in my kid's school?  the science isn't there for it.  there is zero peer reviewed evidence of the 6000 year hypothoses.  and, the creation story as christians perport to pe scientific is mirrored by the raliens.  its just they belive that aliens were the creators and not a god.  so, why not teach ralein creationism in school?  it's the same basic story with the same hypothesys.

oh, and notice i've used the word hypothesys a lot and not theory.  don't confuse the two.  theory doesn't mean guess, it means argument that has been tested as much as possible, but not enough to be a law.  a hypothesis is a guess baised on observations.  you know that thing about the earth revolving around the sun?  yeah, thats a theory, just like gravity is a theory.  

leave science to the scientists, and religion to the clerics.

i could go on for hours on this, but i think i'm gonna go do karate in the garage.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 21, 2008)

BanannaSmoothie said:


> your analogy is just as flawed as the one you quoted.  evolution isnt the spontainous appearance of life from a disasterous event.  it is the non random survival of random mutations.
> 
> i'll repeat that, it is the NON RANDOM SURVIVAL of RANDOM mutations.
> 
> ...



I agree with some of your points on this. My point is why fight people or try to persuade them. Let them believe what they want to believe. If they can't agree to teach that there are alternative theories then don't teach either. I find no reason to argue about something that will never become "law". I don't even deny the theory that aliens were here. I simply say if that is what you believe, cool, I may not agree but hey it could be.

I have always had faith in a higher force or being. However I am not in the line of people who regard that force as something that is in the human image. My belief and you welcome to not agree is that whatever is out there is beyond our comprehension thus we will never know exactly what caused or exact origins or the origins of the universe. There were once things in science that were thought to be "laws" that were found to be untrue, and there are many things in religious writings that can be interpreted differently.

Once again each person has brought up valid points and i appreciate the fact that this has not come to personal attacks yet. :highfive:


----------



## crushing (Nov 21, 2008)

Ramirez said:


> I wonder what meteorology and aerospace engineering has to do with molecular biology. That quote btw is usually attributed to Fred Hoyle who also believed that *life on Earth was propagated by space aliens*.


 
I don't know Hoyle's specific beliefs, but the statement you used doesn't seem so far fetched.  Would some spores or bacteria in/on a piece of space debris hitting the earth qualify?


----------



## Ramirez (Nov 21, 2008)

crushing said:


> I don't know Hoyle's specific beliefs, but the statement you used doesn't seem so far fetched.  Would some spores or bacteria in/on a piece of space debris hitting the earth qualify?



No it is not that far fetched , I just find it ironic that creationists quote Hoyle when he was far from a creationist.


----------



## Ramirez (Nov 21, 2008)

BlueDragon1981 said:


> If they can't agree to teach that there are alternative theories then don't teach either.



If you mean alternative theories to evolution based on empirical evidence there are none.  I am not quite sure what you mean but it seems that if you don't think evolution or creationism shoul be taught unless both are presented.

  Sorry, science is not a democracy, we don't vote on whether pi is a rational number because God does not have a place in his universe for it and then not teach it, we would never produce engineers, mathematicians, physicists, chemists etc.

 Similarly evolution is the framework by which modern molecular biology works, without it we would not have gene therapy, genetic engineering , we would not have mapped the human genome etc.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 21, 2008)

Ramirez said:


> If you mean alternative theories to evolution based on empirical evidence there are none.  I am not quite sure what you mean but it seems that if you don't think evolution or creationism shoul be taught unless both are presented.
> 
> Sorry, science is not a democracy, we don't vote on whether pi is a rational number because God does not have a place in his universe for it and then not teach it, we would never produce engineers, mathematicians, physicists, chemists etc...



Good to see you aboard, Ramirez. Agreed. Creationism and evolution are not alternative explanations of the same outcome.

I'm somewhat troubled to read in some of the posts that belief in Creationism is a matter of faith. My question: Whose faith? The Christians? The Jews? If, as a teacher, I am expected to give equal time to Creationism, then I should be teaching the Creation stories of all cultures and religions -- which would make for spectacular education. 

However, that is not the expectation of those who fight the hardest to have Creationism (or its cousin, Intelligent Design) taught in a classroom alongside Darwinism.


----------



## Ramirez (Nov 21, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> Good to see you aboard, Ramirez. Agreed. Creationism and evolution are not alternative explanations of the same outcome.
> 
> I'm somewhat troubled to read in some of the posts that belief in Creationism is a matter of faith. My question: Whose faith? The Christians? The Jews? If, as a teacher, I am expected to give equal time to Creationism, then I should be teaching the Creation stories of all cultures and religions -- which would make for spectacular education.
> 
> However, that is not the expectation of those who fight the hardest to have Creationism (or its cousin, Intelligent Design) taught in a classroom alongside Darwinism.



Hey Gord, I followed you over here but just getting going on this board. The massive main forum page is a bit disconcerting , I never know where to go.

Yes oddly enough most Intelligent Designers seem to want to give time to designer except the Judeo-Christian one, I never hear them asking to give Xenu of the Scientologists his at bat.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 21, 2008)

Ramirez said:


> Hey Gord, I followed you over here but just getting going on this board. The massive main forum page is a bit disconcerting , I never know where to go.



I just head straight to "The Study." The rest of it all seems to be martial arts talk for some reason...

:lfao:


----------



## BanannaSmoothie (Nov 22, 2008)

BlueDragon1981 said:


> I agree with some of your points on this. My point is why fight people or try to persuade them. Let them believe what they want to believe. If they can't agree to teach that there are alternative theories then don't teach either. I find no reason to argue about something that will never become "law". I don't even deny the theory that aliens were here. I simply say if that is what you believe, cool, I may not agree but hey it could be.
> 
> I have always had faith in a higher force or being. However I am not in the line of people who regard that force as something that is in the human image. My belief and you welcome to not agree is that whatever is out there is beyond our comprehension thus we will never know exactly what caused or exact origins or the origins of the universe. There were once things in science that were thought to be "laws" that were found to be untrue, and there are many things in religious writings that can be interpreted differently.
> 
> Once again each person has brought up valid points and i appreciate the fact that this has not come to personal attacks yet. :highfive:


 
we can't dismiss evoloution teaching because people don't agree. evolution has scientific research backing it with solid measurable evidence. no other hypothesys has duplicated the types of results evolution has. thus, evolution is what should students should be learning in a science classroom. if you want to teach creationism or inteligent design, then that's awesome for you. keep it in theology classrooms though. 

a divinity student would be pretty ticked off if they signed up for advanced new testimant and wound up getting lectures on photosynthesys or ribonucleic replication (please forgive spelling). so, why shouldn't a science student be irked that a religious teaching is becoming prevolent in science classrooms? it isn't like this is another scientific theory, this is a story from the christian bible that pseud-scientific RELIGIOUS scholars have tried to force science into. they are doing science backwards. you can't start with and end result and try to force existing evidence to support it. you start with observations of the existing world and see what unknown that evidnce proves. 

the best way to find out if someone is a pseudo-scientific religious person or a true scientist, is to ask them how they feel when their hypothesys was proved wrong. 
the scientist will say the results are just as valuable as if they were proven right. they will say that now they know something that doesn't work, and after analyzing the results, they can probably find something they hadn't thought of.

a pseudo-scientist will say that their hypothesys can't be proven wrong, they are just trying to find more evidence for it. the reason is that they believe the bible to be infallable and every letter is divine. with this as a basis for logical reasoning, they will assume that the same applies to science. if one thing in the bible is wrong, the whole book is invalidated. thus, if one thing is wrong with evolutionary theory, the whole thing is invalidated. 

this leads them to spend more time poking holes in evolutionary theory, or capitalizing on past mistakes that are in the process of being addressed and tearign down all of molecular biology because of it. they, however, do not turn the same scrutiny to themselves, and when others do, they can always claim divinity of the bible.

the whole arguement comes down to determining what point of view you are going to use to establish the ground rules of the debate. 
if it is a religious debate, then it is automatically a draw. you cannot prove or disprove your christian theology any better than i can prove or disprove the flying speghetti monster. however, once science is the basis of the debate, then you have a lot of work ahead of you to bring your hypothesys to the level of evolutionary theory. 

see my previous post for the difference between hypothesys and theory


----------



## Ramirez (Nov 22, 2008)

BanannaSmoothie said:


> the best way to find out if someone is a pseudo-scientific religious person or a true scientist, is to ask them how they feel when their hypothesys was proved wrong.
> the scientist will say the results are just as valuable as if they were proven right. they will say that now they know something that doesn't work, and after analyzing the results, they can probably find something they hadn't thought of.



 Excellent point...science is falsifiable, creationism or intelligent design is not.  

  Of course science isn't always right but who proves it wrong? Other scientists that is who  Never in all of history has science been proven wrong by a religionist.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 22, 2008)

Ramirez said:


> Excellent point...science is falsifiable, creationism or intelligent design is not.
> 
> Of course science isn't always right but who proves it wrong? Other scientists that is who Never in all of history has science been proven wrong by a religionist.


 
Galileo proved Aristotle's _science_ wrong, and he was, stories to the contrary notwithstanding, a _religionist._

Religion and science are not exclusive of each other, and never have been. Some of the giants of science from history were religious men, as are some of the giants of science of today.

Oh, and _*Hi, Mark!*_


----------



## Ramirez (Nov 22, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Galileo proved Aristotle's _science_ wrong, and he was, stories to the contrary notwithstanding, a _religionist._
> 
> Religion and science are not exclusive of each other, and never have been. Some of the giants of science from history were religious men, as are some of the giants of science of today.
> 
> Oh, and _*Hi, Mark!*_



Hey Aaron, okay badly put, science has never been proven wrong by religion, just by science itself.


----------

