Creationism and Evolution

[bostonbomber]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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!

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]

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.

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]

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.

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!

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

Virtual particles. See also, Hawking Radiation.

 

[Empty Hands]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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:

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

I'd help