Evolution has its flaws. People have lied to make it believable. Science and common sense today generally disagree with many factors that Darwin explained. Just because Evolution has its flaws and is probably not entirely correct does not mean Creationism fits.


How dumb do you think people would feel if it turned out that one day we could find out that we are actually mutants of an alien bacteria from some other planet? I'd feel dumb...I definitely don't want to believe it...but the possibilities are endless. Literally...endless.

Noah's Ark...the flood...God--they explain a lot. They really cover almost every base and it seems to fit. It's nice to believe in God because you'll usually believe in some form of afterlife(not sure why...an afterlife to me is just terrible. What is it..like that horrid aftertaste when you eat a mussel? bleh. "Oh hey...I'm dead and....I get to hang out in....this great place...fascinating." )


Of course the explain a lot, but there are always the flaws. Everyone wants to know the origin's of life and sometimes the scientific conclusion just does not sound glamorous. So throw in God, Adam and Eve, a flood...it sounds glamorous. We didn't evolve from some crazy apes...we just kind of ended up here. Kind of a like a genie with folded arms just bobbing his/her head.




Perhaps there is some other answer? Scientology is not an answer. It's.....just not an answer. It isnt an answer. It really isnt. It will never be. :|


But...you know..something persuasive like God or Evolution--perhaps more so--could still be waiting to come along.

Taking evolution out doesn't mean creationism wins by default. Thats not how things work, proving something wrong doesn't make the other right.

Of course religion explains a lot...thats what its designed to do. The purpose of any religion is to explain existence and teach ethics.

I look at it this way, whats more believable? That the universe was spawned from an explosion and life as we know it mutated from bacterias or...that a ghost man in the sky who has unlimited power and knowledge willed the universe and life into existence? In truth they both sound silly.

How about the Deist take on things...they believe in both a Creator and evolution, maintaining that evolution (or something similar) is merely the Creator's tool for the steady advancement of life. Makes sense in a way.

That appears to be how creationists think it works. That's most likely why the Discovery Institute people spent more than a decade arguing that creationist theory was just as valid as evolutionist theory, but it hadn't even bothered to put a theory together, aside from the usual "we don't believe in evolution, so there... god rules, yeah".

PLEASE tell me you aren't saying that just because some scientists disagree with SOME things Darwin said, that Creationism is true?!?! So...we have evidence for evolution, but thats false...we just ended up here....and we have proof that Dinosaurs are millions of years old...but do you believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old? Like the Bible says? I really hope you weren't saying what I think you were saying.

But what you said about there being endless possibilities, I do agree with that, and Evolution is the best possible theory that we can explain right now. Maybe later there will be something more grounded in science, but I doubt it.

Take away private property in America and that leaves Communism. Now what did I prove with my WHAT IF game?

You proved that imminent domain laws in the US are, in fact, a fragment of Communism.

Or as Adams said: The systems (Communist and Capitalist) will have to become similar sooner or later?

I could have also said something as rude as : IF the dog ain't had sh** he would'a caught the rabbit.

The point here is IF.

We can play all the IF games we want, evidence does not go away.

ED:TYPO

It looks like we have yet another poster with a deep seated lack of knowledge about Evolution starting their own thread about it.

Maybe, simply,(and I mean to say this simply) we were always here. Maybe not humanity, but the universe. We were never created nor evolved, but mearly just always here...part of the universe. Which comes to my theory of infinity on the 'string' level. But that's for another day.

So, we can argue over the two or simply give in and realize we don't have beginings or ends. At least not how we comprehend them now.

there is no evidence at all of a world wide flood. If there had been one it would be easy to find.

for the impact(s) that slowly killed the dinosaurs ? there is a world wide band of soil called the K-T boundary .

if Noah's world wide flood happened we would find easily a world wide layer = there isn't one , thus it could not have happened.

no ands ifs or buts about it.

I think it is a mistake to base your life or understanding of the world on the OT. Jesus himself said that Moses had messed with God's message! Looking at the OT, I see a cloudy view of history filled out by the self-righteous types Jesus sought to discredit. I'm sure there are some obfuscated truths there, but so much of it is irrelevant, obliquely allegorical, and clearly human in origin that it throws most of the text into doubt. One day I hope to learn more about the OT--not about its contents, but about how they got there. Until then, I take the Genesis story and its compatriots as an oversimplification perpetrated by people who had no understanding of the scale of our universe or even our planet. Of course, this may very well have been appropriate for the time; would anyone back then have swallowed something as illogical (without modern-day science to back it up) as the idea of evolution?

If you're talking about me than rethink what you said.

I've a very good understanding of Evolution but that doesn't make it true. Evolution has MANY MANY flaws. Creationism has MANY MANY flaws.


People say that the appendix is not needed...we have evolved out of its use yet it is still there. Nope. We still use it. Without it we are susceptible to quite a few diseases.

How about the tail? There are...what...9 muscles attached to the tail bone. Sure if you remove it it doesn't cause much of anything negative. Yet...humans have had them for a while. Did evolution just decide to let us keep our tail-bones? Perhaps we just missed something.

I can go on and on about different things. How about how we date fossils? We date fossils based on a chart that was created a while ago and the numbers they used for years were...literally pulled of the sky. They were specific about some things..but why? No reason.


I'm not for Creationism and I'm not particular for Evolution because they both have their flaws.

umm... yea.. a lot of those really either don't relate at all to evolution, or actually support the theory of evolution.

people say that we dont need the appendix.. that we have evolved out of it, yet we still need it... that doesnt mean evolution is wrong.. it means those people are wrong. if we take out the appendix, and we get sick, then we obviously need it, evolution hasn't grown out of it, because its still useful. we may not need it as much as our other organs, but that doesnt mean we don't need it.

and tail bones.. i must say.. that actually supports the theory of evolution. if what they say is true, and along time ago, we looked, and walked differently, then we might need tails. tails are mostly used for support and balance. as we evolved to walk on two legs, we obviously didn't need it. thats why we don't have it. the fact that the tail bone is still there means that as we evolved, we started to lose our tails. there is still a bit left over of the tail because either evolution is still working on getting rid of it, you don't have a tail, then all of a sudden have a child that is perfectly evolved, no, it takes time, and many years, that just means we are still in the process. the tail bone could also means that we still need some weight on our back end to help us keep just that little extra bit of balance.

most four legged animals have tails, but if you notice.. most two legged animals don't... that obviously means something.. we don't need it. the fact that we have what was once possibly a tail means that once we might have had them.

Man, thanks, I did not want to have to post on this thread but after that "I know about evolution and appendixes and tail bones are problems with it" post I thought I was going to have to post.

Well snake you saved me the trouble

thanks!

I think if we take evolution out what we have basically see is theology which is little more than a branch of ignorance ( the not knowing kind, primitive incoherencies from lore and fables no practical application if one seeks peace......) basically we are heaping impaired philosphy onto impaired ethics.....

Many Christians believe that to. I wonder why it is that Creationism and Evolution are often pitted against each others as enemies, as if one couldn't exist if the other was proved true? Why not both? God has worked through the natural order of life before, why not in everything, even the spark of Creation?

I don't understand, are you trying to use that as evidence against evolution? That doesn't make sense. The fact that the appendix and coccyx still provide a function means that evolution should favour their existence.

Darwin was just the start of the theory, of course the theory changes over time as new things are discovered. There is proof of evolution all around us, in the way life adapts to changes in the environment. Viruses, bacterium, and insects are the fastest to adapt to change. In the case of bird flu, the worry is it will change from going bird to human to human to human which happens with viruses. The change is the virus evolving. That's how evolution works. Our tail is from an ancient ancestor which had a tail. Slowly over time we lost the tail. Darn shame, I would kind of like having a tail.

I think alot of scientists are upset that the majority of the public does not understand the theory which has more to do with the quality of science education. Looking at these threads gives example after example of a complete misunderstanding of the theory. Among professional biologists more than 99% accept the theory, and their research is guided by the theory so there is not a problem within science. We are free to believe what we want, but it would be better if we understood what we are disagreeing with.
The reason that scientists are upset about ID and creationism in the classroom is that theseclaims are not science. The strength of science is -evidence overcoming belief.
When we allow belief and faith to overpower evidence then science disappears.
Imagine now if a drug company ignored the results from clinical trials and went ahead with their belief that their medicine was safe. Would that be a good thing? This is exactly what some people want to do with our science classes, insert claims not because of evidence but because they are strongly held beliefs !


Evolution describes our ancestry- and the ancestry of all species.
How that affects "how we got to here from there" is left to the individual.

A similar situation occurred during Galileo's time-remember ?
Many people had a rough time with the idea that the Earth was not the center of God's creation. If we were not in the middle of the solar system- they thought- then the Earth was just another rock circling the Sun like the rest of the planets. We see something similar within the creationist movement. You will often see creationists saying that "evolution says we are just animals". I think this is directly comparable to "Galileo says the Earth is just another planet".





Evolution deals with both NOW and THEN. In the now, evolution studies the emergence of antibiotic resistance, pesticide resistance, herbicide resistance, new infectious agents, ecology, and human guided evolution projects that are looking for biological solutions to certain problems -like bacteria that break up petroleum products at spill sites and etc.

If mice and humans were created separately there is no reason that their phsyiological responses to treatments would match ours. However, the theory of evolution states that we share a common ancestor with all mammals. Therefore, homologies in physiology can be used to add certainty to research into medical treatments through animal models.

As Theodosius Dobzhansky says, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." He is right. Biology without evolution is stamp collecting.(cool comparison-not mine-stole it )
Evolution ties together the facts of biology. Without evolution those facts would belike solitary stamps in a portfolio.

Evolution is a very complicated theory and there were many proto-human types. For example we thought we absorbed Neanderthals but have very little genetic links. But we lived beside each other.

Actually, they use Radiometric dating.

* Shrugs *

Great Post MLR. The truth shall set us free.

The problem doesn't lie with whether God created the Big Bang and then let life evolve from there - there's nothing in Science that would suggest that this was impossible - the problem is more that it directly contradicts the Genesis creation story & also contradicts with the biblical account of the number of generations since Adam (and hence age of the Earth).

Some Christians believe that the Bible is the absolute word of God. Hence, when Science presents a framework that contradicts with what is written within the Bible, they are forced to create an alternative framework to explain why the Bible is correct.

It's an interesting trend. I've seen a growing number of Christian internet sites challenging Heliocentricity lately and backing Modern geocentrism. (For those of you who can't be bothered to click through - Heliocentrism states that the Sun is at the centre of the planetary system & the earth revolves around it, while Geocentrism states that the Earth is at the centre and the Sun revolves around it).

* Shakes head *

That....is the stupidest thing...I have ever heard.

Here are a couple of thoughts that are seriously unclear in the Bible....

A. In chapter 2 of Genesis - When was the Garden of Eden created? as in how long after the Creation story in chapter 1.
B. How long was Adam alive before he was placed in the Garden Of Eden?
C. How long was it before Eve was created in the Garden of Eden?
D. How long were they in the Garden of Eden?
E. When does the 'age' of Adam begin: Pre or Post Garden of Eden?

If these can be answered - then we have a better tracking of Earth's age.... Other wise we have to wonder if it time began Pre or Post Garden of Eden w/Adam as the "age marker".

From the Wikipedia article on "Modern Geocentrism":

Morris Berman [8] quotes survey results that show currently some 46% of the USA population, believe that the sun goes around the Earth (geocentricism) rather than the Earth goes around the sun (heliocentricism).

I don't doubt that many people believe in geocentricism, there are vast amounts of ill-informed and downright stupid people everywhere, but I really don't believe a survey carried out among an unbiased sample would get that figure.

yes.. i must say.. the sun is the center.. we know because we have been in space. hell, we don't even have to go into space to figure it out.

Agreed, Raptor - I found this, which suggests that it's closer to 18%.

Even so...

Yeah, it's pretty strange isn't it? How some people just don't care about even the basics of science. When I was in physics class a few months ago, my teacher had to spend a while explaining why Pluto isn't a star.

I don't suppose you've seen this? Click.

I thought the state of education was bad enough in the UK but it appears France is equally bad .However I will take 6 to4 against that some pratt on here will think it was B


fullywired