My thoughts on Creationism VS. Evolution

[dansazz]

There was a point in time where I was 100% on the side of creationism. Those times have changed. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe I came from a monkey either, nor do I think I know the answers, because I don't, none of us do. Both sides have some compelling arguments. Altho Evolution, depends on your definition of the word. Do I think change over time happens in a species, definiatly. Does one species morph into another given enough time, no way. There is not one piece of compelling evidence to support that theory. While we are at it, why is a theory, which is not fact, taught in our textbooks? Are we really trying to brainwash our children? I'm not on either side, because Neither one has any evidence. But if I was forced to choose, I would say something or someone created us. There's no way we happened by chance, we are too complex for that and the odds would be so major that nobody would take them with anything else, so why take a leap? your thoughts?

[nmsmith]

I think you are correct. Research the matter and have an open mind to all possibilities. No none of us have all the answers but the more pieces to the puzzle you get the picture will start to make sense.

[Falconer02]

Does one species morph into another given enough time, no way. There is not one piece of compelling evidence to support that theory.

No compelling evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

Here are massive detailed lists with pictures of transitional fossils. Some people just can't grasp this because this is millions-to-billions of years of change per species! We're lucky to last 90, so it's hard to imagine that amount of time. But hey, even clouds change shape and size every 10 minutes.

While we are at it, why is a theory, which is not fact, taught in our textbooks?

It's the same reason why gravity is taught in textbooks. Because gravity is a practiced theory too-- just like micro/macroevolution.

Are we really trying to brainwash our children?

No. Science is based upon the natural/material world, so it's hard to call what you can physically see and research "brainwashing". Creationism is based upon mythology. Saying mythology is true would be brainwashing due to a delusional foundation.

Neither one has any evidence. But if I was forced to choose, I would say something or someone created us.

Evolutionary science has an immense amount of evidence. You've obviously just haven't taken the time to research it. I suggest you do. It's fascinating stuff!

I would say something or someone created us. There's no way we happened by chance, we are too complex for that and the odds would be so major that nobody would take them with anything else, so why take a leap? your thoughts?

And you might be right. However, complex organisms do occur naturally through natural selection. How did life arrive here? You or I don't know and if anyone says they do know...they're arrogant fools. The universe is a big and mysterious place. Saying some defined god from primitive times did everything is just...

[JediJohnnie]

There was a point in time where I was 100% on the side of creationism. Those times have changed. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe I came from a monkey either, nor do I think I know the answers, because I don't, none of us do. Both sides have some compelling arguments. Altho Evolution, depends on your definition of the word. Do I think change over time happens in a species, definiatly. Does one species morph into another given enough time, no way. There is not one piece of compelling evidence to support that theory. While we are at it, why is a theory, which is not fact, taught in our textbooks? Are we really trying to brainwash our children? I'm not on either side, because Neither one has any evidence. But if I was forced to choose, I would say something or someone created us. There's no way we happened by chance, we are too complex for that and the odds would be so major that nobody would take them with anything else, so why take a leap? your thoughts?

I pretty much agree with you.Without a doubt micro-evolution exists.But that's a far cry from believing one species can somehow magically transform into another over time.

And yeah,evolution is just a theory.Common sense dictates that something can't come from nothing.A creation must have a creator.

[mjdoug03]

Evolution is a fact.  Creationism is a myth.  That's it.

[Falconer02]

Without a doubt micro-evolution exists.But that's a far cry from believing one species can somehow magically transform into another over time.

This is an oxymoron statement typical of people who can't grasp evolutionary studies. If you know microevolution exists, you unknowingly admit macroevolution exists too. It's like saying "Sure I can make coffee with my coffee maker, but there's no way I can magically walk to the starbucks a few miles away". The major difference between micro/macro is time scale.

And yeah,evolution is just a theory.A creation must have a creator.

I love how people still pitch around the "just a theory" nonsense. Medicine is just a theory. Gravity is just a theory. Evolution is a theory based upon factual evidence, so if you think you can get around it, good luck. Putting creationism on the same mantle as evolution is the symbol of an uneducated (or delusional) person.

Common sense dictates that something can't come from nothing.

We're talking about evolution and factual evidence here. Not where the universe came from or how life originated specifically. Those are completely different studies.

A creation must have a creator.

People are still using the Watchmaker analogy to prove their point? Well......the burden of proof is on you then! lol

[bigfoot951]

It's funny to me how people say there is no evidence of evolution and it is just a theory.  But those same people believe in creationism....for which there is no evidence and could never be described as anything but a theory.

[lvstephanie]

While we are at it, why is a theory, which is not fact, taught in our textbooks?

It's the same reason why gravity is taught in textbooks. Because gravity is a practiced theory too-- just like micro/macroevolution.

Actually, I would used Gravity for your argument, since it is considered a Law of Gravitation in the sciences. Laws are basically theories, but with much more testable evidence to support it. "Evolution" is on the same level as "Big Bang" in that they are both just theories right now (and there may never be a way to test these theories out to the point where they'd be considered Laws of nature). That being said, theories are still things that have extensive evidence to support the idea. When you're working in science, you first have just a hypothesis as to how something works and you do research to test that hypothesis. When several members in the scientific community also do similar tests, all still supporting the same results, the hypothesis is then considered a theory. Finally once the tests can establish a true causal relationship with even more evidence, it becomes a scientific law. So while Evolution has a lot of fossil records, evidence of micro-evolution occurring in nature, etc. we still haven't shown an actual case of macro-evolution in nature (or at least not enough for this theory to be considered a law, like gravity). A better example may be plate tectonic theory which states that tectonic plates are large structure in the Earth's crust that move on the top of the Earth's crust (causing earthquakes and volcanoes in the process). Although we have a lot of evidence to support this theory, we haven't actually moved these plates in an attempt to verify this theory. And this is another theory that is taught in schools due to all of the evidence that supports this idea.

However Creationism has even less evidence to support it (and actually some studies could almost be considered to challenge the Creationism hypothesis, like Louis Pasteur's work that challenges the idea of Spontaneous Generation). Thus since Evolution is considered to have more evidence to support it, it is the theory that the scientific community currently agrees with and hence is the reason why it is taught in science classes in school.

I know I mentioned this in a different thread, but it also seems relevant here... For those that are trying to understand their religious beliefs under a scientific context, you may enjoy reading books written by John Polkinghorne. He was a particle physicist from Oxford that later became an Anglican Priest (in part due to his research in the sciences). One of the issues that he tackled was how one can believe in evolution while at the same time believing that God created the universe. His view begins with the premise that God is omniscient. If this is true, then it actually makes more sense that God would have set up laws of nature (when he was creating the universe) such that those laws would eventually create humans. A "Creationist God" from the Book of Genesis would make God out to be more humanlike, constantly manipulating the universe he created to make it "right" or "better" -- both ideas begging the question that if God is perfect why would he need to do any tweaks after the universe was created.

[Falconer02]

Actually, I would used Gravity for your argument, since it is considered a Law of Gravitation in the sciences. Laws are basically theories, but with much more testable evidence to support it. "Evolution" is on the same level as "Big Bang" in that they are both just theories right now (and there may never be a way to test these theories out to the point where they'd be considered Laws of nature).

Ah yes! True. The only thing keeping macro evolution away from becoming a scientific law is our short lifespan and the infancy of how long we've been researching this. There is physical evidence showing that it happens, and since there is no other competing theory that's scientific, it's the best logical explanation we have (which, looking at it practically, is pretty much everything we know about the universe). Could it change? Sure! But at this point there's a lot of extensive evidence to really curb the research into some other theory.

However Creationism has even less evidence to support it

Creationism arguably has no evidence though, so it can't really be taken seriously. Mythology isn't a natural/methodological way of looking at things since it stems from the supernatural. Creationists do not use the same methods actual scientists do. Example being the findings of fossilized sea creatures on mountain tops. They willingly stop at that point to justify their narrow and biased outlook on the world. Rather than study the ages of the fossils, rock layers, etc., it's much easier to say "This must've been from the great flood!" and go no further. Going further would cause technicalities and ultimately would not align with their mythological sources. That's the key difference between science and mythology- science improves when we find the findings are false. Mythology decays quickly when there is evidence of the contrary. Knowing that, it's not a wonder why people are still trying to push for it as truth-if it were to die, less people would believe the beliefs surrounding it.

His view begins with the premise that God is omniscient. If this is true, then it actually makes more sense that God would have set up laws of nature (when he was creating the universe) such that those laws would eventually create humans. A "Creationist God" from the Book of Genesis would make God out to be more humanlike, constantly manipulating the universe he created to make it "right" or "better" -- both ideas begging the question that if God is perfect why would he need to do any tweaks after the universe was created.

Not to mention there's a lot of moral/ethical problems when one starts defining a deity, so it always makes me scratch my head when people do this.