Evolution... a theory?

[AK350Z]

...a "God" rule if you will. All science is based on the assumption at its root of the possibilty of a unifying rule.

 

Fixed that for you! but:

 

Science needs God? Who are we to say that? Veering into theology again...

[Greekman]

A professor at uni said to me at some point... "tell me what you want to prove and i will tell you how to back it up"

 

There is no doubt that species evolve but genesis is a different story... it involves lets say luck and that is not scientifically acceptable. If we knew all, there would be no need for religion.

I can go on in detail about Darwin's theory and the modyfied evolutionary theories that seem more realistic nowadays...

 

but all i know is i dont know

 

and there is nothing worse than talking when you know half the truth

 

so if i was you i would have a right laugh winding her up and nothing else

[Zedrush]

Obviously no-one has "seen" an ape turn into a man, but that does not mean it didn't happen. And we have evidence to put forward that it did.

 

Hi Ak350z I appreciate what you are saying but to say that you have evidence to put forward that ape turned into man actually happened is within itself again trying to mark evolution as an absolute when it is not.

 

You cannot say 100% that evolution actually happened, just like I cannot say from a scientific point of view that God created man. But it is our belief in evolution that exists due to the plethora of research made and our belief in creation due to the faith and personal experience gained giving us the answers to solve our own personal understanding on how we came into being.

 

My argument was and never will be about the validity of evolution that others believe, but on the fact that there is room for an alternative view. And whatever that alternative view may be people have a right to choose. And if I choose to place my bet on creation, however stupid or naive people think I am being, then thats my choice, people should not judge me on what I believe, only time I should be judged if I tried to impose my belief forcefully onto other people, which I never would do.

 

Also note there are plenty of scientists that do not support evolution just like there is many christians who do believe in evolution and many Christians who do not believe Jesus is the son of God. The fact that we come at peace within ourselves on these questions of how we came into being and that we are satisfied with our answers should be enough for the debate on Creationism vs Evolution to come at rest. People are unique, no absolute truth for the whole world will come out of this, people have a right to be unique in their belief. Truth becomes relative which is fitting considering the postmodern times we live in.

[srobrien]

IMO you need to have a bit of a screw loose to believe in creationism, evolution is pretty much 100% confirmed. To think that some omnipotent being which we have 0 (actually ZERO) evidence to suggest exists created everything on earth in 7 days is ludicrous. In fact I take it as a bit of an insult to the human race to look at all of our achievements since we became modern man.

It's quite funny actually I was working offshore with a devout Christian and one night we were discussing creationism and I said "do you know what oil is", to which he replied "yes of course its decayed plant life from millions of years ago"..........I guess there is no telling some people

 

That's my humble opinion of course.

 

R

[Zedrush]

IMO you need to have a bit of a screw loose to believe in creationism, evolution is pretty much 100% confirmed. To think that some omnipotent being which we have 0 (actually ZERO) evidence to suggest exists created everything on earth in 7 days is ludicrous. In fact I take it as a bit of an insult to the human race to look at all of our achievements since we became modern man.

It's quite funny actually I was working offshore with a devout Christian and one night we were discussing creationism and I said "do you know what oil is", to which he replied "yes of course its decayed plant life from millions of years ago"..........I guess there is no telling some people

 

That's my humble opinion of course.

 

R

 

again we have the pretty much and 100% confirmed in the same line reminds me of anchorman movie when he shows him the panther aftershave and says 60% of the time works everytime funny how you can't say evolution is 100% true. And the fact that you cant say it as an absolute leaves room for an alternative view Just that my alternative view is creationism, if people don't believe in creationism I would never say you have a screw loose

[GT4 Zed]

Any thoughts on immaculate conception or the holy trinity?

[srobrien]

IMO you need to have a bit of a screw loose to believe in creationism, evolution is pretty much 100% confirmed. To think that some omnipotent being which we have 0 (actually ZERO) evidence to suggest exists created everything on earth in 7 days is ludicrous. In fact I take it as a bit of an insult to the human race to look at all of our achievements since we became modern man.

It's quite funny actually I was working offshore with a devout Christian and one night we were discussing creationism and I said "do you know what oil is", to which he replied "yes of course its decayed plant life from millions of years ago"..........I guess there is no telling some people

 

That's my humble opinion of course.

 

R

 

again we have the pretty much and 100% confirmed in the same line reminds me of anchorman movie when he shows him the panther aftershave and says 60% of the time works everytime funny how you can't say evolution is 100% true. And the fact that you cant say it as an absolute leaves room for an alternative view Just that my alternative view is creationism, if people don't believe in creationism I would never say you have a screw loose

 

Ok i'll say it in my eyes evolution is 100% confirmed!

 

You telling me these folks: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolutio ... x/4000.htm, don't sound like nutters?

[Simon+Kat]

I love a mass-debate, dont you?

[Zedrush]

IMO you need to have a bit of a screw loose to believe in creationism, evolution is pretty much 100% confirmed. To think that some omnipotent being which we have 0 (actually ZERO) evidence to suggest exists created everything on earth in 7 days is ludicrous. In fact I take it as a bit of an insult to the human race to look at all of our achievements since we became modern man.

It's quite funny actually I was working offshore with a devout Christian and one night we were discussing creationism and I said "do you know what oil is", to which he replied "yes of course its decayed plant life from millions of years ago"..........I guess there is no telling some people

 

That's my humble opinion of course.

 

R

 

again we have the pretty much and 100% confirmed in the same line reminds me of anchorman movie when he shows him the panther aftershave and says 60% of the time works everytime funny how you can't say evolution is 100% true. And the fact that you cant say it as an absolute leaves room for an alternative view Just that my alternative view is creationism, if people don't believe in creationism I would never say you have a screw loose

 

Ok i'll say it in my eyes evolution is 100% confirmed!

 

You telling me these folks: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolutio ... x/4000.htm, don't sound like nutters?

 

dont stereotype every Christian I respect your belief in Evolution too now lets have a pint make mine semi skimmed milk

[Zedrush]

Any thoughts on immaculate conception or the holy trinity?

 

Tons, but this is not a debate on peoples belief, and as said this thread is not a debate about the validity of evolution, this thread is simply identifying that whilst many people believe in evolution there are many who don't and we should respect that there is room for alternative view what ever your personal views maybe. I accept that there is room to believe that God does not exist and I would never condemn those who believe this, just dont try and say to me that my own belief is wrong and bullsh!^ and that your belief is fact, thats all I ask, in this day and age there is room for validity in different beliefs, except those beliefs which mean harm to others

[srobrien]

IMO you need to have a bit of a screw loose to believe in creationism, evolution is pretty much 100% confirmed. To think that some omnipotent being which we have 0 (actually ZERO) evidence to suggest exists created everything on earth in 7 days is ludicrous. In fact I take it as a bit of an insult to the human race to look at all of our achievements since we became modern man.

It's quite funny actually I was working offshore with a devout Christian and one night we were discussing creationism and I said "do you know what oil is", to which he replied "yes of course its decayed plant life from millions of years ago"..........I guess there is no telling some people

 

That's my humble opinion of course.

 

R

 

again we have the pretty much and 100% confirmed in the same line reminds me of anchorman movie when he shows him the panther aftershave and says 60% of the time works everytime funny how you can't say evolution is 100% true. And the fact that you cant say it as an absolute leaves room for an alternative view Just that my alternative view is creationism, if people don't believe in creationism I would never say you have a screw loose

 

Ok i'll say it in my eyes evolution is 100% confirmed!

 

You telling me these folks: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolutio ... x/4000.htm, don't sound like nutters?

 

dont stereotype every Christian I respect your belief in Evolution too now lets have a pint make mine semi skimmed milk

 

Ah the humble cow

 

 

[AK350Z]

Obviously no-one has "seen" an ape turn into a man, but that does not mean it didn't happen. And we have evidence to put forward that it did.

 

Hi Ak350z I appreciate what you are saying but to say that you have evidence to put forward that ape turned into man actually happened is within itself again trying to mark evolution as an absolute when it is not.

 

You cannot say 100% that evolution actually happened, just like I cannot say from a scientific point of view that God created man. But it is our belief in evolution that exists due to the plethora of research made and our belief in creation due to the faith and personal experience gained giving us the answers to solve our own personal understanding on how we came into being.

 

You cannot combine the arguments!

 

1) Evolution. Some people have evidence to the positive, some people have evidence to the negetive. Once statistical outliers and as-yet-undeveloped knowledge (ie bombadier beetle) are either removed or understood we can say with a high degree of probablity that it is true; in the scientific sense of the meaning. Science knows that any measurement cannot, due to quantum effects, ever be 100% true. but it stacks the cards in its favour until such time as all arguments against it are proved false.

 

2) God created man. You state this is not a scientific argument, so why arrange it against one? Your faith and personal beliefs are, as stated previously, not a matter of science. Your belief in God and his various teachings, such as creationism, are personal views, and as such have no bearing on the way the world actually works.

 

My argument was and never will be about the validity of evolution that others believe, but on the fact that there is room for an alternative view. And whatever that alternative view may be people have a right to choose. And if I choose to place my bet on creation, however stupid or naive people think I am being, then thats my choice, people should not judge me on what I believe, only time I should be judged if I tried to impose my belief forcefully onto other people, which I never would do.

 

Any alternative views must provide testable hypothesis, or they must remain in the theological debate.

 

Also note there are plenty of scientists that do not support evolution

See first comment above.

 

just like there is many christians who do believe in evolution and many Christians who do not believe Jesus is the son of God. The fact that we come at peace within ourselves on these questions of how we came into being and that we are satisfied with our answers should be enough for the debate on Creationism vs Evolution to come at rest. People are unique, no absolute truth for the whole world will come out of this, people have a right to be unique in their belief. Truth becomes relative which is fitting considering the postmodern times we live in.

 

This is all part of the theological/philsophical debate.

 

See what I'm saying? They are seperate arguments, It's like me saying the grass is green because of chlorofyl and the wavelength of the light reflected from it, and you saying that you belive it's green because God created it (or the physics of it) that way. I can't say you are wrong, but thats because a) it's a different argument, and unproveable one way or the other.

[geoff-r]

IMO you need to have a bit of a screw loose to believe in creationism, evolution is pretty much 100% confirmed. To think that some omnipotent being which we have 0 (actually ZERO) evidence to suggest exists created everything on earth in 7 days is ludicrous. In fact I take it as a bit of an insult to the human race to look at all of our achievements since we became modern man.

It's quite funny actually I was working offshore with a devout Christian and one night we were discussing creationism and I said "do you know what oil is", to which he replied "yes of course its decayed plant life from millions of years ago"..........I guess there is no telling some people

 

That's my humble opinion of course.

 

R

 

And I wonder why many brush the bible off as a book of fables. This topic is much bigger than any of us would care to ever think about. Creationism or evolution, neither fully explain our existence or how we got here and I highly doubt they ever will. What's outside space?

[Zedrush]

 

2) God created man. You state this is not a scientific argument, so why arrange it against one? Your faith and personal beliefs are, as stated previously, not a matter of science. Your belief in God and his various teachings, such as creationism, are personal views, and as such have no bearing on the way the world actually works.

 

 

.

 

I could say the same about evolution they are views of certain scientists trying to validate a theory but due to it not being an absolute truth just a theory it is therefor a belief or a hypothesis a speculation of what could of been. I could bring up many examples that science cant explain that my belief can, does that mean my belief has a universal bearing on the way the world actually works and science doesnt? no, my belief and from what I have deducted and seeing both sides of the argument is that creation has more validity that some theory that scientists are trying to make a fact. Does that mean evolution is wrong, yes in my eyes, does that mean you are wrong for believing it? No it doesnt because in your views you can validate evolution but not creationism. So each to their own. Whats important is that we accept each others views, accept that there is room for possibilities and get on with life.

 

 

I agree with geoff r that somethings are bigger than us and for us to ever understand, will we ever get an absolute answer, maybe, maybe not but as it stands everything is open to opinion whether you care to class it as a scientific fact or a belief. The fact that believing in something is not scientific doesnt rejected out of the plethora of possibilities of how we came into being. Evolution is still a belief with science trying to prove it as a fact. Creationism is still a belief and again on some levels tehre are scientific evidence on this account to. Eve syndrome research heard of it?

[AK350Z]

 

2) God created man. You state this is not a scientific argument, so why arrange it against one? Your faith and personal beliefs are, as stated previously, not a matter of science. Your belief in God and his various teachings, such as creationism, are personal views, and as such have no bearing on the way the world actually works.

 

 

.

 

I could say the same about evolution they are views of certain scientists trying to validate a theory but due to it not being an absolute truth just a theory it is therefor a belief or a hypothesis a speculation of what could of been. I could bring up many examples that science cant explain that my belief can,

 

Please do...

 

does that mean my belief has a universal bearing on the way the world actually works and science doesnt? no, my belief and from what I have deducted and seeing both sides of the argument is that creation has more validity that some theory that scientists are trying to make a fact. Does that mean evolution is wrong, yes in my eyes, does that mean you are wrong for believing it? No it doesnt because in your views you can validate evolution but not creationism. So each to their own. Whats important is that we accept each others views, accept that there is room for possibilities and get on with life.

 

Not quite. Beliefs are, or may be, different for any particular viewer. The whole point is that science in general, is the same for all viewers. There maybe things that evolution hasn't got explained exactly yet, but creationism is not testable in any way!

 

I agree with geoff r that somethings are bigger than us and for us to ever understand, will we ever get an absolute answer, maybe, maybe not but as it stands everything is open to opinion whether you care to class it as a scientific fact or a belief. The fact that believing in something is not scientific doesnt rejected out of the plethora of possibilities of how we came into being. Evolution is still a belief with science trying to prove it as a fact. Creationism is still a belief and again on some levels tehre are scientific evidence on this account to. Eve syndrome research heard of it?

 

Why should we belive something that cannot be substantiated? Science has made the world the way it is in many aspects, religion and philiosophy may well be good for emotional and communal wellbeing, but it didn't form planets from the gravitational attraction of dust, or fly your holiday plane to Palma.

 

 

 

P.S. I'm liking this debate, better that what colour someones Rays should be!

[narcotix]

In Science we trust ..

[GT4 Zed]

AK350Z wow you have blown him into the weeds man. your arguments are the most succinct on this subject i have ever come accross and is the basis of which the two should not be comapred as they are differents things.

 

Jays point is clear and we all aggree from the very beginning that we should/must respect each others views but we also have the right to challenge them respectfully to attest to such views so we can have an insight in their views and also better understand ourselves.

 

Looking this way Evolution is just trying to understand diversity, not prove it or refute the existence of God or xyz! It has a lot going for it and is constanly evolving as the science becomes better. Religion would always be a leap of faith and should not even bare into factual or scientific arguments as you rightly pointed out.

 

I am a always scientist and a believer in God but not in the religious sense of the way but as the foundation of every science, ... of everything animate or inanimate and this is different from religion(s) of which creationism is a subset and is a just a way of life, a belief system and it depends on faith and requires no proof

 

In science we trust ......in religion we find our humanity, a reason to be, to hope and to be better for each other.

[AK350Z]

Well, I'm just trying to straighten the arguments out into their respective categories.

The problem is that you have places like the Discovery Institute telling american schools to "Teach the Controversy". This argument of course pre-supposes that there is a controversy! Like the broccolli and gerbil video before, the teaching is that one could not have evolved from the other, but in reality they didn't have to; they both diverged from a primitive multicelled common ancestor tens of millions of years ago.

 

Like a bomb disposal expert, science has to try to get it right at every step, if it doesn't - BOOM! Any chink in its armour can be exploited by spreading doubt and misleading what-ifs. Theorys such as creationism have no such vunerabilities, as they cannot be proven or disproven, or as previously mentioned, falsified (found to be false).

[maz0]

Holy crap, when I seen this thread page, I thought 'trouble' right away! I've never been in an evolution/creation debate, that didn't turn nasty!

 

And secondly, holy crap! Jay's on my side? If I was to point out the evolutionists on the forum, I'd have pegged you right off.

 

But I know where your coming from mate, I've been religious since I was born and its only in the last 10 years that 'every day people' have started to become so interested in evolution as more than a theory, id say even a religion, it has its followers, and it has its bibles (its scientific literatures). Believe it or not, it even has its 'faith'. For instance, we can stand around all day and discuss the bone structure of a whale and why it has a fin bone that's almost a leg bone, but ultimately when you go right back to the big bang, and beyond, evolutions flaw is that nothing can come from nothing (same to creation for a degree, yes).

 

Many evolutionists I've spoken to have argued that this 'nothing' came from vapour gas's in space colliding with electron fields and radiation etc etc, but I then ask where these gases came from, or the electrons, and they will tell me it came from another reaction, and I ask where those ingredients come from until they cannot answer, they reply 'we don't know, but one day we will find out'. That, is a faith, in science and technology to one day deliver answers which we currently don't have.

 

How does creation come from nothing? (how did God come from nothing etc) We'll I believe in God (eek, dont hate). And it does explain there's a difference between heaven and earth etc in the Bible, and these are two completely different realms, and I 'assume' that this other realm called heaven is not governed by the same principles that earth is governed by, it may not have time..can we even fathom a world where time didn't exist? It quite difficult actually. It's differences from our realm may be so different, we could never comprehend them, so who are we to assume they are rubbish just because our simple minds don't understand them? So I have faith, that this is the case, we were created by someone, who is, and always has been, and his own coming about, I cannot fully understand or know the details, but the evidence of his existence, I see all around me.

 

I do believe in evolution, wtf! But in a different sense, I think if a creator was clever, he would create beings with the ability to evolve, which is why our hands callous through heavy use, or we can live in any climate, or animals have adapted to their surroundings. If I were to create a robot, the pinnacle of my ability would be to create a robot which could evolve, better it's self! And I think this has been done with us...stone ages to current day evolution etc.

 

A story which I think is quite an interesting view. There was a Russian astronomer travelling the USA involving himself in university debates on evolution and creation, at one of them he made this comment..'Either there is a God, or there isn't. Both of these possibilities, are frightening....Because if there is a God, then mankind better find out who he is, what he want's and how to live their lives in a way that's pleasing to him, and...If there isn't, then the whole of mankind is on a rock, hurtling through space at 66000 miles per hour, and nobody is in charge!'.

 

I know how you feel in that circumstance Jay, it's unfair to be told your backward and ignorant because you have a different opinion, I've discussed this with many many people and never felt the need to be rude or insulting to them, because if your ever going to win some one over to your side of belief, its not by being rude.

[Zedrush]

lol i see this making evolution into its own religion, good debate ak350z but evolution is still a theory at best just like creationism. The fact that scientists have got involved to examine the theory does not simply put it in a different category to creationism, the two are simply beliefs some people choose creation theory some choose evolution.

 

To say one is more plausible than the other is your opinion, which you are entitled to, just like my opinion is creation is the way I believe we came into being. Let me ask you, do you think there is a possibility that the theory of evolution could be wrong? I mean yes we still have arguments how comes apes are still apes how comes they have not evolve or how comes there are no apes that are half ape half man in the process of evolution? it simply doesnt add up. You say that creation resolve their beliefs on emotional faith well evolution resolve their beliefs with it happens over millions of years.

 

Both cannot be proven empirically because no one in this day and age has seen God and no one in this day and age has lived long enough to see apes evolve into man or half man and half ape. Have scientist actually found every type of skeleton that represents each stage of the supposedly evolutionary cycle of man?... have scientists been able to ascertain how a single cell came into being and can scientist with all its modern tech create a living cell from nothing? How do they justify human reproduction under evolution facts if that is what it is?? Hence why both views are plausible as theories neither have absolute truths on society just on the individual who simply believes in one or the other.

[captain]

I've been religious since I was born

 

er.......no you haven't.

 

You've been religious since an adult (usually your parents) indoctinated you in to their faith, haven't you? I doubt you are a Muslim and your parents RC or a Baptist and your parents Jewish? Am I wrong?

 

Organised religion is indeed the opium of the masses and the cause of more death and misery for the last 2,000 years than any disease. And let's not get started on those RC priests and their fondness for young boys or the RC Church's tacit support for the killing of 6 million Jews by the Nazis. "Oh, we were whittling some crucifix and didn't notice"

 

Evolution is of course a theory but one that is generally accepted as close to "truth" as any scientific theory. Indeed all theories are "true" until proven otherwise.

 

The most striking "fact" about Christianity, (I assume the OP is a Christian) and a follower of the New Testament, is that the 27 books of the NT were written between AD 90 and AD 300, 90 to 300 years after JC's death (if he ever existed) It was written by a disparate group of individuals transcribing "events" relayed to them verbally. Think of Chinese whispers at a party X infinity and you'll see how "true" the accounts are. Yet 2,000 years later, a small % of the world's population "follow" these scribblings.

 

There is great merit in loving your brother and caring for others but why anybody needs an organisation to tell them how to do this is beyond me.

[AK350Z]

But I know where your coming from mate, I've been religious since I was born and its only in the last 10 years that 'every day people' have started to become so interested in evolution as more than a theory,

 

Arguably, this is mostly to do with the secularisation of the UK, and the greater underpinning of modern life by science.

 

id say even a religion, it has its followers, and it has its bibles (its scientific literatures). Believe it or not, it even has its 'faith'. For instance, we can stand around all day and discuss the bone structure of a whale and why it has a fin bone that's almost a leg bone, but ultimately when you go right back to the big bang, and beyond, evolutions flaw is that nothing can come from nothing (same to creation for a degree, yes).

 

The universe did not come from "nothing". While speculation of what happened before the Big Bang (itself a theory of course, but again, it has evidence) will probably remain speculation for ever, all the matter in the universe was present at that time. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, thermodynamics is one of the few truths on which we can have absolute confidence.

 

Many evolutionists I've spoken to have argued that this 'nothing' came from vapour gas's in space colliding with electron fields and radiation etc etc, but I then ask where these gases came from, or the electrons, and they will tell me it came from another reaction, and I ask where those ingredients come from until they cannot answer, they reply 'we don't know, but one day we will find out'. That, is a faith, in science and technology to one day deliver answers which we currently don't have.

 

Not from nothing, see above.

 

How does creation come from nothing? (how did God come from nothing etc) We'll I believe in God (eek, dont hate). And it does explain there's a difference between heaven and earth etc in the Bible, and these are two completely different realms, and I 'assume' that this other realm called heaven is not governed by the same principles that earth is governed by, it may not have time..can we even fathom a world where time didn't exist? It quite difficult actually. It's differences from our realm may be so different, we could never comprehend them, so who are we to assume they are rubbish just because our simple minds don't understand them? So I have faith, that this is the case, we were created by someone, who is, and always has been, and his own coming about, I cannot fully understand or know the details, but the evidence of his existence, I see all around me.

 

Theological debate.

 

I do believe in evolution, wtf! But in a different sense, I think if a creator was clever, he would create beings with the ability to evolve, which is why our hands callous through heavy use, or we can live in any climate, or animals have adapted to their surroundings. If I were to create a robot, the pinnacle of my ability would be to create a robot which could evolve, better it's self! And I think this has been done with us...stone ages to current day evolution etc.

 

A classic example of moving the goalposts. Once the Creator is pushed back from the space around the earth, he merely pops up again beyond the edge of the observable universe! This doesn't advance the human condition one jot.

 

A story which I think is quite an interesting view. There was a Russian astronomer travelling the USA involving himself in university debates on evolution and creation, at one of them he made this comment..'Either there is a God, or there isn't. Both of these possibilities, are frightening....Because if there is a God, then mankind better find out who he is, what he want's and how to live their lives in a way that's pleasing to him, and...If there isn't, then the whole of mankind is on a rock, hurtling through space at 66000 miles per hour, and nobody is in charge!'.

 

He's right though. No one's in charge. It's all down to luck and circumstance, there might be another asteroid heading this way with our name on it. It has happened before.

 

I know how you feel in that circumstance Jay, it's unfair to be told your backward and ignorant because you have a different opinion, I've discussed this with many many people and never felt the need to be rude or insulting to them, because if your ever going to win some one over to your side of belief, its not by being rude.

 

Fair enough, I think we all in agreement on this point.

 

lol i see this making evolution into its own religion, good debate ak350z but evolution is still a theory at best just like creationism. The fact that scientists have got involved to examine the theory does not simply put it in a different category to creationism, the two are simply beliefs some people choose creation theory some choose evolution.

 

Asolutely not. It is in a different category precisely because it is developed by scientists. Creationism is a theory based in dialogue and symbolism, its shape and direction is progressed through art, discussion, and varying points of view. Evolution, like all scientific theories, is based in hypothesis and experimental evidence. We take observations and develop the rules and tools to understand the world around us. The main difference being that any normal person could, given the right tools and knowledge, come to the same conclusion by following the same processes.

Beliefs require no evidence, that is why they are called beliefs.

 

To say one is more plausible than the other is your opinion, which you are entitled to, just like my opinion is creation is the way I believe we came into being.

 

No, it is not my opinion. This is the difference. I look at the evidence on both sides and decide which is the more likely. Which better explains the way the world is? Saying that a creator wound up the clockwork and let the world spin away does not tell us anything about the observable universe or our place in it (except perhaps emotionally).

You are assuming that creationism and evolution are theories that start on an equal footing, but that is simply not the case. What is the difference? Evidence.

 

Let me ask you, do you think there is a possibility that the theory of evolution could be wrong? I mean yes we still have arguments how comes apes are still apes how comes they have not evolve or how comes there are no apes that are half ape half man in the process of evolution? it simply doesnt add up. You say that creation resolve their beliefs on emotional faith well evolution resolve their beliefs with it happens over millions of years.

 

Are there holes in evolution? No real scientist would say no. But that's science's strength and its weekness, science acknowledges the holes and tries to fill them. It is self-effacing.

Evolution has indeed turned out not quite as simple as the Tree of Life as Darwin has envisaged. There are dead ends, multiple starts, convergencies, sideways diversions, but that does not prevent the larger picture being seen. The development of DNA from RNA, it's all there, like pixels in a television. Isolated points of data on their own, but draw back and a picture starts to form.

There are no half apes for the same reason there are no half elephants or half whales. Extinction, disease, ecological niches, fitness for purpose. Evolution is part selective, part luck. The present number of species is but a minutely tiny proportion of the number of species that have ever been. Modern apes haven't evolved because only one group of apes in sub-saharan Africa developed the mental ability to develop complex tool use and eventually, cruicially, give up the hunter-gatherer society for an agricultural one. There were late divergent steps; Neandathals. But they were out competed for resources and despite some interbreeding were eventually wiped out. If you want a better idea of what could have been, look at the Aboriginal people of Austrailia, seperated from the rest of the world for at least 30,000 years.

 

Both cannot be proven empirically because no one in this day and age has seen God and no one in this day and age has lived long enough to see apes evolve into man or half man and half ape.

 

But we do have empirical evidence for evolution, there is none for the exsistence of god or creationism.

 

Have scientist actually found every type of skeleton that represents each stage of the supposedly evolutionary cycle of man?...

Yeah, pretty much. We have a complete taxonomic lineage at least. Its more logical than popping into exsistence out of the ether.

 

have scientists been able to ascertain how a single cell came into being and can scientist with all its modern tech create a living cell from nothing?

Not yet. But we at least have theories, and they are testable. No doubt if it ever gets solved Creationists will move the goalposts back once again!

 

How do they justify human reproduction under evolution facts if that is what it is?? Hence why both views are plausible as theories neither have absolute truths on society just on the individual who simply believes in one or the other.

 

Sex allows quicker adaption to enviromental conditions and is a prime driver of evolution.

 

I would say that if you are arguing the side of creationism, you had better accept that it is a absolute truth, because if it isn't, it's no better that any other religious dogma or idea up for theological discussion!

 

 

 

 

I need a lie down after all that!

[Zedrush]

Let me ask you, do you think there is a possibility that the theory of evolution could be wrong? I mean yes we still have arguments how comes apes are still apes how comes they have not evolve or how comes there are no apes that are half ape half man in the process of evolution? it simply doesnt add up. You say that creation resolve their beliefs on emotional faith well evolution resolve their beliefs with it happens over millions of years.

 

Are there holes in evolution? No real scientist would say no. But that's science's strength and its weekness, science acknowledges the holes and tries to fill them. It is self-effacing.

Evolution has indeed turned out not quite as simple as the Tree of Life as Darwin has envisaged. There are dead ends, multiple starts, convergencies, sideways diversions, but that does not prevent the larger picture being seen. The development of DNA from RNA, it's all there, like pixels in a television. Isolated points of data on their own, but draw back and a picture starts to form.

There are no half apes for the same reason there are no half elephants or half whales. Extinction, disease, ecological niches, fitness for purpose. Evolution is part selective, part luck. The present number of species is but a minutely tiny proportion of the number of species that have ever been. Modern apes haven't evolved because only one group of apes in sub-saharan Africa developed the mental ability to develop complex tool use and eventually, cruicially, give up the hunter-gatherer society for an agricultural one. There were late divergent steps; Neandathals. But they were out competed for resources and despite some interbreeding were eventually wiped out. If you want a better idea of what could have been, look at the Aboriginal people of Austrailia, seperated from the rest of the world for at least 30,000 years.

 

Both cannot be proven empirically because no one in this day and age has seen God and no one in this day and age has lived long enough to see apes evolve into man or half man and half ape.

 

But we do have empirical evidence for evolution, there is none for the exsistence of god or creationism.

 

 

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of god correct, but there is evidence that can support the theory of creationism, just like there is for evolution in effect. Science in the beginning were given a theory, they extract as much evidence to state if that theory is possible not absolute and thats all they have done is state that it is a possible theory as is creationism but not a factual theory. In essence if evolutional theory was an empty bottle (metaphorical) they would try and use all the research they had to fit into and fill that bottle to make it a completed theory transitioning it into an empirical fact, and thats what they are doing working within the paradigm of that bottle, and anything that doesnt seem to fit they try and figure out but if they can't they simply work in another area to make the bottle full. Will the bottle contain a pure full factual substance that it will be safe to rely on? If the bottle is suppose to be water for us to drink, yet all the evidence points to murky unanswered substance, would you drink it? Is it then surprising that many atheistic scientist are rejecting the possibility of evolution.

 

You say real scientist, but what do you classify as a real scientist? One who just accepts evolution as the be all and end all? One of the most accoladed scientist of our time Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith rejected evolution along with many others. Which goes to prove that the possibility of an alternative view is not only a possibility but a practice amongst many "real" scientists.

 

Why do I believe in creationism is because of my faith, do I believe in it a 100% yes, can I accept that others who don't believe will view it as a theory, the answer is yes I can accept that doesn't mean I accept it personally as a theory. Do I have anything else to support my view other than faith or believing in a magic man as some might put it, yes. Why can I not use evidence where scientists struggle to prove evolution and have no explanation for to justify the possibility of creationism.

 

For example evolution model says "...its not necessary to assume the existence of anything besides matter and energy to produce life." Isnt that in itself a very unscientific claim? If matter is left by itself it does not organise itself. Hence the foundation of our being is flawed how can you then ignore this and then continue with the theory of evolution without first justifying the beginning? Can the existence fit in the creationist model well yes according to these circumstances.

 

Evolutionist also uses many scientific results of "what is not" just as much as "the what is" to prove their theory so does creationism.

 

As for aborigines supporting evolution because of 30,000 years separation from what we class as normal civilisation is confusing, what are you trying to prove here, that they evolved to have their nose pierced? They look like human, the fact that they conduct themselves in a different manner has nothing to do with a physical state but a cognitive state determined by their social influence surely?

 

At the end of the day as said before, people should be allowed to believe in what they want and not judged upon because it differs from the next. If they feel they can justify it 100% then great but to be fair I think this argument is bigger than the both of us can fully comprehend, I dont think scientists will ever have an absolute answer to our existence, just possibilities, hypothesis and theories, with scientific research contextualised to support these theories. Man has ever been curious and unsettled unless it has the definite answer or it cannot rest, how we settle ourselves to justify our existence is a personal journey and one which no one can put an absolute on. Thats my honest opinion. Thanks for the great debate, but Im not here to debate theories we will be here all day with evidence that prove and disprove each others belief. Im simply stating we need to learn to accept different opinions and that there is no social absolute answers, just individual belief.

[zDan]

lol i see this making evolution into its own religion, good debate ak350z but evolution is still a theory at best just like creationism. The fact that scientists have got involved to examine the theory does not simply put it in a different category to creationism, the two are simply beliefs some people choose creation theory some choose evolution.

That is just not true Zedrush, putting things that way is just wrong. Brushing things off with a "that's what you believe" argument is ignoring the reality and sticking one's head in the sand I'm afraid.

 

The difference between evolution and creationism is actually just that - evolution is not "just another religion", it's a theory that is _substantially_ backed up by hundreds of years of research and by countless experiments that can be _repeated_ and _confirmed_ by people from all backgrounds and religions in a consistent and coherent way. And that does put it in a different category. Just the fact that some people don't care and don't understand all that research doesn't make it less of a reality.

 

They're just not on the same level, really.

To say one is more plausible than the other is your opinion, which you are entitled to, just like my opinion is creation is the way I believe we came into being. Let me ask you, do you think there is a possibility that the theory of evolution could be wrong? I mean yes we still have arguments how comes apes are still apes how comes they have not evolve or how comes there are no apes that are half ape half man in the process of evolution? it simply doesnt add up. You say that creation resolve their beliefs on emotional faith well evolution resolve their beliefs with it happens over millions of years.

Of course one is entitled to it's own beliefs - which is far more important for us as human beings than having an answer.

 

But putting the question like "how did the ape become man" just shows how simplistically and naively the whole issue is taken on really. Because things are never that simple or easy to understand.

 

What do you think it would take to convince you that there is a possibility that today's man and today's ape have a common ancestor, a possibility which is far stronger than lots of other things we take for granted these days? Would you be willing to spend the years it takes to check the tomes of research, see the evidence and perform all the experimentation to understand all the processes and observations involved? Or would you prefer to take the word of someone you think has authority, be it a scientist, priest or layman?

Both cannot be proven empirically because no one in this day and age has seen God and no one in this day and age has lived long enough to see apes evolve into man or half man and half ape.

Actually, that's not true. Parts of the evolution theory can be proven empirically. Yes, you can't show how to turn an ape into a man in an evening at the dinner table, but you can show how organisms evolve (and not just transform) from one to another, how cells change to take different roles in different environments, how they can combine to form different things. You can show how features are inherited from a generation to another, and how, at the same time, transformations also appear.

 

Do you think anyone has a chance to comprehend all of these on a forum post when an experiment like this takes sometimes years to run and observe?

Have scientist actually found every type of skeleton that represents each stage of the supposedly evolutionary cycle of man?...

They have found enough of them to establish a pretty rock-solid link. To put things in comparison, people are being sent to jail these days on far weaker forensics.

have scientists been able to ascertain how a single cell came into being and can scientist with all its modern tech create a living cell from nothing?

They aren't very far from it on both grounds. Reconstruction of some of the basic processes in the cells has been done in the lab a long time ago. The technology is actually still lacking, but the understanding of what goes on is pretty solid. And yes, scientists in labs can take cells these days and turn them into what they want - and in a very predictable way.

How do they justify human reproduction under evolution facts if that is what it is??

What is there to justify? I'm not sure I understand this question.

Hence why both views are plausible as theories neither have absolute truths on society just on the individual who simply believes in one or the other.

Depends what you mean by absolute truth. Absolute truth exists only in dogma, I'm afraid, and if that's what you are looking for then you can find it very easily. Finding the relative truth, the truth that exists in connection to the reality around you, that's a different thing.

[Zedrush]

Absolute truth exists only in dogma, I'm afraid, and if that's what you are looking for then you can find it very easily. Finding the relative truth, the truth that exists in connection to the reality around you, that's a different thing.

 

relative truth? How do you justify truth think this is going down a philosophical route now and for you to say that absolute truth exists only in dogma have you read the previous posts on this thread? "Evolution is fact" and some saying its "not 100% fact but too much evidence for it not to be true?" Does that put evolution in the bracket of dogmatic thinking then if according to you absolute truth only exists in dogma? When the fact of the matter is absolute truth exists on the individual willing to believe in one or the other, it is the individual that makes the truth absolute to him or herself not society, these are after all postmodern times and truth is relevant. The fact that I believe in creationism shouldnt put peoples backs up or have them stereotype me as some bible bashing nutter. Just like people who believe s2000 are to them better than 350z and vice versa. The fact I dont believe in evolution and that no one on here has given any unflawed evidence to prove the theory as a fact, entitles me to my own belief. Im sorry personally I don't follow the theory of evolution, I think personally it has too many unanswered questions and I personally prefer the route of creationism. All Im asking is that people respect this of each other, I didnt ask to get into a debate about it because as said we would be here all day, and Ive got better things to do than sit here justifying my belief. I now understand why people diss Christianity, when people burden you to believe you end up pushing them more away