Evolution VS Creation

[Forever Atlas]

Originally Posted by HadesDragon

Elaborate. Types of evolution? What kinds?

Would not my elaboration on the type of evolution that is proven fact just hurt my stance in this thread? It did last time. Watch what happens when I speak of Microevolution as the type that I do believe happens and that has been proven. : D

the type that Darwin spoke of as “descent with subsequent modification"

[Phoenix]

I think he means there's no such thing as "types" of evolution. Evolution merely means the change of alleles in a population from one generation to the next.

[Square Ninja]

Guys, I think we need more of these treads, because I think I see some other topics on the front page of this section.

[kazukifafner]

Well, I for one would fall under the "Creationist" category. To be honest, I don't understand why most schools teach it as scientific fact, sense it takes as much faith to believe in Evolution as it does to believe in Christianity (even more so if you consider how much of it was proved false)

[HadesDragon]

Originally Posted by kazukifafner

Well, I for one would fall under the "Creationist" category. To be honest, I don't understand why most schools teach it as scientific fact, sense it takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in Christianity (even more so if you consider how much of it was proved false)

Uh, not really. Evolution has a little something called "proof", which Christianity and all other religions lack.

This might just be me, but I find it much easier to believe in something that has proof, is accepted by the scientific community, makes sense, is logical, than something that has no proof whatsoever, and which I think was created as an explanation to things mankind couldn't explain as well as to bring comfort to it.

Also, they teach it is a scientific fact because it *is*, for all intents and purposes, a scientific fact. You can't teach Biology without teaching evolution. That's like not teaching gravity in physics.

[Face Down]

Like I said before you can teach biology without teaching evolution.

Just putting my two cents in on the matter.

All I'm going to say.

[.Oji]

I'm feeling philosophical today, so here's my two cents.

Everytime I see a debate about this subject, each person who participates in the aforementioned debate would either go left (evolution) or right (creationism). I'd place myself in the middle; therein are a rare few who actually believes in both evolution and creationism. Think about it.

What is creation? Creation is the act of making something exist.

What is evolution? Evolution is a processes of development.

I'm an artisit, so I guess I should know that I couldn't make or create anything without some sort of process, or in other words, an evolution.

[kazukifafner]

Originally Posted by HadesDragon

Uh, not really. Evolution has a little something called "proof", which Christianity and all other religions lack.

This might just be me, but I find it much easier to believe in something that has proof, is accepted by the scientific community, makes sense, is logical, than something that has no proof whatsoever, and which I think was created as an explanation to things mankind couldn't explain as well as to bring comfort to it.

Also, they teach it is a scientific fact because it *is*, for all intents and purposes, a scientific fact. You can't teach Biology without teaching evolution. That's like not teaching gravity in physics.

Not even close! Evolution has so many flaws in it that it isn't even worth the time spent studying it.

For example, the prime basis for evolution is the use of Carbon - 14 dating (which the dates found, by the way, become smaller and smaller as they get better at using it). They've measured rocks from cooled lava to be thousands of years old, while the wood that was encased in it wasn't even near that.

Also, in the scientific community, there are certain probability limits (by that I mean, at a certain point, they don't consider things possible) on an Earth scale, the probability limit is 1 * 10^15, on a Space scale it is 1 * 10^50. All of the building blocks of "life" have to be LEFT-HANDED (molecules can combine two different ways, which are mirror versions of the other). The probability that the random chance of THE MOST BASIC FORM OF "LIFE" (which I mean as something that can replicate) extends beyond 1 * 10^10000, far outside of the limits established by the scientific community.

Another things, at the very least, Christianity hasn't been proved wrong. While not everything in the Bible has been proved true by modern studies, everything that has been studied about comes back accurate, especially in the field of historical accuracy (I'm a Christian, so please forgive me for being defensive).

[Lezard Valeth]

First, honestly, this debate will never have an answer. Or when it'll have, we won't be here to read it.

Second, like said .Oji, both can coexist.
Beside, saying to those believing Creation that is wrong because there is proof of Evolution is senseless. Since human made science we changed every statement so often that it's not worth counting.

Each is entitled to what they think.
None side will change in what they think, that's like that.

[kazukifafner]

Originally Posted by Lezard Valeth

First, honestly, this debate will never have an answer. Or when it'll have, we won't be here to read it.

Second, like said .Oji, both can coexist.
Beside, saying to those believing Creation that is wrong because there is proof of Evolution is senseless. Since human made science we changed every statement so often that it's not worth counting.

Each is entitled to what they think.
None side will change in what they think, that's like that.

So true, I was just talking to my science teachers about this today. Each mentioned how Science used to be about finding the facts and seeing where they lead, but that now it is all about trying to find (or sometimes, try to create) facts that support the person in question's own view. It's quite a shame to see how far down Science has come over the years.

[Phoenix]

Like I said before you can teach biology without teaching evolution.

Explain genetic diversity to me, please. Also, explain pollen and flowers for the dandelion, which reproduces solely asexually.

I'm an artisit, so I guess I should know that I couldn't make or create anything without some sort of process, or in other words, an evolution.

So, uh, have you proof for the creation?

So true, I was just talking to my science teachers about this today. Each mentioned how Science used to be about finding the facts and seeing where they lead, but that now it is all about trying to find (or sometimes, try to create) facts that support the person in question's own view. It's quite a shame to see how far down Science has come over the years.

It's human nature. Science is special in the way that if you can prove the leading theory wrong, your name will be immortalized forever (see Darwin and Einstein), so it pays more to challenge the theory than it pays to follow it.

Does the Catholic Church welcome challenges to its faith? I thought not.

[Face Down]

If I had my books from my biologly I would

[Phoenix]

You have the internet. Scientifically explain why do different species exist without evolution.

The thing that would interest me more for a creationist to answer is vestigial organs and atavisms. Why do some dolphins grow hind fins? Why do we have muscles in our ears? Why do our hairs stand up when we are afraid? Why do blind salamanders have eyes underneath their skin?

[Face Down]

More than likely the reason is because of how they were designed.

[HadesDragon]

So then God fails at design.