Creation or Evolution?, Which do you believe in? Options

[AngelinaTaylor]

Evolution.

For those of you who said there ain't evidence for either one, you're wrong.. There's (at least) a little evidence for evolution - ever thought about all the discoveries that for example Mary Leakey and her husband have made? They're pretty interesting.. Not only that, but I just don't understand the concept of God creating the whole world in 6 days and then creating Adam and Eve.. it's a nice fairy tale, but it just doesn't seem believable to me. I don't know.. I've studied both theories and I've come to the conclusion that evolution has a lot more evidence, and it's actually a scientific fact.

But who knows.. maybe both of these ideas are completely off the hook.

Cheers,
Taylor``

[sadolakced acid]

Funny thing is, it contradicts itself in the next paragraph by saying, "Evolutionary ideas can be proven expirementally." I just laughed. I thought 'At least get your thoughts straight.' My Botany teacher even pointed it out and laughed... it is funny, you have to admit.

Yeah, I suppose they would do that to get approved, but my other science books have not gone to the trouble to do that. For Botanists, it would be hard to be an evolutionist... there isn't any sufficient hypothesis as to how plants developped - so my guess is he is very confused. kinda funny...

When my book tried to explain evolution through plants, it couldn't stay on topic. It kept shifting back to animals to prove it's point...... It's a book about plants..... When I saw that they kept saying "This might of happened" and "This has a possibility" all it told me was 'I don't know, but this sounds good.' The reasons weren't organised in any fashion (but then again, the ideas were so abstract that they couldn't have been), and they didn't make any sense according to current plant life. Botany is one aspect where evolutionary theory is sorely lacking.

it's probably the fault of the publisher.

evolution in plants is easy.

say you have a bunch of cabbage. and a bunch of rabbits. the rabbits eat most of the non-bitter cabbage, leaving the bitter ones untouched.

in a few generations, the cabbage will be quite bitter.

now, let's say you have a bunch of wheat. the wheat seeds need to fall off easily and be distributed by the wind for best chances of survival. so that's what wild wheat has evolved to.

add in a bunch of humans. for humans, the wheat needs to remain connected to the stalks and have big seeds. Therefore, the humans keep the ones with the best seeds and best non-falling offness and plant those next season. the ones that aren't like that get eaten.

soon you'll have a domesticated wheat that has really big seeds that will never fall off, and must be picked.

say you kill off all the humans.

then, the wild wheat that can have seeds disperesed by the wind will have the best chance of survival. the domestocated wheat will die.

plants are rather easy to study for evolution.

[flc]

I don't know, my opinion tends to differ a lot on this subject.

Sometimes I think that creation is just a bunch of bull, that evolution has at least SOME reasoning behind it, instead of just saying, "God made everything and that's that." I just don't buy it.

But sometimes I do think that creation and evolution could go hand in hand, like, maybe this deity called God started everything off and then evolution took over? Who knows..

But for the most part I believe evolution.

[*digital.fragrance*]

it's probably the fault of the publisher.

evolution in plants is easy.

say you have a bunch of cabbage. and a bunch of rabbits. the rabbits eat most of the non-bitter cabbage, leaving the bitter ones untouched.

in a few generations, the cabbage will be quite bitter.

now, let's say you have a bunch of wheat. the wheat seeds need to fall off easily and be distributed by the wind for best chances of survival. so that's what wild wheat has evolved to.

add in a bunch of humans. for humans, the wheat needs to remain connected to the stalks and have big seeds. Therefore, the humans keep the ones with the best seeds and best non-falling offness and plant those next season. the ones that aren't like that get eaten.

soon you'll have a domesticated wheat that has really big seeds that will never fall off, and must be picked.

say you kill off all the humans.

then, the wild wheat that can have seeds disperesed by the wind will have the best chance of survival. the domestocated wheat will die.

plants are rather easy to study for evolution.

Isn't that just natural selection? I actually agree with that subject - it happens everyday. However, natural selection alone couldn't cause evolution (at least that's what evolutionists say). What I was arguing was the odds of genetic mutation and hybridization to differentiate a new species... to make a complete species change (in plants or animals) would require more time than the age of the earth... if you got lucky.

ANYWAY...

What about this Intelligent design theory? Did you know that most scientists are throwing the 'Big Bang' out the window? Did you ever consider that the being that created us might be God? Just a thought.

[Mulder]

[What about this Intelligent design theory? Did you know that most scientists are throwing the 'Big Bang' out the window? Did you ever consider that the being that created us might be God? Just a thought.]

well, first of all, intelligent design doesnst state that god created the universe, but merely that a higher power created one.

to be kinda funny, this higher power could be:
aliens.
god.
WITCHES
robots




yea, i was kidding. now, do i believe in this theory? no. did i ever consider that we were created by god? still no. i was once a believer, and i never did once believe that we were created by god. that falls under the idea that god created the universe (its one long jewish prayer, so they all go together), and i never could believe that. i was always interested in astronomy and astrology, and the Big Bang theory always made sense to me. its really the only thing that i really believed in.

of course, i guess it could have been those aliens..

[NoSex]

Isn't that just natural selection? I actually agree with that subject - it happens everyday. However, natural selection alone couldn't cause evolution (at least that's what evolutionists say).

Natural Selection can indeed work alone to cause evolutionary change. However, Natural Selection alone can not explain the level of diversity as well as common decent and the general theory of Evolution. At this point, evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution are the mechanisms in which ebolutionary change occurs. What we know is that natural selection and genetic mutation are the two most prevasive mechanisms in evolutionary change.

What I was arguing was the odds of genetic mutation and hybridization to differentiate a new species... to make a complete species change (in plants or animals) would require more time than the age of the earth... if you got lucky.

That's a false statement. How many times do I have to say this?
We have observed speciation (i.e. complete species change). Infact, we have observed dozens of instances of speciation within the last century alone. Are we "getting lucky?"

Also, your predictions seem highly ignorant to the nature of evolution as well as the scientifc literature and evidence on evolutionary theory. The concensus is that the earth is about 4.5 Billion years, that isn't long enough for you?

What about this Intelligent design theory?

That's not really a scientific theory.
It's actually just God and Creationism wearing a "science" mask.
Don't be fooled.

Did you know that most scientists are throwing the 'Big Bang' out the window?

Alright, now I know you have no idea what you're talking about. Are you getting your information from drdino.com or something?!

It seems pretty clear that you don't know what a scientific theory is. You aren't hip to the general concensus within the scientific community. You don't seem to know what evolution is. That you would say that scientists are "throwing the 'Big Bang' out the window," just highlights your ignorance.

The Big Bang theory is, in general, not an origins theory. Natural science can not present a scientific theory which makes a proposition concerning the origins of the universe. The scope of science simply does not reach that far. Such metaphysical problems are more of a philosophical issue.

However, what we do know is that the universe is expanding. With the use of Hubble's law we have been able to determine the velocity of distant stars and galaxies. Given the scope of understood cosmology and general relativity, in extrapulating this information and observations to the past, we realize that if we were to look back in time the galaxies would be coming together. The Big Bang is simply the explanation for the observation of the expansion of the universe.

Beyond that point, the Big Bang becomes a jungle gym for theoretical physicists and a long contemplation for philosophers.

Did you ever consider that the being that created us might be God? Just a thought.

That's a loaded question.
Did you ever consider that no being has created us at all?
Did you ever consider that we may have never been created in the first place?

[*disco infiltrator*]

* 1836: A LETTER, Containing Remarks on the Moral State of TAHITI, NEW ZEALAND, &c. – BY CAPT. R. FITZROY AND C. DARWIN, ESQ. OF H.M.S. 'Beagle.' [1]
* 1839: Journal and Remarks (The Voyage of the Beagle)
* Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle: published between 1839 and 1843 in five volumes by various authors, Edited and superintended by Charles Darwin: information on two of the volumes –

1840: Part I. Fossil Mammalia, by Richard Owen (Darwin's introduction)
1839: Part II. Mammalia, by George R. Waterhouse (Darwin on habits and ranges)

* 1842: The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs [2]
* 1844: Geological Observations of Volcanic Islands [3], (French version)
* 1846: Geological Observations on South America [4]
* 1849: Geology from A Manual of scientific enquiry; prepared for the use of Her Majesty's Navy: and adapted for travellers in general., John F.W. Herschel ed. [5]
* 1851: A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia, with Figures of all the Species. The Lepadidae; or, Pedunculated Cirripedes. [6]
* 1851: A Monograph on the Fossil Lepadidae; or, Pedunculated Cirripedes of Great Britain [7]
* 1854: A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia, with Figures of all the Species. The Balanidae (or Sessile Cirripedes); the Verrucidae, etc. [8]
* 1854: A Monograph on the Fossil Balanidæ and Verrucidæ of Great Britain [9]
* 1858: On the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection
* 1859: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
* 1862: On the various contrivances by which British and foreign orchids are fertilised by insects [10]
* 1868: Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication (PDF format), Vol. 1, Vol. 2
* 1871: The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex
* 1872: The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals [11]
* 1875: Movement and Habits of Climbing Plants [12]
* 1875: Insectivorous Plants [13]
* 1876: The Effects of Cross and Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom [14]
* 1877: The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species [15]
* 1879: "Preface and 'a preliminary notice'" in Ernst Krause's Erasmus Darwin [16]
* 1880: The Power of Movement in Plants [17]
* 1881: The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms [18] [19]
* 1887: Autobiography of Charles Darwin (Edited by his Son Francis Darwin) [20]
* 1958: Autobiography of Charles Darwin (Barlow, unexpurgated)

That's a list of Charles Darwin's publications. I came across it while finding information about him, as he is my hero for my speech presentation.

I've bolded those concerning plantlife.
Now, if Mr. Charles Darwin, the founder of all evolutionary theories can write so many books on the evolution of plants a century ago, surely, there have been many, many more books and much more information available to us about the evolution of plants.

[xoxo_proud]

I'm for both. I'm stuck in the middle. Though I lean more towards Evolution but I havent ruled Creation out.

I do think Evolution makes more sense and has more evidence but I'm not going to throw the idea of Creation out the window. I'm open to both. And when I die if I go to heaven, I'm still not completely sure about that either, and there is a God then I guess there is. I dont worry much about my religion or what I believe in. I'm just going to live my life the way I want to live it and be a good person.

[Joss-eh-lime]

i believe in creation:
how does the world have everything we need to survive and more?

& believing in evolution takes so much more time trying to bring up facts and whatnot. just have faith

[NoSex]

i believe in creation:
how does the world have everything we need to survive and more?

That's like asking, "How do all the rivers in the united states flow so perfectly to the state lines? How did we get that to happen?! It's so amazing!"

Not to mention, even if such a question posed a threat to evolutionary theory, you would have to realize that even if you could disprove Evolution, that would not prove Creation.

& believing in evolution takes so much more time trying to bring up facts and whatnot. just have faith

I don't even know what to say to this.

[sadolakced acid]

just have faith that jesus is gay and the world will spin correctly again.

i am actaully jesus returned. but you see, no one believes me. so you know what, i condemn all yall to hell for not having faith. infidels.

[*disco infiltrator*]

No, Justin; that's Minda.

[sadolakced acid]

infidel! you do not believe! you will go to hell!


[please don't bring the wrath of minda upon me...]

[flc]

& believing in evolution takes so much more time trying to bring up facts and whatnot. just have faith

So, you're justifying being lazy, basically.

[MyCATSwatchingtv]

adam and eve were monkeys
or amobeas or whatever humans came from
a compromise!
= )

[*disco infiltrator*]

No...
Humans came from neither monkeys nor amoebas. And there is no compromise. That is why this thread exists.

Unless you think that Intelligent Design is a compromise? But I don't.

[rAwritsgWeg]

has anybody ever thought that maybe we arent supposed to know
since im definitely not religous im a prime supporter of evolution but in all I think humans arent supposed to know

[*disco infiltrator*]

It's in our nature to be curious and want answers.

Did you ever think maybe we are supposed to know?
That was eh.

[rAwritsgWeg]

well, all we can hope for is that we do find out the answer..............

[austin]

yeah so obviously, christians say that faith is the "proof" of their religion, that only makes sense to the people who have actually experienced it... when written, it holds no more water than a dried out sponge. Biblically the world is only so many thousand years old, when according to evolution it is billions; evolutionists have "disproved" the bible by using circular reasoning. For those of you who don't know wha circular reasoning is an example would be "dinosaurs bones are billions of years old, therefore the world is billions of years old.....so therefor if the world is billions of years old, dinosaur bones are ALSO billions of years old," thats circular reasoning, when they determine the age of the earth they use methods that vary such as Carbon dating, this method changes every year... i mean, i guess its pretty accurate, give or take a billion years...

so i believe the question of the forum was "which of the 2 do you believe?" well personally, i believe in creation by one being, but i believe we were created to ADAPT, obviously Camels have ADAPTED to the desert.. just like when how you see humans adapt, some indeginious tribes in africa have been known to have 2" callises (sp?) on the bottom of their feet because of the rough terrain and always being shoeless... that is an example of ADAPTION.

If we are "evolving", how come we haven't been able to trace back, great great great grampa louie the primate...? i mean i know they've found "evidence" of semi-evolved people, but 99% of the time its been either hoaxes, or animals they thought were human... and the other 1% being a rare form of human, but come on people, there are plenty of "rare" humans alive today, so i guess if a 3' pigmy were to die tomorrow, in 2,000 years they would find her and say "wow, must be 2 billion years old, probably half ape!"? i dunno about all of this...

okay my final point... considreing Darwins last wish was that he'd never came up with the THEORY of evolution and that people wouldn't seek to prove it, then i guess that pretty much means its FALSE

when someone thinks their OWN theory is wrong, then stop expanding on it people, at least don't teach it as fact when in fact it IS a theory...

[NoSex]

Biblically the world is only so many thousand years old, when according to evolution it is billions;

Biblical census: 6,000 years.
Scientific census: 4,500,000,000 years.

evolutionists have "disproved" the bible by using circular reasoning. For those of you who don't know wha circular reasoning is an example would be "dinosaurs bones are billions of years old, therefore the world is billions of years old.....so therefor if the world is billions of years old, dinosaur bones are ALSO billions of years old," thats circular reasoning, when they determine the age of the earth they use methods that vary such as Carbon dating, this method changes every year... i mean, i guess its pretty accurate, give or take a billion years...

The age of the earth is determined by many different observations and methods, none of which happen to be the age of dinosaur bones. You are over simplifying and drawing a straw man of how science actually works and what they do. Also, at times, you just have your facts wrong. The scientific census is that dinosaurs are only 230 million years old, not anywhere close to billions. Also, Carbon dating is only accurate up to 60,000 years. Give or take a few hundred years. Carbon dating is probably the last method you want to discuss when talking about radiometric dating systems.

so i believe the question of the forum was "which of the 2 do you believe?" well personally, i believe in creation by one being, but i believe we were created to ADAPT, obviously Camels have ADAPTED to the desert.. just like when how you see humans adapt, some indeginious tribes in africa have been known to have 2" callises (sp?) on the bottom of their feet because of the rough terrain and always being shoeless... that is an example of ADAPTION.

Main Entry: ad·ap·ta·tion
Pronunciation: "a-"dap-'tA-sh&n, -d&p-
Function: noun
1 : the act or process of adapting : the state of being adapted
2 : adjustment to environmental conditions: as a : adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation b : modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment
3 : something that is adapted; specifically : a composition rewritten into a new form
- ad·ap·ta·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective
- ad·ap·ta·tion·al·ly adverb

Adapation is biological evolution.
You just gave several examples of evolution.

If we are "evolving", how come we haven't been able to trace back, great great great grampa louie the primate...? i mean i know they've found "evidence" of semi-evolved people, but 99% of the time its been either hoaxes, or animals they thought were human... and the other 1% being a rare form of human, but come on people, there are plenty of "rare" humans alive today, so i guess if a 3' pigmy were to die tomorrow, in 2,000 years they would find her and say "wow, must be 2 billion years old, probably half ape!"? i dunno about all of this...

Well, this is just grose misinformation and misunderstanding. For one, we can trace back some of our ancestors and many of our cousins. The information conerning the Homo genus is very wide and plentiful. Of the Hominid tribe, scientists can follow an ancestry spanning nearly eight different genera. The collection of knowledge surrounding the understanding of the Homo genus is based on multiple fossiles and findings. It just seems that you havn't been doing the most up to date research, or are simply selecting your research in order to remain ignorant. Sounds like you may be a big Kent Hovind fan?

okay my final point... considreing Darwins last wish was that he'd never came up with the THEORY of evolution and that people wouldn't seek to prove it, then i guess that pretty much means its FALSE

Ok, this is your crowning failure. For one, Darwin never made such a wish, or at least, no such wish has even been actually documented or recorded. Darwin was a very serious scientist and took his convictions with him to the grave. The stories of Darwin's death in which he recants and or denounces his theories are urban legends debunked decades ago, only taken seriously in Creationist circles (speaking volumes to their willingness and ability to research). Secondly, Darwin did not come up with the "theory" of evolution. Darwin hypothesized a mechanism in which such a thing could be actualized: Natural Selection. The idea of evolution had been around long before Darwin's time. And thirdly, even if Darwin ever made such statements, it would in no way make Evolutionary Theory false. That's a logical fallacy. It's an argument from authority. Even if no one believed in evolution, and everyone said it was false, it would have no real impact or effect on the truth value of evolutionary theory.

when someone thinks their OWN theory is wrong, then stop expanding on it people, at least don't teach it as fact when in fact it IS a theory...

Again, the guy didn't think his theory was wrong. In fact, he thought just the opposite.
Also, Evolution is indeed a fact. We know it exists, we know it happens. The theory is the mechanisms in which it occurs. We know it occurs, that's a fact. But, exactly how it occurs is the theory. So, the truth is Evolution involves both fact and theory. Those things which are facts should be taught, as well as the theories behind them.

[jue]

im like in the middle. I can't make up my mind. Im not too religious so i guess thats affecting me to believe in creation. But the tought of evolution is cool xD

[*Teenage Mutant Ninja Meg*]

If I have to choose one, I'd say evolution because I'm not religious in the least.

[sheridan_whitesi...]

This thread needs to die. Much like Christianity.

[*swtcherriipie*]

Well i have good cristian morals but.. an open mind, being as the theory of evolution WAS DISPROVED then i belive in creation by a greater being (GOD) so in all reaLIty we DID NOT evolve from monkeys....

This thread needs to die. Much like Christianity.

Eh... Religious Slurr thank you very much....