I've seen a lot of Christians go on quite a bit about how 'imperfect' and endlessly 'flawed' human beings are.

Regardless of whether this is actually true or not, it cannot be used as a conviction against science. If the 'flaws' of humans invalidate scientific conviction then they must invalidate religion too, so it doesn't really get us anywhere.



This sort of religious belief is very popular among scientists that are religious - that God created the Universe, set things in motion, but has done nothing else after that. This won't interfear with natural selection, gravitation, electromagnetism;it works perfectly for most scientists. The only question that it raises is Did God create the Universe? But it's only really cosmologists that need to worry about that, and it won't bother biologists or chemists or most other physicists.

I just find it bizarre that there are 13 year olds running about in high school proclaiming the obvious holes in evolution when scientists who have studied the field for decades, who understand physics, biology, and chemistry, find no such holes. It just seems... arrogant... somehow.

Very arogant actually...

Anyways I tend to stay out of evolution vs God debates my opinion is it doesn't matter how I got here the fact that I'm here is good enough to make me unhappy without getting in fights about how I got here.

This debate boils down to the fact that evolution is science whereas creationism is faith. This has two immediate ramifications for our discussion:

1) In schools, evolution is tought in science classes. Evolution is science, so it fits in a science course, whereas creationism is not science, so it doesn't fit there. (I'm not suggesting that creationism is inferior in any way; I'm merely stating the (hopefully) obvious fact that it is not science.) Those who want to remind kids that "Evolution is just a theory" or "Evolution hasn't been proven" really are just saying, "Evolution is science.' Well, yes, it is.

Unfortunately, very few people understand what the word 'theory' actually means. A theory is a (usually) complex model that attempts to describe why certain observable phenomena occur. Because of its very nature, a theory can never be 'proven', although it can quite easily be disproven. One can observe many facts that support a theory, suggesting that it is a valid model. Even better (from the theory's point of view) is if the theory makes some prediction that is later observed to be correct. A good example of this is the prediction of Einstein's Special Relativity that objects moving at greater speeds travel through time slower, which was confirmed by comparing the readings of an atomic clock flown around on an airplane to one which remained on the ground. Of course, a theory can easily be disproven by finding some event that plainly contradicts the predictions of the theory. This is, in fact, the general aim of science; we try our best to prove theories incorrect, but if this is not done after repeated tries, we can use it as a model, confident that it is at least partially trustworthy- but we never trust it as absolute Truth, and always keep an eye out for contradictory evidence.

A theory can never become fact: to insult evolution for being a theory is to grossly misinterpret what it is, what it says, and what it is trying to do. Evolution cannot be a fact. Actually, calling it a theory is high praise: it has shown itself to work even after countless (scientific) attacks over such a long period of time.

2) In a more general context, arguing between creationism and evolution is bootless. Evolution is grounded in scientific observation of fact, inquiry, and reasoning, all of which creationism and faith transcend.

To have a valid argument, both sides have to start out on the same playing field. If creationism were to try to combat evolution on a scientific playing field, it would have to defend itself through exactly the same means that evolution does. It would not be able to defend itself by calling on God (which would be a circular argument) or faith or anything of the sort. It would be limited to what we can observe in the world around us, and would therefore lose what it most valuable to it: belief in God and faith in one's religion.

On the other hand, evolution could try to move to creationism's level, but this would be equally nonsensical. You'd have scientists calling on Darwin as some kind of prophet and treating Evolution as some holy tenet. This betrays the most fundamental principles of what evolution is, namely its insistence on support from real evidence.

I've wasted a lot of word saying what should be obvious: either you believe in creationism or you don't. If you do, then no argument that evolution can possibly make will convince you otherwise. If you don't, then you might be persuaded by the evidence that the Theory of Evolution is a good model- or you might not, on valid scientific objections.

Nothing can come of this argument; either you flip the switch to credulity and hold faith in God or you flip it to incredulity and approach science by questioning everything. No matter how much you yell at the lightbulb, that's not going to turn it on or off. Unless you have one of those noise sensitive lights... Hmm...


Sorry we've derailed your thread, sugarless.

Vornskr wins.

A lot of people seem to think that 'theory' somehow suggests 'uncertainty'.

Evolution is a theory, and it is also a fact. They are different things, not steps on a hierarchy of 'certainness'. Facts are data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.
It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. These are the facts of evolution.
The theory of evolution regards the relative significance of the different mechanisms involved.

Everyone I've seen who tries to use science against religion, has too little of an understanding of religion to come up with a valid argument. This applies to this thread, as well.

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to say that evolution doesn't have evidence. I was simply bringing up the philosophical idea you can't believe in anything. Sort of like the character from Douglas' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series: The true president of the galaxy who doesn't believe in the existence of the universe or anything else for that matter. (spoiler tag used for those who have not read the books)

*shrugs*

QFT. I totally agree. If one is not religious, they really have no true understanding of faith, and therefore cannot understand why those of us who are religious believe so strongly in what we do. They just see us as being illogical.

Gotcha Flex. But that is what I was trying to explain. Natural selection simply eliminates the gazelles that were not fast enough. It doesn't actually create anything new. The gazelles are not evolving into a faster species, the slower gazelles are just being eliminated.

Except there are plenty of us who either do or used to have just the same faith, and we do understand. And we still know you're wrong. Nice try.

Yeah, Emon is right. You can't tell me that crap. I've been on both sides of the coin. Almost everyone has.

Blah blah blah blah.

You know, this crap accomplishes NOTHING.

Also, in the process makes you look like a bunch of babies. Congratulations. Diapers are in the kitchen under the sink.

Everything accomplishes something, even if quite subtley. One way to analyze accomplishments is to take a look at peoples' motives for posting. Perhaps some small part of them hopes that they will convince the other guy that his stance is right, or maybe they are posting for entertainment purposes. Maybe some people find it intellectually stimulating.

When you take a look at those motives, you can start seeing some possible accomplishments. Person X successfully amused himself by posting, person Y learned something new, and person Z managed to persuade person Y to his line of reasoning.



Perhaps the problem lies in your own outlook? It's not necessary to blame everyone else for your own feelings. You control your own attitude, not us.

I love how creationists claim that "you just don't understand because you don't have faith".
Well, news flash, YOU just don't understand because you DO have faith, and you let it blind you from the truth. There IS no argument, creationism has been proven completely false, evolution is a theory backed up by hardcore facts. How is this even a debate?

Have you read a book on the subject that was bias toward Creationism instead of Evolution?



I'm 15, home-schooled, and do not claim to be an expert on this. I'll get around to reading some books on the subject eventually. Until I do, I'm not even going to argue it. I haven't taken natural history since like, 5th grade, and I probably won't during the rest of high school, because I have been and will continue to take courses such as Biology, Chemistry, Physics ect. I'll read some books from both sides on my own, and then argue the position. Like I say, I'm not going to claim I know much about natural history.



I had to because of the word structure of that sentence. Not to spite you.



The basics of evolution have changed. It was found recently that macroevolution could not just be microevolution over a long period of time. It turned out that macroevolution could not occur by means of natural selection alone, but had to be felicitated by advantageous mutations. That was a pretty big change. Of course all scientific theories change as we learn more, so that’s not just limited to evolution.

Again, have you ever read a book written from a Creationist standpoint? A book written by an Evolutionist is not exactly going to bend over backwards trying to point out things that support Creation. Even if something seems correct at the time it's dangerous to assume that it is correct. I mean, 200 years ago everyone thought that it was good to leach sick people. 500 years ago people thought that the sun was the center of the universe. Even if you think evolution is true, you shouldn't go around touting that all of it will always be accepted. Now, like I say I haven’t studied the debate, but I do know that there are some arguments against evolution. Take the moon for example. If it really was as billions of year old, it’s been calculated that it would many feet not a few inches, of dust on it. I’m sure that evolutionists have their answer for that, you know what I mean. There are probably “uncomfortable” little things like that for both sides that have to be explained away to one degree or another.




I don't think that any scientist would ever say that. You do not understand the concept of theory and fact. Theories are things like electricity and gravity, that we are sure of, but can't really conclusively prove. Facts are observations like, "If I drop it, it falls." Or, "If it put wire with a current running through it around a battery it will pick up certain metallic objects. I think you may be confusing hypothesis with theory.

Care to point me to the scientific study that proves creationism false? A link will do nicely.

Oh wait. It doesn't exist. Nice try.

http://www.google.com

Humans evolved from teh apes, therefore humans are not teh created by god lolz. j00 are teh lose

I am weak. The temptation has grown too much.

Just to get it off me chest, this thread really didn't need to dissolve into a Creation vs. Evolution no-holds-barred quote-fest. My two pence is that evolution has been observed as far as possible, and is technically a theory, but a key one to learn. The same goes for creationism, replacing "theory" with "belief". And that is all I'm saying.

As for the actual topic...

Most of my mates are atheist. So am I. One person I know is a Catholic (not too sure which denomination or anything) and a strong one at that, and while he swings towards creationism, he doesn't debate openly about it, although he does counter arguments against evolution if it's an open discussion. He's got quite strong morals as well, but that's bordering off topic.

As for your friends, I can't really offer any advice, although if you like 'em and it annoys you enough you should say something about it.

It isn't, but not because creationism has been proven false. You can't prove creationism false, which is why it isn't science and why this isn't a productive argument. Creationism relies on belief in a god, which has nothing to do with facts. A creationist doesn't need to look for facts to prove himself right, and will not be convinced that facts prove him wrong (although a scientist might).

There's a huge fundamental difference between these two ways of looking at things, and you can't hope to 'conquer' one side by using tactics of the other.



You'll have to show some sources to convince me of this. This doesn't have anything to do with evolution, anyway.



Thanks for the insight. Obviously someone's getting something out of it, though, so let's just be nice and let them enjoy their thread, ok?



No, that's exactly how evolution works. Natural selection doesn't create anything new: that's left to random genetic mutation. Natural selection merely leaves in the mutations that made the gazelles faster, and weeds out the ones that made them slower. By eliminating the slower gazelles, only the ones with genetic traits that make them fast are allowed to reproduce and spread their traits. Thus, the gazelles' average speed increases over time- evolution in progress.



That's not fair. There are plenty of people who were once quite religious but have lost their belief. Likewise, there are people who have come to understand the value of religion, even if it might seem illogical. You can't make sweeping generalizations about everyone's experiences and viewpoints; for some they may be correct, but you're discrediting a large number of people who might have something to say that you could benefit from listening to.

This thread is the same as the 900 other threads like it.

People arguing over opinions, which usually turns into a flame fest.

Oh, right, the actual purpose of the thread...

I've run into a lot of people who are so set in their ways, on almost any topic, that they almost don't even realize that they're being rude in the way they're expressing their opinion. I don't know about anyone else, but I can get really frustrated about them, especially when you're in a conversation with one and they don't seem to register the fact that you're saying something. Nothing hurts more than being given the same amount of attention as a brick wall.

The best thing to do is just not give it any thought. It's not good to ignore problems, but when you realize that someone just isn't going to listen to you, what else is there to do?

I will admit that I did make some rather unfounded statements, so if you wish ignore my second to last post.

I agree with this statement Vorn, however I don't call it faith, I call it ignorance.

Thank you. You said exactly what I've been thinking for many, many years now. It is possible, perhaps even probable that God set the events in motion (initiated the Big Bang etc.) and then did not interfere any further.

In my opinion, the largest failure on behalf of the literal interpretation of Biblical Creationism is that the books in the Bible regarding the subject were written thousands of years after the events transpired. That is irrefutable. I've spoken to several ministers regarding the issue, and all agree that the first books of the Bible were not written anywhere near the time the events described happened. Even if the stories were passed down orally before being written down, it would have been similar to the game "telephone," only spanning across thousands of years. There is absolutely no way to affirm the statements made in the first books of the Bible.

Some will say that what I described is selective belief. That if you don't believe in the first few books of the Bible, then there is no reason to believe the rest of the Bible. I disagree. I view the Bible as a historical document only when documentation was actually taking place. The rest is a guide to morality, threatening those who read it that if they misbehave, some mystical bogey-man in te sky will rain down fire and brimstone. Of couse, that goes more with the old testament than with the new, but you get the idea. I don't doubt the events that are described in the Bible actually happened (when records actually started being kept; I'm talking about books after Genesis), but I do doubt the authors' objectivity in writing about the events. I believe that the writers tried to interject morality with historical fact, thus skewing the books in favor of one theory or line of thought over another.

I understand that logic, but it has a flaw: it assumes evolution is not a tool whereby God created man.

HUMANS DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES.

They evolved from a COMMON ANCESTOR.

God created Apes =/= creationism
Adam + Eve = creationism

No?

And why can't Adam and Eve have evolved?

SEMANTICS YOU WHINER!

Point well taken - I apologize. Yes, I was making too broad of a generalization - there are exceptions to every statement. However, I still stand by my opinion that MANY, not all, nonrelgious people, fit into this category.

They can, but that's not the story.

The only thing specific about the creation process it says in the Book of Genesis is that God created Adam from the dust of the Earth. Is that not the basic idea of evolution? It also says he created Eve from one of Adam's ribs. I have no idea WTF that's supposed to mean, but whatever. I think you're wrong in assuming evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive.

The timeframe of the Adam and Eve story, as obtained by their meticulously listed geneaology, does not match any kind of evolution theory, as far as I know.

Not really. You can't start a population with two people.

How come?

You can, but yeah, genetics defects start sprouting up in some people. Heck, wouldn't that be odd if that's where all of today's mental disorders came from - too much inbreeding.

Well, I suppose there are problems with that side of it. The Bible tends to suggest a young earth.

<WiLdSeXyPrInCeSs> i luv guyz where would they be wifout us gals???
<XeNoX> Still in the Garden Of Eden you gullible *****.

The significance of Eve coming from Adam's rib is that women are nothing but an offspring of man, and therefore deserve to be marginalized. After all, they would not exist except that God created them as a service to Adam. I think most people are wrong in assuming that violence against women and creationism are mutually exclusive.



:banned:

And also that God created Man in his image. So, unless God is an ape.

Actually, God would have to be an ameboe or bacteria, or some other simple organism.

Really, you can go through all of Genesis, verse by verse, and show that pretty much any interpretation is nonsense of varying degrees.



Saying "oh a scientist said this" doesn't really hold much ground. A quantum physicist is a scientist and doesn't necessarily know any more about natural selection than a plumber.

So, "if I drop it, it falls" is fact. That isn't a definition, and it isn't even a very good example.
Much like the word 'theory', the common usage of the word 'fact' tends to stray away from the actual scientific usage.
The word 'fact' does not mean 'absolute certainty', scientists make no claim for perpetual truth (whereas creationists often do, and attack scientists for appearing to do that)
Stephen Gould provides a fairly good definition of what a fact is:
"Scientific Fact is a theory that is so thoroughly confirmed it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

The facts of evolution are:
- Earths structures have changed
- Its life forms have changed, over billions of years
- Random mutations occur
- Species of animals continue to evolve, in the lab and the field
- Creatures best adapted to the environment tend to survive better

The theory of evolution is about the importance of 'natural selection' over other mechanisms.

All sensible scientists accept evolution as fact. The discussion is about how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs.