Evolution vs Creationism vs More V1.0

[natas]

This is version 1 of the debate "Evolution vs Creationism vs More". What this thread is not is a place to come and insult, mock, degrade or put down members for their views. Engage the debate in the spirit in which it is meant to be debated.

In this thread we will talk about the following:

* Should evolution be taught in class?
* Should creationism be taught in class?
* Other theories on how earth was created
* Other arguments about the creation of life, earth etc.


Special rules for this thread:
1) As always, please stay on topic. Off topic replies, will be removed.
2) Limit small replies like "that was awesome", or "Your wrong". Instead of replying like this, use rep or the "thank you" button.
3) Try your best to back your statement up with scientific fact, studies you have read or done.
4) DO NOT plagiarize. If you quote someones findings, please give credit by providing the name, or a direct link.
5) Before posting, please read the rules of this forum.

Quoting of verses is fine, quoting of scientific fact is fine. Telling another member they will burn in hades (or other word) is not allowed. Telling someone that believing in God is dumb is not allowed.

Enjoy, and have fun!

[pathfinder36]

There should be no argument in my opinion. BOTH could have been equally true. God creates universe with the appearance of time... is that "appearance" of time just an illusion, or did he actually provide a REAL and tangible history to the universe that pre-dates it's actual creation?

I think it's entirely feasible that the "appearance of time" is an ACTUAL timeline of it's own. If man-kind were to go back in time... to the exact moment that God created earth, would we witness him creating earth, or would we see pre-historic creatures? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't witness God creating earth, so I would have to assume that God created existence with a real, viable, logical history that pre-dates the actual creation. I would wager that going back in time, we would see Dinosaurs and pre-historic critters running around. I would bet money that we could leap back to current date and actually WITNESS evolution occurring.

This would cause the scientific community to point back at religion and say..."See... we were right." Does that mean that God didn't create everything as is in a single moment? No, it just means that God provided man with a logical mechanism for existence. This would mean that BOTH evolution AND creationism could be right... at the same time.

Why all the arguing? There is absolutely NO way we could ever know for certain how everything started. There are a few things we can know with reasonable certainty however:

Every living creature on Earth has and DOES currently make slow physical adaptations to better suit its environment. That in it's own is evolution. To look back through fossil records, we can see that an evolutionary process is very likely. If we could ever go back and PROVE that man evolved from monkeys, would that DISPROVE any religious belief? No. Not with the assumption that God's idea of the "appearance of time" isn't an illusion with no substance.

[X-Factor]

I personally don't think that religion should be brought into the classroom, but having said that I think that any scientific theory (and evolution IS still a theory, if a very well studied one) should be taught as such, NOT as fact. Religion should be learned from the parents and the chosen place of worship. I am far from a religious person, though I grew up in a VERY religious home.

[deadliestformula]

NEWSBRIEF: Chicago Tribune, Friday, 10/25/96, "POPE BOLSTERS CHURCH SUPPORT FOR EVOLUTION", by Stevenson Swanson, Tribune Staff Writer, Dateline: New York.

"In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church's position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is 'more than just a hypothesis' and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith. In a written message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope said the theory of evolution has been buttressed by scientific studies and discoveries since Charles Darwin ... "It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge', the pope said in his message Wednesday. 'The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes, in itself, a significant argument in favor of this theory..."

[X-Factor]

Yet another in the Catholic Church's attempts to "main-stream."

[momakat]

This is an interesting and timeless question. I was raised in a religious environment - but learned evolution in school, leaving me personally confused as to the 'truth'. There has been much discovery of past and present evolution - so what happened to creation as the Bible teaches? I once asked a minister when young, and again when I was older and the answers were similar.

Religion does not teach how long a 'day' is, or was, during the 6 days of creation. So who is to say that a day could not have been millions of years, allowing evolution to take place naturally at the same time God was creating all things. This is the basis of discussion in the two churches I was in at the different times I posed this question about 20 years apart.

I love reading about each new discovery in our evolutionary history. And I smile at each new question some of these things pose when there is no real link from a discovery to a past/previous evolutionary trail - lending more credence to the creationist theory/faith. Although I still have questions about reconciling evolution and creation - I do believe they both played a part in our world.

Should creationism be taught in schools? No - I believe in the separation of church and state. If one faith were to be taught in public schools that would open up a huge box of worms and could cause more problems than we want to deal with. I taught my children my 'faith' at home and in church . . . just as I taught them that the teachers are human, books are written by men and to never blindly accept or follow one teaching. They ask questions, research, and discover answers for themselves - after all, each teacher relies upon their own upbringing and education to interpret what they, in turn, teach others.

[sarecho7280]

here's the simplest way to put it.

if one can't grasp the concept of a universe simply beginning, then it's also impossible to grasp the concept of a higher power always existing. to believe in a higher power or creationism, you have to just accept that that higher power has always existed but those same people just don't get "the big bang theory" or any of its counterparts. it's very hypocritical and simply a case of faith vs. science. one is based on evidence and one is based on anything but evidence.

the evolution of science is also cited as "proof of god" because theories change, when in actuality, it's usually science that debunks science. religion has never debunked science and never will (see the faith argument above).

the way i see it, we're animals and nothing more. we haven't always been here and we won't always be here. our way of thinking will be as ridiculed one day as is that of the native americans, egyptians, etc.

it's a cycle we are part of but won't admit it.

[natas]

The one issue I have with evolution being taught in school is teachers saying its fact (yes I had a teacher tell us in HS that evolution was FACT). Teach it all you want, but teach that its a theory. Do you really think scientist figured out completely what created the world, let alone earth, or even simple organisms?

[momakat]

The interesting thing about education is that in the end it is people who write the books and teach the teachers. The victors write history . . . so how political are the science books and other books that are re-written every so many years? aaarrrgh!!! Touchy subject for me. While I agree there is much evidence to back up evolution as fact (and is an ongoing process) - evolution did not create the earth.

Back in the day we were taught about 3 (I think) theories about how the world was created - the most popular one being the "Big Bang Theory". While I have not followed some of this for a few years . . . my recollections are probably outdated . . . life began when the right ratio of minerals, chemicals, etc. were mixed and voila! The beginning of life. But . . . have the scientists yet been able to duplicate this process in the laboratory? Hence the Creationist theory gaining a bit of ground here at the beginning of life as created vs. a lucky combination.

I agree teachers should be more careful what they say - but also remember they are teaching what they have been taught/told to teach and it is up to us (and hopefully involved parents) to question and search for some answers on our own.

[sarecho7280]

Originally Posted by momakat

The interesting thing about education is that in the end it is people who write the books and teach the teachers. The victors write history . . . so how political are the science books and other books that are re-written every so many years? aaarrrgh!!! Touchy subject for me. While I agree there is much evidence to back up evolution as fact (and is an ongoing process) - evolution did not create the earth.
Back in the day we were taught about 3 (I think) theories about how the world was created - the most popular one being the "Big Bang Theory". While I have not followed some of this for a few years . . . my recollections are probably outdated . . . life began when the right ratio of minerals, chemicals, etc. were mixed and voila! The beginning of life. But . . . have the scientists yet been able to duplicate this process in the laboratory? Hence the Creationist theory gaining a bit of ground here at the beginning of life as created vs. a lucky combination.
I agree teachers should be more careful what they say - but also remember they are teaching what they have been taught/told to teach and it is up to us (and hopefully involved parents) to question and search for some answers on our own.

the big bang is silly because it makes much more sense to believe that an all-powerful being has always been and created us out of vanity or lonliness or whatever

all i know is that science debunks science and science debunks religious teachings. religion does not debunk other religion, much less other science.

just because we as humans don't know something does not mean it was god who did it.

we're changing faster than any other organism ever. what have we accomplished in 10,000 years (living in the woods vs. living in a penthouse condo on the beach).

how far have cows came in that time? what about dogs?

it's a case of impatience. we want and feel like we deserve all the answers right now. impossible. in 100 years, 10 year olds will probably be as intelligent as adults nowadays. not because of anything truly genetic, but with more info being readily available, more can be readily absorbed. our direction is more towards "making money" too and what better way to get a jump on the other guys than to start when you're in diapers.

religion is our vanity and fears.

[momakat]

Originally Posted by megascops-osio

the big bang is silly

I agree - most of them are very silly.

Originally Posted by megascops-osio

. . . science debunks science and science debunks religious teachings. religion does not debunk other religion, much less other science.

Sometimes science is manipulated to attain the desired results. Sometimes science has found support for events in the Bible. Religion is another topic in a sense - it has caused different faiths to go to war and it's sad as most different religions have very similar basic tenets.

Originally Posted by megascops-osio

we're changing faster than any other organism ever. what have we accomplished in 10,000 years (living in the woods vs. living in a penthouse condo on the beach).

Given how old science says the earth is, and how many billions of years some of the different eras of history have lasted (according to science) . . . well . . . we've only been here a very short time to have attained some of the things we now take for granted - not to mention the physical changes that have occurred. Did we evolve or were we created - quite a jump from one form to another with no 'link'.

[firekick3]

Originally Posted by megascops-osio

all i know is that science debunks science and science debunks religious teachings. religion does not debunk other religion, much less other science.

really? last time I checked, most wars that occur in the middle east region arise from one religion "debunking" another one.

[Red-Tailed_mustang]

All I know is this

My heart tells me thier is something else some higher power.

My mother and father were in a bad wreck in which my baby brother died. The doctors told us many times she was going to die and she actually flatlined several times. Our whole family praid. She is still alive and in my eyes it is a miracle. On the other hand I have known several people who have passed away before thier time. All they wanted to do was help people they would of givin thier shirt of thier back for somebody they didn't even know.

On the other hand my mind tells me that we as humans have came from something else and other animals and plants have changed or evolved.

If nothing happens when we die whats the point nut who knows what happens??

Believe what you want its your right.

[Stargazer]

Whether or not there is a "creator", I think the evidence for some sort of evolutionary cycle is too abundant to ignore. Everyone knows about Darwinian theory. But has anyone read "The Descent of Woman" by Elaine Morgan? She theorizes that there was a period of time in our ancient history where our ancestors lived primarily in the water (with their heads above). She believes the purpose of this was to avoid predators such as sabre tooth tigers who chased them into the sea. Her evidence is very compelling:
1) Human embryos at a certain stage actually have fin-like structures. Since they are gestated in fluid, she believes this to recapitulate a time when humans once had fin-like stuctures as well, perhaps to breathe underwater.
2) Body hair. The direction it grows tend to be streamlined, with more hair on top of the head (theoretically because our heads were out of the water so we needed hair to protect them).
3) I personally found this one to be the most fascinating: Our innate phobias of snakes and spiders can be relegated to our primal fear of eels and crabs who (she claims) are distant relatives in the evolutionary cycle. The fears in those days would have been justified because eels and crabs were dangerous.
4) She also cited certain similarities found in humans and certain aquatic mammals like whales (but it has been too long since I've read the book to remember the details.)

In another area, I read in a recent Time magazine that astronomers have found some new evidence to support the big bang theory. With some of the newer, more powerful telescopes, they can see some of the gases that were believed to have been spewed into the atmosphere after the big bang. As better telescopes are invented, we will probably be hearing much more about this!

Of course, none of this to me in any way precludes the presence of any sort of "creator" who could have masterminded this whole thing. I don't know why the theories have to be mutually exclusive. Since I am not religious-minded, I find it much more interesting to read evolution theories. There seems to be endless evidence to support it.

[JuliusSqueezer]

I have never seen anything that even remotely proves that species evolve into another drastically different species. I don't believe that snakes evolved from lizards for example. Perhaps some evolved from a lizard looking legged animal like Pachyrhachis problematicus but that's not a lizard. And I don't believe that ALL modern snakes share the same recent ancestor. I believe Pachyrachis MAY HAVE evolved or adapted and became some or all of the pythons and possibly boas but I highly doubt colubrids, elapids, and vipers did. Also, the blind snakes are even more primitive than boids and I think it makes absolutely no sense to believe they came down the same path. Or perhaps there were other snakes around at the same time and "in the begining" was more diverse than we think. I don't believe that the first man evolved from an ape...perhaps early man was ape like in appearance...but that doesn't mean that one day a babboon or chimp gave birth to a human child. There is no evidence to suggest that ever happend...and scientists are forever in search of that elusive "missing link" that I don't believe ever existed. The word evolution to me is 100% interchangeable with adaptation. Things adapting to climate changes, dietary availability, survival of the fittest, migration, even moving from sea to land or land to sea...all fully supported by tons of fossil evidence but nothing comes close to proving that drastic changes by way of species hopping ever occured...or does it? Science can not distinguish a hippopotamus from a whale by Mitochondrial DNA testing...so who knows really? We will forever believe. We will forever doubt. But will we ever know?

[sarecho7280]

the question is will we survive long enough as a species to ever know. if we can live long enough, we will know.

even when we KNOW, people will still believe in something "more" because science isn't nearly as "neat and groovy" as religion.

i think people are scared they'll not be able to use the sabbath as an off-day either.

i'm not religious and i'll pull the religion card if i have to

[Stargazer]

I think, as JS points out, that "adaptation" is different than the idea of one being actually changing into another. Just as in the snake world, many species of animals in different geographical locations whose gene pools are not ever known to have mingled have developed similar traits where climates and conditions are similar and where it is biologically advantageous to do so. However, there is no evidence to prove or disprove that a common creator created each individual being, even those who are now extinct.

Some folks believe humans landed here from another planet, and their evidence is pretty compelling too.

[sarecho7280]

Originally Posted by Stargazer

I think, as JS points out, that "adaptation" is different than the idea of one being actually changing into another. Just as in the snake world, many species of animals in different geographical locations whose gene pools are not ever known to have mingled have developed similar traits where climates and conditions are similar and where it is biologically advantageous to do so. However, there is no evidence to prove or disprove that a common creator created each individual being, even those who are now extinct.
Some folks believe humans landed here from another planet, and their evidence is pretty compelling too.

the galapagos islands are interesting though. the tortoises "adapted/evolved" different shell shapes to aid in what they had to deal with on the specific island. some had to deal with more low lying limbs and got their food from that same underbrush, so their shells allowed them to get through it easier but still feed. the others didn't have to deal with the underbrush but did have to reach up high for food, so their shell allows for that.

if they swapped places, they'd both be ill equipped to be successful.

i think the difference in adapting and evolving is time. humans suck at understanding time. we've been "intelligent" for what, 25-50,000 years or so? that's nothing.

i think that adaptation occurs in a generation or two but evolution happens about as fast as it has to, which is about as long as it takes for the earth to drastically change so that evolution is a must.

[Stargazer]

I think what we need here is a definition of "evolution." Maybe I missed this in a previous post. It is my understanding that Darwinian theory describes the process of "natural selection" or survival of the fittest. That is to say that is was genetically advantageous for apes around a certain time period to be selected who had human-like qualities. However, as JS points out, scientists never find those elusive missing links. Besides, there is also evidence that points to the theory that we evolved from fish, as Elaine Morgan points out. So did apes first evolve from fish and then came humans?

Seems to me it is more plausible that different species developed along parallel lines of evolution and can share similar traits with other species.

[JuliusSqueezer]

Whether you believe wholey in science or religion, one fact remains. We are the only beings so far to have developed advanced temporal and frontal lobes in the brain. Reasoning comes from the frontal lobe. Fantasy comes from the temporal lobes. With our inteligence and creativity came a price. We are the first species to fully grasp our own impending doom. To go on, many of us must believe that there is life after death or we obsess with death to the point of severe depression. I believe religion may have been born from fantasy and reasoning to help us cope and to comfort our loved ones about death. Those that created any given religion may very well believe every word that is written or spoken on their chosen faith even if they wrote it. There is of course a possibility that a devine being could easily put words in a selected person's head and passed on the true word....or it could have come from fantasy or even schizophrenia. I guess what bothers me the most about following the most accepted religions here in this country is the source. One thing that hasn't changed much with time over the last few thousand years is the middle east. Religion there is to a point well beyond fanaticism, has been for thousands of years and looks like it will contine for thousands more. Someone screams something in the streets and hordes follow. I simply don't trust anything that came from there enough to devote blind faith to it. Christianity for example of course came from there though the words we hear in Sunday School were translated with varying accuracy by order of King James so some old obscure british lingo has become standardized scripture still used today and seems to have veiled the fact that our bible was written by the same group of 3rd world fanaticals that are over there now burning our flags, plotting our demise and have mostly long sense abandoned that religion for others. Christianity was forced on the west by King James. Since his days up until very recent times, people were burned as witches, killed in crusades...MURDERED for not believing or following the strict rules of the church. It was beaten in to early Americans and Europeans with brutal force not unlike at all the way we see fanatical extreme muslisms beating their religion into their people. Now here we have choice that we didn't always have and people are taking peeks into at least questioning things that not long ago would have gotten them beheaded, burned, stoned or hanged. The key question that has arisen from this new found freedom is "Did God make man or did man make God?" FEW people have ever been willing to accept that we just don't know. The folks that established most of the middle eastern religions all seem to have a very common theme. BELIEVE or be punished. I find it difficult to believe that "believing" would be the ever important rule for a God as talented as ours that he wouldn't just keep an open line.