Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

One fits with science (creationism) and one does not (the philosophy of evolution).


Which one is more scientific: creationism or evolution?

i still have to believe in evolution but we had to be created to evolve into somthing better

I don't quite understand you - do you believe that creationism or evolution is more scientific? Also please make your vote.

well if were created from the very begining we might have evolved to adapt to our eviroment

No, creation means creating something perfect first time. I there was a god, there would not have been evolution - god doesn't need evolution. But evolution is a proven fact, so there's no god.

Dizzy, I hope you too can have a good laugh at what was just said.

clickclick, You are utterly misguided in assuming that creationism is supported by science - creationism postulates that the world was created by a god - science has never proved such a thing, nor can it be proved or scientifically probed. It just shows how you never think about what you say, or maybe you cant think at all.

Still havent taken me up on that offer huh? Why is that not surprising and you keep pming me? Im going to have to do something about that.

I said that creationism is consistent with scientific evidence. If creationism is the antithesis of evolution and the theory of evolution fails on many levels than you can safely arrive at creationism which is consistent with.

There is nothing in creationism that dictates that a species could not adapt or have certain degrees of differences within a species. So the talk about creationism dictating perfection is bogus.

I'm not talking about differences within a species or adaptation - that is not evolution anyway - EVOLUTION IS MUTATION FOUND FIT BY CHANGING NATURE, BUT I WAS REFERING TO THE PRIMARY NOTION OF THE CREATION OF THE WORLD WHICH IS WHAT CREATIONISM SAYS - CREATION OF THE WORLD IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, AND CREATION OF THE WORLD IS AFTERALL WHAT CREATIONISM EMBRACES AT ITS CORE.

well which one do you agree on then answer yor own question so i understand your point of view to be honest your are right in parts about me btu what you fail to see that perfection lies within the beholder
god believes that everyone is perfect and beside nothing can be proved so niether one can be trully correct

punctuation really sucks

without a doubt evolution is more scientific. creationism is based on belief. But if you believe the origins of creationism then you can make the rest scientific. i dunno if that makes any sense at all....

I am not the least bit surprised that one might say that "evolution is more scientific". With no offense intended however, this is the result of dishonest teachings. Some people believe that evolution is the theory of science and creationism the philosophy of religious zealots. In truth though, evolutionism is the philosophy of atheists and naturalists. Creationism is a philosophy of theism but unlike evolution, it is not refuted by science. Now if evolution is the antithesis of creationism, why would one continuing parading around the failed theory as opposed to the congruent one?

As to the subject of dishonesty and misuse of science by naturalists, consider this. Should somebody have a reasonable objection to their theory (as there are so many reasonable objections), then they are met with hostility. This is because what is being purported to be science by naturalists, is most certainly NOT.

how are you suppose to refute a thing that cant cling to a single fact at all, all is based on faith.
its like you cant scientific or with substantial evidence refute this sentence "There is no god".
At least evolutionism have something to show. I think the evolutionists are getting closer and closer to nail the last nail of doubt into the minds of the faithful of a supernatural omnipresence omnipotent being.
A lot of evolutionists are actually deists, it is the biblical stuff they refute not a god.
For those who dont know what DEIST is it is people who believe that god created the universe and then left it alone to develop it self.

Well said Finti...... as I have stated before, it is my belief that the universe was created, swirled out of chaos or whatever.... then it was allowed to develop all by itself.... this seems to me to be the simplest answer that fits all the facts... and I dare say William of Occam would stand up and support me...

Well, either things were created by a creator or they were created by random chance. If the theory of evolution (random chance doesnt work) while creationism does, then what is the conclusion? I could go on and given many reasons why creationsm works where naturalism doesnt, many that I havent even cited previously. I dont believe evolutionism has anything legitimate to show in support of itself either because the things that are being uncovered, refute it.

This particular matter is not of which religion you believe, that wasnt my focus in this. The particulars were about creationism vs naturalism/theory of evolution.

As to clinging to facts. What IYO consistutes such?

If the schools would teach both creationism and evolution then I think it would let everyone think for them selves instead of what our curriculum is telling us. If we lived before the 1950's our who conversation on this topic here would be quite a bit different because all that was taught up until that time was creationism.

"If the theory of evolution (random chance doesnt work) while creationism does, then what is the conclusion?"

Where do you get the idea that the theory of evolution "doesn't work?" If it "didn't work," it wouldn't be a theory. As was stated in the other evolution thread in the GDF, scientists don't just go, "oh, that sounds interesting, let's make it a theory!" And as for your earlier comment about being met with hostility if you disagree with evolution... I'm not sure if you realize that Darwin was met with hostility when he questioned Christian creation.

"I could go on and given many reasons why creationsm works where naturalism doesnt, many that I havent even cited previously."

So why don't you?

"I dont believe evolutionism has anything legitimate to show in support of itself either because the things that are being uncovered, refute it."

And precisely what are these things being uncovered? You can't just say, "well, evolution is false because of some recent discoveries." That is totally illogical, to say something about certain scientific discoveries without telling what they are.

Go here if you want to read a very long conversation about creation vs. evolution and arguments against a great number of the discoveries that claim to disprove evolution...

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t27866.html

In Darwin's Bio. near the end of his life, he confessed that he was a believer in God and found it interesting that his theory was taken so seriously. It was only a theory.

Also, Albert Einstein said " God Almighty doesn't throw dice" Indicating that he, by what he said was also a believer.

Evolution.

It wasn't near the end of his life that he confessed that, I don't think... Throughout his life he was terrified that he would probably go to hell for disagreeing with the Bible. And the other thing is, a theory is a big deal. It isn't "just a theory." Yes, it is a theory, but a theory isn't some random idea that floated into a scientist's head one afternoon. A theory is something that is backed by evidence and is either produceable or observable. In other words, you can either reproduce whatever experiment spawned the theory, or go out and observe evidence of it.

clicky, quit making all your ridiculous assumptions about evolution and making a fool of yourself by implying that god's creation of the world is supported by scientific evidence. Everyone here can see you no nothing about creationism or evolution. Also, those who say that god created the world and then left it to develop on it's own are clearly not thinking straight: such a statement is only made by religious people who realise the FACT and irrefutability of Evoluion, but still want to include god in the picture - why would god create the world and then leave the rest to random chance? the only god that would do such a thing is one that is not proud of what he created initially and then subsequently said: "oh, well, it was a failed attempt, let me abandone it and leave the rest to chance. A real creator would create something perfect and final in his own image to be proud of.

i bet he would end up finding somthing wrong with it

Would you all agree that both evolution and creationism should be taught in the schools so people could make up their own minds?
Instead of just the one view, evolution.

Wouldn't it be better for schools to teach people HOW to think for themselves, instead of WHAT to think???????????

How about, quit acting so childish. Look, you have your opinion on naturalism, you have your faith in that and that is your choice. I have a differeing opinion, nobody needs to get insulted over that. I have at times been a little to harsh with you and though seemingly warranted, ill avoid doing that in the future. I can get into the intracacies and talk about probability and so on but you wont want to hear it anyway. So ill save myself the time.

Lastly, I said that it was congruent with not proven therein.

Thats all for now.

Peace and good luck.

I don't know about your school, but mine certainly did not force us to believe in evolution. And part of thinking for yourself is finding things out for yourself, not waiting for a school to teach it to you.

True, free thinking is finding things out for yourself. Free thinking is having all the facts, before making a decision. But most school curriculum is slanted towards evolution. No, not slanted, just is.

And for most people, they could care less about finding out anything for themselves.

"Would you all agree that both evolution and creationism should be taught in the schools so people could make up their own minds?
Instead of just the one view, evolution."

No, I can't agree to that, because when you go to a science class, you expect to be taught about science. Creationism is not science--there is absolutely no evidence backing it up that has not already been refuted. Evolution, on the other hand, is a solid theory that has yet to be disproved.

"Wouldn't it be better for schools to teach people HOW to think for themselves, instead of WHAT to think???????????"

Wouldn't it be better for churches to teach people how to think for themselves, instead of what to think?

Clickclick...
"I can get into the intracacies and talk about probability and so on but you wont want to hear it anyway. So ill save myself the time."

You are simply making a fool of yourself by continually claiming that you have actual scientific proof that Creation should be considered as seriously as evolution, and continually either refusing to or failing to give that proof. If you are so adamant that you could prove Philosophicus wrong, why haven't you?

You are simply making a fool of yourself by continually claiming that you have actual scientific proof that Creation should be considered as seriously as evolution, and continually either refusing to or failing to give that proof. If you are so adamant that you could prove Philosophicus wrong, why haven't you?

There is "Creation Science." and it's a real science. Ask Albert Einstein subscribed to it.

So, should both be taught.

For one, much to your dismay im sure, Im not particularly interested in how I appear you kid. Scientific proof that creation should be considered? I dont recall saying that as such. Though I did say it was congruent with science. Now tell me this, as im somewhat curious. What IYO would consistute that?

Solid theory for evolution? Like probability? The fossil record?
Spontaneous generation? The prebiotic soup? Irreducibly complex systems? Biochemical evidence etc?

Oh thats right. Spontaneous generation is "scientific" but a creator creating is "unreasonable" and "unsupported". Gotcha.

Funny that you said, "the theory of evolution has yet to be disproved". I hope you give a litle more thought to that one.

Its funny that when naturalists come up with unsubstantiated theories, it is considered by them to be science. Were a creationist to do it, naturalists would have a fit.

darth raven please help me out here, give me some evidence of evolution. state some specifics please.

I'm the one that said that in the evolution thread

Number one: No, creationism should NOT be taught in schools...don't you people know of a little something known as seperation of church and state? Since creationism is solely a religious concept it therefore has no place within a school.

Hmmm....creationism has scientific evidence? Clickclick, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and provide this evidence? And don't say "look it up yourself" because you're making the positive statement and therefore the burden of proof rests solely on your shoulders. So either present this evidence you claim exists, or shut up.

Evidence of evolution: the Galapagos finces that Darwin studied, and how bacteria mutate and become resistant to various antibiotics are the two most commonly presented examples of evolution. While evolution is generally something that takes place over thousands of years, the latter is something that we can actually see happen. There are plenty more, though; such as how a certain species of moth is usually brown and very rarely are there white moths -- the recessive genotype (white) is very visible against a tree while the dominant and heterozygous genotype (brown) is not; the white moths, being more visible, are more likely to be eaten by birds and therefore are selected against. There are many many more examples but I'd need to look them up as I don't remember a lot of the details (it's been a year since my AP Bio class).

But to say that there is scientific evidence for creationism and to say that evolution is refuted by science is laughable and shows clear ignorance.

No offense, but did you people pass 10th grade biology? I myself have done extensive research on both sides of the argument... I've looked through a number of the major "creation science" sites, and even written to one of them. The response I got was a drawn-out, nitpicky letter that didn't even come close to answering my original question, which I posed in a polite way. I found not one shred of evidence for Creation that was not either ridiculous or refuted by a thousand other sites. If you want me to cite examples, say the word, and I will gladly do so. So, after all my research, I concluded basically one thing: it was a complete waste of time and my opinion on evolution had not changed one bit. Please don't assume I'm some moron who goes around parading my spur of the moment ideas as fact.

You did just what I claimed you had, in at least two places in this thread. Here:

"I can get into the intracacies and talk about probability and so on but you wont want to hear it anyway."

And here:

"I could go on and given many reasons why creationsm works where naturalism doesnt, many that I havent even cited previously. I dont believe evolutionism has anything legitimate to show in support of itself either because the things that are being uncovered, refute it."

"Oh thats right. Spontaneous generation is 'scientific' but a creator creating is 'unreasonable' and 'unsupported'. Gotcha."

"Spontaneous generation," as you so aptly put it, does not in fact need be included in the study of evolution. Evolution is about the 4.6 billion years after life first appeared, not necessarily how it was created. How it first appeared is anybody's guess... Who knows, maybe it was created by some supernatural power at first. All I'm saying is that the idea earth is 6000 years old and was created in exactly the state it is now is a load of bull. The amount of evidence backing that up is enormous... To name the two most commonly used ones:

-We can see light from stars millions of light years away. This would obviously be impossible if the universe were under a few billion years old.

-We have found various artifacts that were carbon dated and found to be older than the supposed age of the Christian universe.

Now, as for evolution itself, the amount of evidence is just as great... And I honestly don't know how it's possible that you haven't heard any of this in the past. Creationists often claim that life is too "perfect" to have been created by anything other than an intelligent mind. The fact is, life is far from perfect.

For example, hundreds of studies have found that every living organism will always reproduce past the maximum load its environment can support. When this happens, a number of individuals from that species will simply die off until the population is within the amount the availible resources can support. The species will be more healthy as a whole, and will reproduce again, and the same thing happens over and over.

I could go on and on about life's various imperfections, and perhaps I will later, but I'm getting tired.

Before I go, I have to mention the thing that sparked the idea of evolution in the first place--Darwin's famous Galapagos finches. When Darwin was a naturalist aboard the HMS Beagle, which made stops in the Galapagos islands, he collected a number of specimens of what he thought to be different species of birds. However, when he got back to England, he was informed that all of the birds he had collected were types of finches. Back in the day, people knew that species sometimes changed due to variations in climate. What puzzled Darwin was the fact that all of the islands he had visited were identical in climate. There was no apparent reason for the birds to be so different from one another. Why would God put different finches on identical islands? He reasoned that perhaps organisms adapted over many generations to new situations--not just climate, but factors such as availible food and predators as well. That was the spark that got him thinking about natural selection...

But, like I said, it's past my bedtime and I must be leaving you all. Good day.

*applause*
That was *snif* Brilliant.....

( I should post my AP bio notes sometime. My teacher basicly says that any person who looks at nature and is somewhat scientific, they look at it through evolutionary "goggles" and of you don't believe in evolution you are wrong and can go to hell.)

For one, I didnt say you were a moron or anything of the sort. Anyway, Spontaneous generation is part of the theory of evolution, which is why it must be included. My actual objection is with naturalism and the theory that they put forth. Spontaneous generation or abiogenesis, you can call it what you will. Its the same thing.

I havent heard anybody claim that life was perfect either, I think complex is a more appropriate word.

I will respond further later.

So, are you saying then that Albert Einstein is an idiot. Because did believe it. He believed in a Creator, and not in evolution.

So because Einstein was a creationist people should believe in creation? That IS what you're implying.

WOW, what an intelligent statement.,NOT

What a witty comeback!

What does it matter if Einstein believed in creation? Oh let me see...it doesn't! That's good for him. He lived before there was a large amount of evidence for evolution.

Hold on I'll ask him.............OH

He said "True science is provable and repeatable, not theoretical"

He also said, if you have anymore question to please ask him yourself.

Did you not see the part about Einstein living in a time when there was little evidence for evolution? If he was alive today, it is probable that he would have vastly different views on evolution vs. creation. When he was younger, creation was still the accepted view on how we came to be. Quit living in the past and recognize that scientific views (on everything) change over time.

Think about what you just said "IF he ws alive today, it is PROBABLE that he....." I need more proof than that.

I believe in provable science. Theories are interesting and make for good conversation. Infact I'm in to conspiracy theories. I'm one of the most open minded people I know. But I also believe "the proof is in the putting."

finches?
finches are a product of adaptation i have already discussed this in another thread. You know how their are certain breeds of dogs that can live in extreme extreme cold? You know how there are dogs that are adapted to extreme extreme heat? well if you switch them around in their climates they will not survive very well now will they? But they are both dogs. Those dogs will not eventually spawn dogs that have wings.
Finches and peppered moths that you forgot to mention are poor examples of evolution

"When this happens, a number of individuals from that species will simply die off until the population is within the amount the availible resources can support."
that is one of the reasons i believe that there is a creator. everything works in perfect harmoney. Everything is structured to work together. If a animal has learned over generations and generations of how to evolve and they change to survive best, how could they decide to also change to benefit the rest of the enviroment unless there is a governing force that keeps thinsg in balance. How do 100s of sperate pieces of a puzzle all fit together at the same time without being able to communicate together and being random?

and as a side note i respect you are well read on the matter raven and i was not trying to insinuate in any way your a dumby on this subject and you just follow whatever you hear. I am also not thatw ay by the way and i have done some research on this subject as well.

I will post what I said in another thread:

How are they poor examples of evolution? The finches migrated from the mainland, some to each island, and evolved to have different colloration, different feet, different wingspans, different beaks, etc... In no way is that a poor example of evolution. And I didn't "forget" to mention peppered moths, I know plenty about moths. I did state that I could give many more examples, what I said was only a tiny fraction of the amount of evidence collected in support of evolution.



But wouldn't it be better if animals simply reproduced within the carrying capacity of their environments? It would save everybody a lot of trouble. Hundreds of separate pieces of a puzzle all fit together because they all evolved from a single organism. Think about it--first there was one archaebacteria, that couldn't tolerate the presence of very much oxygen, and then a genetic mutation caused a new type to appear. The new type let off a lot of oxygen, filling the atmosphere with it, and the old type died off because of the oxygen in the atmosphere. Therefore everything that evolved after that had to be able to tolerate, and make use of, the gases in the atmosphere. That's a very simple example, but that's basically the way it all worked. There was one organism, or a number of organisms, and a new one appeared because it was better adapted to its environment. It's not like there were a bunch of random mutations that by some miracle were all successful. At some point a mutation appeared that allowed an organism to survive better, and so the individuals with the mutation were successful and the ones without were not. It wasn't random chance that new organisms appeared and happened to be well adapted to their environment.

Creation is more true then Elevution which to me does not make any sence.JM

Indeed, DNA analyses show that although humans share far more genetic material with our fellow primates than we do with single-celled organisms, we still have more than 200 genes in common with bacteria.

Elevution doesn't make much sense to me, either. Evolution, on the other hand...

Screw.

Yes, screw.

I said it in another thread, and I will say it again:

"I see two sides, each taking ambiguous evidence and manipulating it to meet their needs."

Personally, I think evolution is "more scientific"...although that seems rather vague. Both require faith in the mechanism of creation, though creationists such as myself believe in God, which is not scientifically provable or disprovable.

moviejunkie23 - stick to be a movie junkie rather, we all can see you have no clue what evolution and adaptation is all about, you're only making a fool of yourself by comming accross so all-knowing and 'well-informed', while you are a complete ignoramous.

i am glad you have the ability to form an opinion PhilO, I can do that as well and that is what i am doing. I have searched the web and listened to both sides of the argument and it is my belief god is real and formed the universe and the world we live in and i am gratefull for that
thank you and god bless

did any one sneeze?

I sneeze when people say to me: god bless

The question about Einstein and Darwin having believed in a god is quite simple: Einstein never believed in a personal god, but rather in a mere higher, intelligent power, BUT that was an emotional, irrational condition because his mother was very religious and he loved her very much, so psycologically his mother's religious nature had a great effect on him in an emotional sense. He knew that the existence of a god does not mek rational sense, but emotionally he felt there was a god. So the bottomline is that when he said there is a god, he was not talking in a scientific capacity, but from an emotional reflex. In Darwin's case, he suffered from an irrational fear of a punishing god - also the result of emotional indoctrination - not a rational stance!

I believe in creation that god created the world.I know that I did not evolve from a fish it just does'nt make sense and even today more scientist at University's believe that god created this world.Hell the grand canyon was created by alot of water well when god flooded the world that water made that canyon.Okay explain this you have civilization on mountain that is straight then 2000 years today where they lived the mountain is 2000 feet sea level now only something big could have caused that.

Gee, have you ever even been inside a science classroom? There were never civilizations on flat plains that are now mountains. It takes way too long to form a mountain range, longer than humans have been in existence. There is evidence that what are now mountains thousands of feet high were once below sea level, but there was never human civilization living there. I believe the most they've found at the tops of mountains are fossils of clams and other shellfish. The Grand Canyon wasn't created by "alot of water well when god flooded the world," it was eroded over millions and millions of years by the Colorado river, which, by the way, is still down there.

OMG the ignorance of this post made my brain hurt shock

Not to mention that your post plainly makes no sense whatsoever...

Yeah really, I think I'm stupider from reading it shocking

Does it matter what Einstein thought about matters of religion/creation? Errr...no.

darktim1, please go for some rudimentary rational and logical thinking classes - you are completely incapable of sound thinking.

I believe in God, and I believe He created the process or
system of Evolution.

Why bother going through the trouble of creating so many
creatures, when you can just vcreate one, then let the ball
role by itself?

As for the Bible, Evolution doesn't disprove its divine authorship
(just as it doesn't disprove the existence of God), since God
obviously knew that people back then would not understand
what evolution and genetics are, so He simplified it.

End of story.

Everything didn't come from one organism, though there could be one cat that evolved into many kinds of cats, and one wolf...etc..

Otherwise, I agree.