Creation vs. Evolution

[TedG]

This is a spin-off from the "Bible and Us!" thread. Do you believe in creation or evolution, or something else?

 

[Pellaken]

other, I belive in a combo of both.

 

[TedG]

Oops, forgot to add that option.

 

[Immortal]

both

 

[Becka]

Creationism.

 

[Mikoyan]

Evolution.

 

[Fez_Monk]

both

 

[Hitro]

For me it's definetely not creation (which makes sense for an atheist) but I can't tell you if the Theory of Evolution is correct. I don't know enough about it and science sometimes gets to new results.
But I am sure that it went like that or in a very similar way.

 

[CornMaster]

Eviloution



I mean Evolution

 

[napoleon526]

Those of you who said both, could you please explain? Are you like me and believe in God but also the theory of Evolution? I am a Christian but I realize that many old testament stories, like the creation story were created by the our ancestors to explain the things they couldn't discover the answers to.

 

[Damien]

Evolution.It was proven by scientists.We stem from monkeys in Ethiopia.It was proven that the missing link doesn't exist.We don't come from the chimpanzee but from a monkey that doesn't exist anymore,the ancestor of the humans,the chimpazee,gorillas and other monkeys.3 million years ago,Ethiopia was a dense jungle n monkeys used to leap from one tree to another.Then after earthquakes,Ethiopia became mountainous n the jungle vanished because the climate became arid .Monkeys were obligated to walk to find food n a muscle at the level of the pelvis allowing us to step developped.

 

[Baleog]

Don't know why I bothered voting.

Creationists use half arguments in their opinons on this.

Eg. They're 2nd law of thermodynamics theory which is fundamentally flawed. To those aware of the theory I'll just say that it treats the animal involved as beng in a closed environment. When in fact the animal is part of a huge ecosystem and food chain, not to mention the sun and planets and the entire universe which is connected to the environment.

Eg. The lack of evidence in fossils. "Where are the missing links" they say. However they treat the fossil record as being complete. All of the past zoology of the world encapsulated in college text books. When in fact the fossil record is nowhere near being 50% complete. Or even 25%. The fossil record is just a small proportion of history that we have been lucky enough to rediscover through natural accidents leading to the preservation of the fossils.

Of course if you wish to believe in creationism you are free to. But backing up your arguments with science won't work.


These are my opinions which I am entitled to. Just as a creationist is entitled to theirs. Unless creationism/evolution can be proved by mathematics alone, it will always be an argument that has no anwser, just opinions.

If you only read one paragraph of this post, read the one prior to this one.

 

[HotDog Fish]

I agree with Damien evolution, creationism just doersn't make sense

 

[Fez_Monk]

Originally posted by napoleon526
Those of you who said both, could you please explain? Are you like me and believe in God but also the theory of Evolution? I am a Christian but I realize that many old testament stories, like the creation story were created by the our ancestors to explain the things they couldn't discover the answers to.

I think evolution may have happened(or is happening), but God is the one who set things in motion.

Biblical creation stories could be a metaphor, or maybe not.

I'll find out when I'm dead.

 

[TedG]

Originally posted by Baleog
Eg. The lack of evidence in fossils. "Where are the missing links" they say. However they treat the fossil record as being complete. All of the past zoology of the world encapsulated in college text books. When in fact the fossil record is nowhere near being 50% complete. Or even 25%. The fossil record is just a small proportion of history that we have been lucky enough to rediscover through natural accidents leading to the preservation of the fossils.

So then, as long as there is no fossil evidence of the process of evolution, you can't prove the theory. It's a slow process, not an immediate change, so there would have to be evidence of those intermediate evolutions. Of course, the record isn't complete, but as long as they haven't found evidence of evolving creatures, the theory is not proven. BUT that doesn't mean that they won't eventually find something. But you can't say evolution is proven until they do.

EDIT: BTW, I believe in creation, but also parts of evolution.

 

[Immortal]

I believe that life was created as a single being, and from that evolution took place. However I also believe that the lord was the one who started that first life.

 

[anarchywrksbest]

Evolution has been clearly proven in other animals but because we think of ourselves as special creationists refuse to accept it. Evolution is the only logical answer.

 

[Baleog]

Originally posted by TedG


So then, as long as there is no fossil evidence of the process of evolution, you can't prove the theory. It's a slow process, not an immediate change, so there would have to be evidence of those intermediate evolutions. Of course, the record isn't complete, but as long as they haven't found evidence of evolving creatures, the theory is not proven. BUT that doesn't mean that they won't eventually find something. But you can't say evolution is proven until they do.

I'm not sure what stance you are taking.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

There is actually one fossil missing link: the well documented Archeopterix.

Technically you can never prove something without mathematical proof was my final point.
The theory of the dinosaurs is just conjecture, along with tetonic plate movements, just that there is so much evidence in their favour, nobody would ever think against them.
Neither would I by the way. They make perfect sense to me.

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by TedG


So then, as long as there is no fossil evidence of the process of evolution, you can't prove the theory. It's a slow process, not an immediate change, so there would have to be evidence of those intermediate evolutions. Of course, the record isn't complete, but as long as they haven't found evidence of evolving creatures, the theory is not proven. BUT that doesn't mean that they won't eventually find something. But you can't say evolution is proven until they do.

EDIT: BTW, I believe in creation, but also parts of evolution.

There's no missing link.The theory has been proven.

 

[Becka]

Originally posted by Baleog


I'm not sure what stance you are taking.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

There is actually one fossil missing link: the well documented Archeopterix.

Technically you can never prove something without mathematical proof was my final point.
The theory of the dinosaurs is just conjecture, along with tetonic plate movements, just that there is so much evidence in their favour, nobody would ever think against them.
Neither would I by the way. They make perfect sense to me.

*Becka punches herself in the face for breaking her promise to stay out of this thread.....* [punch]

So, dinosaurs and the movement of tetonic plates can't have a place in Creationism for some odd reason? Alrighty then.


*waddles out of thread*