Creation or Evolution - what do you think

[mardigrasbob 0]

Quote

I did and it made sense until I also asked why 50,000 people are going to died this week overseas and she didn't stop it!

The answer I got was: The rain falls on the just and the unjust equally.
The tragedy in the Pacific is heartrending, and the suffering will likely continue for some time. I just thank the Lord it didn't happen here and realize that it could and probably will one day. I am grateful for the time that I have had and must always remember that tomorrow is promised to no one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It should read:
Creationism includes the *assumption* that God is ultimately responsible.

As such, Creationism has stepped out of the realm of science.

Your getting awfully tricky bringing up the main concept of Decartes' Scientific Method.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Belgian_Skygirl 0]

As you stated 55% of the US citizens believe in creation as the source of life.

I am not a US citizen ... to me it is amazing that in the US that many people believe that God created life, as my perception of he US is that it is number 1 when it comes to science. On the other hand... in America religion seems to be more important in daily life... so I believe that 45 % of the Americans believe that God created life, especially when you see that many christians live up very strictly to their believings when compared with Belgium or France f.i. To me there is more proof that life came from eolution than by the hand of God. We shouldn't forget that at the time the bible was written, people had no scientific tools or knowledge yet.

I think that the report could be giving a good idea of what Americans believe... but... as I stated before... I am not a US citizen ;)

-------------------------------------------------

No dive, like skydive... wanna bet on it?

[rhys 0]

who the fuck is clarence darrow?

i believe, if you believe in creationism you would have to be stupid or gullible!

i am surrounded by nature and constant evidence of evolution.

the kiwi(n.z. native bird) that is usually nocturnal can be seen during the day on stuart island only because the night is too short during summer to feed itself! for a more short term example there is an island off the coast of new zealand that was a cattle farm for a while after new zealand was colonised(only 160 years ago) this island proved unprofitable so the farmer bailed and left the cattle there. years later someone visited the island and the cows had overpopulated the island eaten all the grass etc. and started on the kelp on the beach and when that was all gone they were swimming in the ocean grazing on the kelp in the water! if this is not HARD evidence of evolution the what is it!
these are just a couple of examples of evolution.

i also went to a presbrtarian private school for my secondary education i had to attend chapel, sing hymns, listen to the chaplain drone on about morals then link them to the bible in some way. never once in the 4 years that i had to attend this waste of time shit was there any evidence of creation whatsoever. all i could see is the chaplain driving off in his bmw and his pier cardan suit.
if anyone would like to enlighten me then maybe my beliefs could change i am an open minded kinda guy.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[winsor 189]

Quote

who the fuck is clarence darrow?

i believe, if you believe in creationism you would have to be stupid or gullible!

Clarence Darrow is the Attorney who defended the teacher, Scopes, on trial for teaching Evolution. Darrow was as noteworthy a cynic as was Henry L.. Mencken (look him up if you're not familiar).

If you are somehow working under the assumption that I am defending creationism or other mythical nonsense, you have not been paying attention.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[WrongWay 0]

I've spent A LOT of time reading into both of these theories, and here's my take on it.

*NOTE* I am an Atheist. At the time when I was studying these theories, I was Agnostic. Take that any way you want.

Evolution is a strong theory, but Creationism had a point that stumped Evolutionists every sngle time. Evolution is simply a byproduct of the mutation of DNA in any given species. The point they had was that in all of known history, there was NOT A SINGLE CASE of a mutation in any species in which the DNA GAINED information. In EVERY SINGLE CASE, information was LOST. Therefore, it seemed, either Evolutionists were wrong, we "deevolved" from super intelligent, genius, strong, genetically perfect apes from outer space, or Creationism was the only option. The Creationists used the argument of "How would giraffe's grow a neck so they could reach leaves? If you want to eat those leaves, can YOU make your neck grow?". It seems like a pretty good point.....if you're trying to get a point across.

Here's my take on it. I think that God magically putting humans and animals together on earth is rubbish. However, evolutionists aren't entirely correct either. My theory is, evolution does not take place through mutation, but rather because of the environment of a certain species, and the information a member of a given species attains during it's normal lifespan. As an example.....the average IQ of children gets higher and higher every year. Is this because of a mutation in their genes? Of course not. It's their surroundings, the stimuli they're exposed to, the information their parents passed on to them, AND information gained from their parents not through mutation, but gained through experience and normal growth. Let me explain.

Let's say a baby is born. A male. He learns to walk, goes to school, get's his drivers license.....so now he's 17. His body is producing all the hormones and such that a normal boy's body should, including sperm. That boy's sperm has an outline of his current genetic makeup. Now let's fast forward a few years.....the boy is now 21. His physicique has changed due to hitting his last growth spurt. He now is in college, works out, goes to bars and buries his nose in books when he needs to. What kind of information will that sperm hold now? Is it really going to be the exact same as when the boy was 17? I think not. I think that the reproductive system and its component grow along with the subject of which they are a part. Therefore, if I'm correct, then evolution is not only possible, but you'd be blind not to see it every day. Parents....would you agree that 9 chances out of 10, your kids are smarter than you? Do you really think you're saying that 100% out of love or pride? Of course not.

Think about it, it makes sense.

That being said, in my opinion, Creationism is rubbish, created by men terrified of someone proving that their God did not create life. Still, I am only one man, and I could be wrong. That's the fun part about opinions.....nobody's ever right.
SO.......FLAME ON!!

Oh, and as for Creationism vs Evolution in schools.....this can be solved in two ways. Either 1. Keep evolution in public schools and Creationism in Christian schools OR 2. Teach them both, and give the kids a chance to decide which class to take. Either way, don't force one subject onto them and treat it as concrete truth unless you can PROVE IT. They're kids. Let's not ruin their lives by forcing God down their throats or by keeping God out of it and making life out to be a bunch of numbers. They have minds of their own. Let them decide which way they want to go. Either way, it doesn't matter as long as they turn out to be decent human beings.

Thanks for listening.

Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.

[penniless 0]

Quote

I've spent A LOT of time reading into both of these theories, and here's my take on it.

*NOTE* I am an Atheist. At the time when I was studying these theories, I was Agnostic. Take that any way you want.

Evolution is a strong theory, but Creationism had a point that stumped Evolutionists every sngle time. Evolution is simply a byproduct of the mutation of DNA in any given species. The point they had was that in all of known history, there was NOT A SINGLE CASE of a mutation in any species in which the DNA GAINED information. In EVERY SINGLE CASE, information was LOST.

That is not correct. Wheat is a case in point.

Viruses have also been shown to gain genes.

[yourmomma 0]

***
The point they had was that in all of known history, there was NOT A SINGLE CASE of a mutation in any species in which the DNA GAINED information. In EVERY SINGLE CASE, information was LOST.

Quote

This is a common misconception.The information in DNA need not be gained OR lost only changed. This thinking stems from the very ecclesiastical idea that evolution is a sright line from less to more. When infact "improvement" has nothing to do with it.

• Quote

[WrongWay 0]

Quote

Quote

I've spent A LOT of time reading into both of these theories, and here's my take on it.

*NOTE* I am an Atheist. At the time when I was studying these theories, I was Agnostic. Take that any way you want.

Evolution is a strong theory, but Creationism had a point that stumped Evolutionists every sngle time. Evolution is simply a byproduct of the mutation of DNA in any given species. The point they had was that in all of known history, there was NOT A SINGLE CASE of a mutation in any species in which the DNA GAINED information. In EVERY SINGLE CASE, information was LOST.

That is not correct. Wheat is a case in point.

Viruses have also been shown to gain genes.

DOH!!! You're right!!!

Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I've spent A LOT of time reading into both of these theories, and here's my take on it.

*NOTE* I am an Atheist. At the time when I was studying these theories, I was Agnostic. Take that any way you want.

Evolution is a strong theory, but Creationism had a point that stumped Evolutionists every sngle time. Evolution is simply a byproduct of the mutation of DNA in any given species. The point they had was that in all of known history, there was NOT A SINGLE CASE of a mutation in any species in which the DNA GAINED information. In EVERY SINGLE CASE, information was LOST.

That is not correct. Wheat is a case in point.

Viruses have also been shown to gain genes.

DOH!!! You're right!!!

Why, Thank You, kind Sir!

[penniless 0]

Quote

***
The point they had was that in all of known history, there was NOT A SINGLE CASE of a mutation in any species in which the DNA GAINED information. In EVERY SINGLE CASE, information was LOST.

Quote

This is a common misconception.The information in DNA need not be gained OR lost only changed. This thinking stems from the very ecclesiastical idea that evolution is a sright line from less to more. When infact "improvement" has nothing to do with it.

By "improvement" you mean the homo-centric view of what is better, don't you? From a survival of the genes point of view bacteria and cockroaches are likely much better than humans.

• Quote

[jakee 1,279]

Quote

years later someone visited the island and the cows had overpopulated the island eaten all the grass etc. and started on the kelp on the beach and when that was all gone they were swimming in the ocean grazing on the kelp in the water! if this is not HARD evidence of evolution the what is it!

That would be behavioural change, not evolution. Got a source for that story?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,279]

Quote

The Creationists used the argument of "How would giraffe's grow a neck so they could reach leaves? If you want to eat those leaves, can YOU make your neck grow?". It seems like a pretty good point.....

That really is an incredibly BAD point. When creationists use that argument its rarely a sign of an intelligent discussion

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[yourmomma 0]

By "improvement" you mean the homo-centric view of what is better, don't you?

yeah thats right

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

I've spent A LOT of time reading into both of these theories, and here's my take on it.

*NOTE* I am an Atheist. At the time when I was studying these theories, I was Agnostic. Take that any way you want.

Quote

The point they had was that in all of known history, there was NOT A SINGLE CASE of a mutation in any species in which the DNA GAINED information.

Creationist have gone to great lengths to confuse the issues. This is but one example of completely misunderstanding or plain old fabrication on their part.

Quote

My theory is, evolution does not take place through mutation, but rather because of the environment of a certain species, and the information a member of a given species attains during it's normal lifespan. As an example.....the average IQ of children gets higher and higher every year.

This sounds a lot like Lamarckism (sp?). This theory was dismissed a long time ago.
-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

• Quote

[rhys 0]

behavioral change, adaption, evolulution

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[77r 0]

Quote

There was just a report on the news, that 55% of the U.S. citizens believe in creation as the source of life, while 45% believe in evolution. I wonder what you think?
Please keep in mind that I'm more interested in the figures than in people starting fights about their opinion.
Thanks

Science, Religion...neither one really knows what it's talking about when it comes to the origin of man. Science at least makes a case other than "you just gotta believe it cuz I and some other Christian people said so".

Evolution?...to some extent definately. A directed and intentional creation of some kind?...that's possible too...look at what we're doing with our limited knowledge of cloning and genetic therapies at this late date. As old as the universe is, why wouldn't there be some kind of intelligence/s capable of doing the same on a larger scale?Not to say it's the Christian God, but a kind of force or intelligence. I'm not implying aliens, because they must have had a start somewhere too if they exist.

when it comes to speculation or blind faith on our origins it's usually the least informed out of a group that protests the loudest, and no one knows much more than the other camp. And telling people to just have faith dosn't cut it.

There's no doubt we got a start somewhere. I happen not to believe that with our intelligence and the order you find in plants much less in the human body that we came out of sludge through random evolutionary mutations, that somehow worked towards order rather than the way things left unattended normally end up namely messed up. By the same token, I don't think we came from Adam and Eve exclusively. It would be silly on a Christian's part to believe that just because something is not mentioned in the bible, that it can therefore not be true.

No one is likely to ever know for sure, so I guess what I'm trying to say is fogedaboudit. There's too much to think about and all you're ever going to do most likely is go in circles. Some people want to be told what to believe, others want proof, and the rest just want something that makes sense. You might get to the point where you think you have it figured out, but you probably don't.

[philh 0]

I have to say I dont like the phrase "just a theory" as if theory is a dirty word. Relativity is just a theory, so is atomic theory. As ken Miller the famous Catholic evolutionist points out facts are not superior to theories. it is the other way round. a theory explain a broad set of facts , you may go to a class on atomic theory , not atomic fact. Theories explain things, facts do not. of course theories need facts to check their validity and evolution has that in abundance. Creationsim has no facts.

[rehmwa 2]

Can I vote - "one is a theory, the other is a belief - I really don't care either way"

??

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants