Evolution and Creation, are both wrong?

[CG Didymus]

Missing links and the simple becoming more complex? I don't know. Plants being created before the Sun and stars? Yeah, right. All of creation crammed into a boat? Get real. Every has a little bit of proof. Mud with dinosaur footprints next to a human footprint? Hmm, how'd that happen? The fossil record doesn't mix the bones of the two together? Why not, if they all drowned together? There is proof of a major flood because of the way a few trees and animals were buried? Why couldn't that be any of several big floods that must have happened? Sea shells on top of mountains? A flood or the mountain used to be at the bottom of the ocean?
Christian creationism is stupid to me, but they do make some good points that make evolution sound just as stupid. Yet, everything is changing, evolving, even religion. So what's the next step? What other theories are out there, because I don't like evolution or creation.

 

[LuisDantas]

The idea of a significant "missing link" is pretty much dead by now. At this point fossils aren't even particularly central as evidence of evolution.

Also, "evolution" is something of an ill-chosen name. "Adaptation" would be better.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Missing links and the simple becoming more complex? I don't know.

It's not too difficult to find out. Which "missing links" are you referring to?

Plants being created before the Sun and stars? Yeah, right. All of creation crammed into a boat? Get real. Every has a little bit of proof.

Really? There's "a little bit of proof" of the existence of Noah's ark?

Mud with dinosaur footprints next to a human footprint? Hmm, how'd that happen?

People faked them.

Christian creationism is stupid to me, but they do make some good points that make evolution sound just as stupid.

Such as...?

Yet, everything is changing, evolving, even religion. So what's the next step? What other theories are out there, because I don't like evolution or creation.

Creation isn't a theory.

As for what kind of theory you're looking for, well, I don't know. What kind of theory do you want? If you want a theory that explains the biological diversity of life, evolution is really the only scientifically viable one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Missing links and the simple becoming more complex? I don't know.

Then forget about it or try to learn. The library is an excellent place to start.

 

[ecologist88]

What other theories are out there, because I don't like evolution or creation.

There are alternative theories, but most of them involve evolution to some degree. It is not rational to deny the evidence for evolution, it is overwhelming. Despite what that other user said, the fossil record is very good evidence for evolution. Without the fossil record many people would probably deny evolution. Check out the book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald R. Prothero for a serious overview of this evidence.

There was an alternative theory to evolution and creationism called the "indepedent organisms" hypothesis, it was proposed by the molecular biologist Periannan Senapathy which says all organisms on earth originated independently from a number of chemical ponds millions of years ago without common descent. As far as I know he is the only scientist in the world with that view, and there are major faults with his hypothesis. His hypothesis is discussed here:

The Independent Birth of Organisms -- Senapathy

Senapathy's theory of independent births has two components: (1) Darwin was only half right, and (2) the primordial pond produced many millions of original organisms, not just one or two.

The part about Darwin causes the most controversy because it takes on the conventional and accepted theory. Darwin incorrectly extended his observations of short-term adaptation and artificial selection to account for long-term "natural selection" of organisms over geological time. He made this leap without any firm evidence of long-term evolution.

The primordial pond (or ponds) produced not just one or two, but millions, perhaps billions of "seed cells" which are analogous to a zygote (a fertilized egg). These seed cells were formed in the pond by the random assembly of: (1) new genes, (2) parts of previously-made viable genomes, and (3) other biochemicals, all of which existed in the pond. Very few of these seed cells grew into viable creatures, and only a few that did were capable of reproducing -- and of surviving long enough to do so. The reused pieces of previously-made viable genomes accounts for the similarities we see today in supposedly "evolutionarily related" organisms.

 

[1137]

What "missing link"? The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and the reasoning provided by creationism is completely unnecessary. As for other theories, how about alien theory?

 

[George-ananda]

Missing links and the simple becoming more complex? I don't know. Plants being created before the Sun and stars? Yeah, right. All of creation crammed into a boat? Get real. Every has a little bit of proof. Mud with dinosaur footprints next to a human footprint? Hmm, how'd that happen? The fossil record doesn't mix the bones of the two together? Why not, if they all drowned together? There is proof of a major flood because of the way a few trees and animals were buried? Why couldn't that be any of several big floods that must have happened? Sea shells on top of mountains? A flood or the mountain used to be at the bottom of the ocean?
Christian creationism is stupid to me, but they do make some good points that make evolution sound just as stupid. Yet, everything is changing, evolving, even religion. So what's the next step? What other theories are out there, because I don't like evolution or creation.

How about: evolution is the way nature spirits create

 

[painted wolf]

I think you should study a bit more about what evolution actually is.... and which creationist claims are hoaxes vs. which ones are misrepresentations.

wa:do

 

[CG Didymus]

It's not too difficult to find out. Which "missing links" are you referring to?


Really? There's "a little bit of proof" of the existence of Noah's ark?


People faked them.


Such as...?


Creation isn't a theory.

As for what kind of theory you're looking for, well, I don't know. What kind of theory do you want? If you want a theory that explains the biological diversity of life, evolution is really the only scientifically viable one.

The missing links between ape and human is a good enough link to look at. I've heard that several "links" were faked. I've heard that pieces of bone were combined with pieces of bones located some distance away to create some of the skeletons. Is this true? Or, were the people that told me this lying? Are there verifiable missing links?
I left out a word. The sentence was supposed to read "every side has their evidence" With things like Noah's Ark, some people have supposed evidence that it's there. I, personally, don't believe in the world-wide flood or Noah.
Some things might not be faked, but since both sides seem to be "faking" how can I know for sure? I kind of distrust both sides.
As far as things I like about the Creationist side, one example would be the complexity of the eye. Their explanation of a designer makes more sense than random-chance evolving. If you care, here's a link to a site that points out the problems with evolution: Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality; the false science of evolution
Their complaints do sound sensible to me, however, the Creationist view of "poof" God spoke it, and there it was, sounds worse to me than evolution. That is why I'm wondering about an alternative.
A site on Theistic Evolution sounds interesting. I haven't read all their articles yet, but they might be the middle ground between Creationism and Evolution that I was looking for. Since they are taking evolution and mixing in God, they should make both sides mad and raise some good questions. I'll check them out in the next couple of days. If you're interested, they're at: Evolution Topic: What is the problem with Intelligent Design?
You mentioned that Creationism isn't a theory. All I meant by that is that some people think that creation by God is what happened. I'm calling what they think a theory, as in--it's not real, just a guess.
Also, to Jayhawker Soule, is there some Jews that believe like the Fundy Christians that creation as told in the Bible is literal?

 

[tumbleweed41]

A rudimentary study of biology would be a good start.

Also learning the differences between pseudoscience and science would be helpful.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Also, to Jayhawker Soule, is there some Jews that believe like the Fundy Christians that creation as told in the Bible is literal?

Sadly, yes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The missing links between ape and human is a good enough link to look at. I've heard that several "links" were faked. I've heard that pieces of bone were combined with pieces of bones located some distance away to create some of the skeletons. Is this true? Or, were the people that told me this lying? Are there verifiable missing links?

Yes, there are verifiable missing links. There are also fake missing links, but the fakes were only discovered to be fakes because of what we already know and understand from the missing links we already have.

I left out a word. The sentence was supposed to read "every side has their evidence" With things like Noah's Ark, some people have supposed evidence that it's there. I, personally, don't believe in the world-wide flood or Noah.
Some things might not be faked, but since both sides seem to be "faking" how can I know for sure? I kind of distrust both sides.

What "faking" are you talking about?

As far as things I like about the Creationist side, one example would be the complexity of the eye. Their explanation of a designer makes more sense than random-chance evolving.

Then you don't understand evolution. It didn't occur by random chance - the evolution of the eye has been explained for years - just research it.

If you care, here's a link to a site that points out the problems with evolution: Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality; the false science of evolution
Their complaints do sound sensible to me, however, the Creationist view of "poof" God spoke it, and there it was, sounds worse to me than evolution. That is why I'm wondering about an alternative.

That website is full of misconceptions, outright fabrications and unscientific presumptions. It really isn't that difficult to see if you understand the basics of evolution and the evidence of it. If you like, please present a specific claim this website makes and I will gladly refute it in more detail.

A site on Theistic Evolution sounds interesting. I haven't read all their articles yet, but they might be the middle ground between Creationism and Evolution that I was looking for.

Theistic evolution is not a "middle-ground" between creationism and evolution. It's exactly the same position as evolution, they simply choose to believe that God still exists.

Since they are taking evolution and mixing in God, they should make both sides mad and raise some good questions. I'll check them out in the next couple of days. If you're interested, they're at: Evolution Topic: What is the problem with Intelligent Design?

Just because you think an argument falls in-between two opposing sides doesn't make it any more correct than either of the others.

You mentioned that Creationism isn't a theory. All I meant by that is that some people think that creation by God is what happened. I'm calling what they think a theory, as in--it's not real, just a guess.

That's not what theory means - especially not in science.

 

[outhouse]

Missing links and the simple becoming more complex? I don't know. Plants being created before the Sun and stars? Yeah, right. All of creation crammed into a boat? Get real. Every has a little bit of proof. Mud with dinosaur footprints next to a human footprint? Hmm, how'd that happen? The fossil record doesn't mix the bones of the two together? Why not, if they all drowned together? There is proof of a major flood because of the way a few trees and animals were buried? Why couldn't that be any of several big floods that must have happened? Sea shells on top of mountains? A flood or the mountain used to be at the bottom of the ocean?
Christian creationism is stupid to me, but they do make some good points that make evolution sound just as stupid. Yet, everything is changing, evolving, even religion. So what's the next step? What other theories are out there, because I don't like evolution or creation.

there are no other theories becaue evolution is fact as gravity. Evolution is not someting that should even be debated, and its not less the ignorant.

creation however is pseudoscience

 

[gnostic]

Christian creationism is stupid to me, but they do make some good points that make evolution sound just as stupid.

What is stupid about evolution?

The only stupid thing about evolution is how evolution has been misrepresented with lies and propaganda by the creationists and the ID movement.

The wider audience of Christian theists who don't lie about evolution, are those who simply don't understand the evolutionary biology or its theory, or those who have been duped into believing the lies from literal biblical creationists or the PR that come out of Discovery Institute.

ID has been refuted and debunked as proposition and hypothesis, in the science communities and in the courtrooms in the US, and yet it continued to spawn their pseudoscience belief that it should be accepted as viable study in the science classrooms.

ID is just another form of Christian creationism that is only largely advocated in the US. Their (Discovery Institute) only real scientist is Michael Behe, who tried to postulate his Irreducible Complexity hypothesis, has been rejected both the science community and peer review. Even the court case have rejected Irreducible Complexity.

Any scientist today, who find their hypothesis rejected by scientific community as lacking evidences or testable data, or in the case of Irreducible Complexity, as being nothing more than pseudoscience, the scientist should throw that hypothesis away. But not Behe.

That both Behe and Discovery Institute continue to promote his debunked hypothesis, only demonstrate they don't want to deal with science. That's what I call utter stupidity.

Creationists continued to believe that evolution is about the origin of life, from inorganic matter (non-life) turning into organic (life). This abiogenesis, completely different from evolution, which is study of biodiversity, and in the case of Natural Selection, how environmental factors affect changes in biology. That creationists believed that abiogenesis and evolution are one and the same, is either due to their ignorance or worse, their deceptive tactics. Either way, it is beyond stupidity with these creationists/id.

 

[ecologist88]

there are no other theories

Ok evolution is a fact but the idea that there is no alternative is false becuase there are theories about aliens designing life, living in a computer similation, the indepedent origins theory described on the previous page about all life forms coming from chemical pools, directed panspermia, and also something called autochthonous generation which was described in a paper titled Neither Creation nor Evolution the Third Way in Mid-Nineteenth Century Thinking about the Origin of Species by Nicolaas A. Rupke and there are even some weird philosophy theories about things being an illusion.

Whilst it is true these ideas are for the lunatic fringe, pseudoscience etc, they still do exist even if outdated or considered stupid and they all pretty much deny evolution and at the same time are not creationist either, so your statement there are no other theories is false. the OP wanted the altenatives so there you go. you can believe in reality evolution or sillyness your choice. :slap::rainbow1:

 

[Alceste]

Missing links and the simple becoming more complex? I don't know. Plants being created before the Sun and stars? Yeah, right. All of creation crammed into a boat? Get real. Every has a little bit of proof. Mud with dinosaur footprints next to a human footprint? Hmm, how'd that happen? The fossil record doesn't mix the bones of the two together? Why not, if they all drowned together? There is proof of a major flood because of the way a few trees and animals were buried? Why couldn't that be any of several big floods that must have happened? Sea shells on top of mountains? A flood or the mountain used to be at the bottom of the ocean?
Christian creationism is stupid to me, but they do make some good points that make evolution sound just as stupid. Yet, everything is changing, evolving, even religion. So what's the next step? What other theories are out there, because I don't like evolution or creation.

I think it might be helpful for you to stop thinking of "evolution" and "creationism" as two competing scientific theories. Evolution is the most thoroughly evidenced scientific theory in the history of science. Creationism is a religious myth. You need to be clear about what you are looking for. Are you looking for a scientific theory that competes with evolution? There isn't one. 99% of the scientists who professionally study life on earth understand that evolution is a fact. The other 1% are creationists, paid handsomely by religious institutions to misinform you about the facts, on order create the false impression that the two concepts are basically the same thing. They do no research, find no evidence, publish no papers, and generally do not engage in any aspect of what we call "science". They just say stuff. That's not science.

Are you looking for other religious myths to compete with Biblical creationism? There are millions. There is one for every religion or culture that has ever been, plus extra ones for the artists within each culture. We are an animal that tells stories to make sense of the world. They're wonderful stories.

 

[Alceste]

Ok evolution is a fact but the idea that there is no alternative is false becuase there are theories about aliens designing life, living in a computer similation, the indepedent origins theory described on the previous page about all life forms coming from chemical pools, directed panspermia, and also something called autochthonous generation which was described in a paper titled Neither Creation nor Evolution the Third Way in Mid-Nineteenth Century Thinking about the Origin of Species by Nicolaas A. Rupke and there are even some weird philosophy theories about things being an illusion.

Whilst it is true these ideas are for the lunatic fringe, pseudoscience etc, they still do exist even if outdated or considered stupid and they all pretty much deny evolution and at the same time are not creationist either, so your statement there are no other theories is false. the OP wanted the altenatives so there you go. you can believe in reality evolution or sillyness your choice. :slap::rainbow1:

These are speculations, not competing theories. In science, they are called "hypotheses", not "theories". Also, they can only accurately be called "hypotheses" if a repeateable experiment can be devised to empirically validate or invalidate the speculative idea.

While I think those are interesting ideas, and might make great stories (I'm looking at you, Matrix), you don't get a scientific theory by sucking on a bong and letting your imagination run wild.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Missing links and the simple becoming more complex? I don't know. Plants being created before the Sun and stars? Yeah, right. All of creation crammed into a boat? Get real. Every has a little bit of proof. Mud with dinosaur footprints next to a human footprint? Hmm, how'd that happen? The fossil record doesn't mix the bones of the two together? Why not, if they all drowned together? There is proof of a major flood because of the way a few trees and animals were buried? Why couldn't that be any of several big floods that must have happened? Sea shells on top of mountains? A flood or the mountain used to be at the bottom of the ocean?
Christian creationism is stupid to me, but they do make some good points that make evolution sound just as stupid. Yet, everything is changing, evolving, even religion. So what's the next step? What other theories are out there, because I don't like evolution or creation.

Well evolution modifies with science as new discoveries and findings come to the surface.
Cant argue the facts. So the theories comform to new discoveries thereby getting closer and clearer based on prior accomplishments.

Creationism is hopelessly stuck on archaic stone tablets afaic.

It would be interesting to hear what made evolution sound stupid though. Are we talking theory or established facts that come across as stupid sounding?

 

[CG Didymus]

I'm watching Ken Ham's and Kent Hovind's Christian TV show about creation vs. evolution. They both make evolution sound stupid. Sorry, maybe I being stupid for naively believing them. Thanks for great input.

 

[gnostic]

I'm watching Ken Ham's and Kent Hovind's Christian TV show about creation vs. evolution. They both make evolution sound stupid. Sorry, maybe I being stupid for naively believing them. Thanks for great input.

Both Ham and Hovind are young earth creationists. Of course, they are both going to make evolution sounds stupid.

At the very least, Ham has qualification in the field of biology. However, his tie to various YEC affiliations, and his rejection to all scientific evidences that support that the Earth is older than 6000 years, he has ulterior motives and agenda in any issue regarding to creation/evolution. For goodness sake, he is the one who believe that dinosaurs lived in the time of Noah.

Hovind has no such qualification, and judging by his so-called "qualifications", he got his his degree and doctorate from diploma mill, from a Christian university.

Diploma mill issued nothing more than fake diplomas, fake degrees and fake PhDs. Students don't need to have any academic study. All you need is money to buy fake qualifications.

That just show duplicity of Hovind. And Hovind isn't the only young earth creationists with bogus qualifications.

Can you trust someone with no real academic study in science, with bogus qualifications? Can we expect honesty from a person who buy fake credentials? Can someone who has no scientific background (on biology) lecture us about evolution?