Evolution vs. Creationism

[Exordius]

Patience... i will continue after i get some sleep.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Both creationists and evolutionists are right. Allow me to attempt to explain why. This argument has been on-going ever since Darwin penned his famous treatise on the concept of evolution during his sea voyage long ago. Almost immediatly it was maligned and attacked so much so that when the issue went to the supreme court no less then half the planet tuned in to hear the verdict. In the end evolution won out though only barely and slowly over the centuries has become more respected and accepted. Yet still some reject it completely. These people claim that it was a creator and not evolution which begat the world. This would not be as much of a problem except that these people hold a whole bunch of other beleifes which are so out there that most people can only scratch their heads. I do not have issue with those who belive in creationism... i do have issue with people who belive in such nonsense as the Earth only being 6000 years old, mankind using dinosuars as beasts of burden and cattle... and all the other weird **** which they talk about. Science has not decisively determined whether there was a creator but it has proven that the Earth is many billions of years old, that man and dinos did not exist at the same time, and that all the other weird **** which they talk about is just that... ****. I shall continue this conversation at a later date and if anyone wishes to comment please do so when convienent.

You may be thinking of Theistic Evolution.
Remember, biological evolution is simply genetic changes in populations of living creatures over several generations.
Not the beginnings of the universe.

 

[LuisDantas]

Both creationists and evolutionists are right.

Uh, no, not at all.

Allow me to attempt to explain why.

Sure.

This argument has been on-going ever since Darwin penned his famous treatise on the concept of evolution during his sea voyage long ago. Almost immediatly it was maligned and attacked so much so that when the issue went to the supreme court no less then half the planet tuned in to hear the verdict. In the end evolution won out though only barely and slowly over the centuries has become more respected and accepted.

Evolution "won" decisively from the moment the first RNA organisms became widespread, if not earlier.

The political and social acceptance of same is something else entirely.

Yet still some reject it completely. These people claim that it was a creator and not evolution which begat the world. This would not be as much of a problem except that these people hold a whole bunch of other beleifes which are so out there that most people can only scratch their heads.

Denial of demonstrated fact - particularly when it lasts for over a century and is so widespread and so passionate - would be a problem anyway.

For one thing, it has a bothersome tendency to give considerable numbers of Christians the desire to lie and distort fact as if doing so were virtuous.

I do not have issue with those who belive in creationism... i do have issue with people who belive in such nonsense as the Earth only being 6000 years old, mankind using dinosuars as beasts of burden and cattle... and all the other weird **** which they talk about. Science has not decisively determined whether there was a creator but it has proven that the Earth is many billions of years old, that man and dinos did not exist at the same time, and that all the other weird **** which they talk about is just that... ****. I shall continue this conversation at a later date and if anyone wishes to comment please do so when convienent.

Sure.

 

[I r Baboon]

Evolution is right and modern day creationism has no factual or naturally observed basis

 

[I r Baboon]

by right I mean a fully functioning natural mechanism. Right in the sense of ethical or moral perspective is in a far different subset of philosophically arbitrary determination which, in reality, has absolutely no means by which to judge said question.

 

[Simurgh]

does this help with the problem of creationism being a "theory?"

 

[I r Baboon]

does this help with the problem of creationism being a "theory?"

I wish it would

 

[Simurgh]

You think we need to get more direct and to the point as this is not basic enough? or have you simply lost all hope to make them understand the difference between what is and what is NOT a theory?:thud:

 

[I r Baboon]

You think we need to get more direct and to the point as this is not basic enough? or have you simply lost all hope to make them understand the difference between what is and what is NOT a theory?:thud:

I'm not sure how much more direct and to the point one could get? I think I am slowly losing hope...and gaining apathy.

 

[Simurgh]

I'm not sure how much more direct and to the point one could get? I think I am slowly losing hope...and gaining apathy.

Yes, it is time when we start scraping the bottom of the barrel alright. Let's just go, sip some tea, eat some crumpets and apathize together. I'm buying.:beach:

 

[I r Baboon]

I'm there!

 

[Simurgh]

isn't it lovely how the tea and crumpets morphed into wine and bread as the night moved on? Is there some hidden symbolism I am missing?

We could try dangling from the chandelier and see what evolves....then again we could create something....

 

[I r Baboon]

Oh no! The mention of evolution and creation in the same post...that might be blasphemy!...I like it!

 

[Simurgh]

There is always the possibility of an even greater blasphemy. I create something—a fur ball would be an easy thing—then sit back and watch it evolve into something else—dust bunny with attitude—have my slave pick it up and dispose of it—satans destructive powers—et voila, I am goddess.

Ok, now you argue that this is the intelligent design story. Of course it is. The superior feline has declared herself divine and ordered the universe to her liking.

Next step: I get my own religion with rituals, vestments, sacred text, acolytes, high priestesses, doctrine, dogma, laws, and of course an evil counterpart. Since satan has been appropriated already, I could take Dog! A bit cliché, but it’s early morning, my caffeine in-take is minimal at this point and—whoa! Sacred food for rituals just comes to mind. CHOCOLATE. Yeah, I got it organized now.

You could become a high ranking member if you sign up early. Please submit suggestions for the above mentioned trappings of a viable religious tradition and we can work something out.

 

[marcus freudental]

It's amazing to see such mutual back patting online.
In my school we didn't learn much about evolution, just a bit of genetics. Tell me, if this is an 'educational service' why you believe in evolution?
much appreciated.

 

[McBell]

It's amazing to see such mutual back patting online.
In my school we didn't learn much about evolution, just a bit of genetics. Tell me, if this is an 'educational service' why you believe in evolution?
much appreciated.

I do not "believe in" evolution.
The reason being that unlike creation, evolution is supported by facts.
I accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.

 

[marcus freudental]

I do not "believe in" evolution.

Good for you, I know lots of people that believe in it.

I accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.

Please educate me as to why you have come to that conclusion.
much appreciated

 

[McBell]

Good for you, I know lots of people that believe in it.

I have no need to "believe in" it.
It has been shown to be true.

The reason people have to "believe in" creation is because there is no objective empirical evidence in support of it.
Thus it has to be "believed in".

Please educate me as to why you have come to that conclusion.
much appreciated

I do not have the time nor the patience to teach someone about evolution.
And I suspect that you will have to unlearn much of what you think evolution is for what evolution actually is.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Genetics, anthropology, paleontology, micro-biology, biology, etc, all provide objective empirical evidence for biological evolution.

 

[Simurgh]

Evolution is a sound scientific theory based on empirical evidence and need not be believed in the sense that a religious tradition needs to be believed in the absence of proof.