I was wondering what peoples oppinios were on the Theory of Evolution.
After reaserching the topic for several hours, I can say I'm a Creationist.
As in created by God .vs evolved from a jellyfish?
Creation all the way.
There was several other threads here in Kavar's on this subject before, and the Senate. Similarly related, anyways.
I'd say while it's a good theory and there might be scientific evidence to back up claims of evolution, it still doesn't cover everything.
You also have folks who say that because creationism cannot be proven it is therefore false, and those who say likewise the opposite about disproving it. Faithful will take it on faith; Those not faithful won't.
I'm nondenominational. So I'll say while evolution might have its truths, it had to be created in the first place. :carms:
Evolution, because creationists rarely provide ample, structured proof to support their claims.
In the past I was ardently for evolution, but i've mellowed a little bit since. I don't support creationism in any way, but i'm not as likely to jump down a Creationist's throat as I once was.
So, Evolution, I guess, but i'm not going to get bent of out shape because others disagree with it. ;)
Evolution, because we couldn't have possibly popped into existence from a rib of God.
And evolutions main arguments that had me sold on the theory is the similarity between monkey and human DNA. 99% match, IIRC. That practically proved that we were once apes who threw poo at each other. Eventually, the apes that we see in the zoo will see new apes in a zoo, while we move on to the next stage of evolution.
And since we've already had several topic about this, why don't we spice this one up? What do you think the next step in our evolution is? (if you believe in evolution)
Evolution.
Also I'm fairly knowledgeable of the bible but I am far from a Christian.
Evolution, because we couldn't have possibly popped into existence from a rib of God.
Man was created from clay and woman was created by the rib of man, according to the Bible.
I am Creationist, Christian more specifically. I know a few things on Evolution, even if I don't agree with it, it's wise to know other's beliefs so that if you get into a debate concerning things like Evolution Vs. Creation, you at least know what you're debating against.
I'm still very Creationist, though:)
Evolution (and abiogenesis since people love to lump it with evolution). Simply because despite spending way to much time looking for evidence for creationism, I didn't find any.
it still doesn't cover everything.
Like what?
and those who say likewise the opposite about disproving it.
*is very interested in learning how to prove a negative*
So I'll say while evolution might have its truths, it had to be created in the first place.
Evolution doesen't give a damn about creation, see abiogenesis for that, so no need to worry about the creation bit.
Evolution, because creationists rarely provide ample, structured proof to support their claims
QFT. I feel exactly that way. Microevolution has also been proven, so that just strengthens my opnions on evolution.
Evolution doesen't give a damn about creation, see abiogenesis for that, so no need to worry about the creation bit.
Exactly.
And same can be said for creation, as a creator had to be created from another creator with that logic.
Here's some sites I liked while reaserching this...
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html)
http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html)
Sorry I didn't post these in my first post.
Thanks for the responses.
Is this meant to be a real topic? I don't wish to offend anyone's beliefs, but this is not the kind of subject that really is open to debate.
Considering that there are an infinite number of possible explanations for the origins of the universe if you were to answer it with the Creationist Theory, how can you trust any one to be more reliable than the others? The Native American beliefs of the Universe are just as valid as the Christian beliefs, yet they greatly conflict with one another. Therefore they can't both be right. Why does the Christian automatically beat out all the others?
There is however one and only one explanation if you were to use the Scientific method. There are often many theories that conflict with one another, but that is attributed to the lack of evidence(due to being destroyed with time) As more proof and evidence are evaluated; answers are only a matter of debate. The issue is finding the right combination of evidence that fits the appropriate theory, or adjusting the theory to fit what is known.
I would support the scientific theory solely because it actually explains how the universe came to be without holding to outdated mores when new knowledge is presented. That and it only yields ONE solution based on available evidence.
I am actually a firm believer that it was a combination of both creation and evolution...I believe that something had to put the stuff there (un-evolved organisms created by God) and then they evolved from there...
That's just what I believe...I don't usually try to argue my position against anything because it's another one of those fruitless arguments that will go nowhere.
Both.
Bah, lucky beat me to it. :p
Evolution. But I'm still a Christian - I believe in a deistic style of evolution.
God used evolution as a tool in order to create the universe.
_EW_
It CAN'T be both.
One theory is that the Earth was the center of the universe and that it was only 10,000 years old.
One theory of the Sun was that it underwent a form of compression that generated its heat, and that it could only be active for a matter of say... 10,000 years. But samples of uranium have shown that the Earth was at least a few billion years old, so that theory went bust. It also proved that the Earth... or at least that sample of uranium was much older than the bible ever mentioned.
The only other explanation was that the sample existed somewhere else and wasn't on Earth when it was created. That brings up the next logical question... how did it come to be if it weren't created along with Earth 3.4 billion years ago? (That was the age of the rock by the way, not the planet) Since there were no better explanations other than that is was created at the same time Earth was, it is scientifically accurate to say the bible underestimated the age of the planet by about 40 million fold.
It could very well be both if the fundamentalist dogma is dispensed with.
It CAN'T be both.Yes, it can. The creation myth in Genesis has to be thrown out the window, but other than that, the concept of evolution can rest perfectly with the belief of a deistic God. In fact, I'd probably say that all of the complexities of evolution could only be attributed to the omnipotent/scient design of a god, orchestrated without any divine intervention. That sort of God would most certainly trump the Abrahamic concept of God, as any supposed "supreme being" that needs to directly intervene with life every few millennia is most certainly not as supreme as he claims to be.
It could very well be both if the fundamentalist dogma is dispensed with.
With all due respect, it is religion that plants itself as a maxim by which all other conflicting beliefs are wrong. The very basis for religion is that it is a construct where as science depends upon evidence and proof.
I would be more willing to accept religion if the bible were updated to take into account that the Earth actually is billions of years old, there never was a great flood, and all the other events that clearly couldn't have happened. I would not take that as the truth, but I would be more accepting of religion if it weren't so fixed on maintaining a version of history that they know isn't true.
There never was a great flood... there are places on the Earth that haven't been flooded in a million years. The whole Adam and Eve origins don't make any sense at any level. When you have ONE god who can make anything happen, then the whole basis for everything becomes meaningless. You can use god to answer any question and it would essentially qualify as possible or an explanation.
^Pope John Paul II has actually stated that not all aspects of evolutionary theory are incompatible nor incorrect in relation to Catholicism (usually the more strict Christian wing)...
"...new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis."
~Pope John Paul II
(I'm not Catholic and usually don't conform to it's ideas...I'm Methodist...but a Pope saying something like that is revolutionary and important)
@D_Y: You're talking about dogmatic religion based on the Bible, whereas I am not.
And you're generalizing.
personally, i dont really care either way.
"yoda."
I get it if people are just looking for a way to fill in the holes. But they want the holes. They want to live in the holes. They go nuts when someone else pours dirt in their holes. Climb out of your holes people! ~ Hugh Laurie
I have nothing against people who believe in something greater than themselves, but I don't think that people should hold to something that doesn't hold water. I'm for keeping the moral principles within a religion... those are good attributes. But you are not disrespecting god by dismissing all the faith-related subjects in favor of something more solid.
It CAN'T be both.
Bull****. See Mimartin's post.
_EW_
Bull****. See Mimartin's post.
_EW_
Already did and rejected it.
If there is a higher power out there, it would be something beyond our comprehension.
Science: Clearly it has proven to explain everything, so long as you find enough evidence to support the theory.
Religion: Constructs that depend upon faith, which relies heavily upon a LACK of proof. It goes against the very nature of science. Galileo is a prime example of the evil of religion against the efforts of contrary minds.
Already did and rejected it.
If there is a higher power out there, it would be something beyond our comprehension.
That is merely opinion.
That is merely opinion.
Okay what isn't opinion is the convenient nature of constructs often relying upon circular arguments. Once that happens, then it loses all credibility. If you introduce an all-powerful being able to do anything, you essentially can explain everything without any real proof.
I'm a theistic evolutionist/progressive creationist--I believe God created each species using evolution as a tool.
as any supposed "supreme being" that needs to directly intervene with life every few millennia is most certainly not as supreme as he claims to be.What if he didn't 'have' to intervene, but simply chose to because he happened to be interested in having a relationship with people?
Okay what isn't opinion is the convenient nature of constructs often relying upon circular arguments. Once that happens, then it loses all credibility. If you introduce an all-powerful being able to do anything, you essentially can explain everything without any real proof.
Yes, but you can't say others opinions are incorrect (based on a deity) when you yourself are stating an opinion that has absolutely no facts to back it up. How do you know it would be something we can't comprehend? How do they? We don't, thus making neither you or them incorrect.
Yes, but you can't say others opinions are incorrect (based on a deity) when you yourself are stating an opinion that has absolutely no facts to back it up. How do you know it would be something we can't comprehend?
Have you ever looked through a telescope and turned it towards the Ring Nebula found in the constellation Orion? In the center is what appears to be nothing, but is in reality a super-intense star that emits ultraviolet radiation. We can't see UV rays, so that would explain why we see what appears to be nothing.
Here's your proof... the bible itself says that we can't see god because he is beyond our comprehension. I've heard that from the mouths of priests talking about how no one sees god because he's beyond our comprehension... One spoke of it like 'blindspots' in our lives. If God is beyond our comprehension, then why do we make him out to be an old man with a white beard?
However, unlike a planetary nebula, there is nothing to assume that god exists that science can't explain. The only thing that religion serves is to fill in the holes that we can't explain, but science will forever serve to close that gap so that we can fill in the holes with real proof... and dispel with what we originally thought was there.
I'm confused by the supposed question, "evolution vs. creationism." The ideas don't cover the same subject, so I don't see any possible dichotomy. Even with naturalism vs. creationism, I don't see any possible resolution to the discussion, so it's all just meaningless to me; or rather, I don't see that any sort of fruitful discussion is possible, since both account for the same exact things (i.e., there's only a definitional distinction here, not an evidential one).
One decides such "questions" mainly upon the sort of upbringing one has, apparently, although you can usually use the science bit a lot more effectively with other subjects as well. I'm not a philosophical pragmatist, but I choose the science bit; I don't quite understand those that choose otherwise. At any rate, I don't consider those who believe in literal creationism to understand what evolutionary theory entails, or what it is supposed to explain.
If there is a higher power out there, it would be something beyond our comprehension.
So just because it's something humans can somewhat understand...it can't be a higher power?
Here's your proof... the bible itself says that we can't see god because he is beyond our comprehension. I've heard that from the mouths of priests talking about how no one sees god because he's beyond our comprehension... One spoke of it like 'blindspots' in our lives. If God is beyond our comprehension, then why do we make him out to be an old man with a white beard?
Some Christians think of him that way because that's their interpretation of god, if they COULD see him.
But that has nothing to do with anything and you answered your statement.
"If there is a higher power out there, it would be something beyond our comprehension."
Your own answer: God, because accord to Christians god is beyond our comprehension.
However, unlike a planetary nebula, there is nothing to assume that god exists that science can't explain. The only thing that religion serves is to fill in the holes that we can't explain, but science will forever serve to close that gap so that we can fill in the holes with real proof... and dispel with what we originally thought was there.
I never disagreed with you here. I'm an Agnostic who sways more towards Atheism than any sort of mono-theistic religion.
But my point was that you can't say that it "CAN'T BE BOTH" as it is hypocritical.
A lot of people hear Creationism and interpret it as God snapping his fingers and poof, everything came to exist.
I believe God was the original scientist. Rather than it just coming to be, he created everything just as a human scientist tests his hypothesis, by trial and error. God could have caused the Big Bang and then created everything else accordingly, then things evolved into what they are today.
So in essence I believe in creationism, but not as others do.
In my opinnion just like we invent and build things which to our understanding is completely possible, animals and insects in some way do the same but to us their inventions don't seem like much although we know for them it is likely a great acheivment. In this context why couldn't God, being all powerful, do the same by creating the Universe and all life in it which would be completely possible to him, but seem completely impossible to us since we're only Human, which would be the same thought insects and animals would think while looking at what we accomplish, but to us these inventions are simple, just like the creation of the universe would be for God.
I am a Will Wright's SPORE®ist myself, I believe that all species were created and evolved by a number of different entities for their own amusement and challenge, and the plane we exist in is essentially a simulation, comparable to the Internet. They also think we are really cute when we discuss topics like religion and philosophy like this.
Alternately, I am known to subscribe to classic evolution.
In my opinnion just like we invent and build things which to our understanding is completely possible, animals and insects in some way do the same but to us their inventions don't seem like much although we know for them it is likely a great acheivment. In this context why couldn't God, being all powerful, do the same by creating the Universe and all life in it which would be completely possible to him, but seem completely impossible to us since we're only Human, which would be the same thought insects and animals would think while looking at what we accomplish, but to us these inventions are simple, just like the creation of the universe would be for God.
I like that perspective. I'll go with that.
In my opinnion just like we invent and build things which to our understanding is completely possible, animals and insects in some way do the same but to us their inventions don't seem like much although we know for them it is likely a great acheivment. In this context why couldn't God, being all powerful, do the same by creating the Universe and all life in it which would be completely possible to him, but seem completely impossible to us since we're only Human, which would be the same thought insects and animals would think while looking at what we accomplish, but to us these inventions are simple, just like the creation of the universe would be for God.
I wouldn't say it was simple, after all it did take SIX whole days!
Personally, I'm all for evolution. I'm not religious by any means, but I also have no problem with people beliving what they want to. I have done considerable research into microevolution back in school, and yes, it does exist and is proven to exist. Macroevolution (us from apes) has yet to be scientifically proven, and is simply a theory and hypothesis at this point, albeit with strong evidence for it.
The issue I have with ardent believers of both is that there is no room for compromise. Evolution had to start somewhere. Something had to kick it off. As many in this thread have said, they view that kick as coming from God, and letting evolution do its work to create life...evolution as a tool for creation. I could honestly believe that.
The current scientific hypothesis (generalized) is that back in primordial ooze days, atmospheric electrical activity charged the ooze to create proteins and amino acids, which combined together to make stuff, then compounds, then cells, then life, then...raptor jesus. The ooze/soup to amino acids and proteins has been proven in the laboratory, so it is conceivable. However....much past that has not yet happened.
Honestly though, while I believe evolution is the correct method for us being here, it doesn't really matter in my daily life; I don't ponder from whence I came. I do not understand though, why, in the face of considerable evidence, hardcore religious people cannot accept that evolution does exist and simply explain it as God's method for creation? Many religious people do that, why can't the nutjobs? Just because the Bible says so? There are many passages in the Bible that aren't taken seriously any more, like stoning a wife for adultery, allowing a father to sell his daughters into slavery, yet people believe the world came into being in six days? Does not compute.
The Pope(and Catholicism) view evolution in that way. No other first world country in the world has the same massive debate over this that the US does. Let me ask a question to the Americans here: Why do you care so much which is correct? Why do you care so much about something the rest of the world views as correct in theory if not in totality? Like the Chewbacca defense, it does not make sense!
Let me ask a question to the Americans here: Why do you care so much which is correct? Why do you care so much about something the rest of the world views as correct in theory if not in totality? Like the Chewbacca defense, it does not make sense!
You don't need to be American to discuss something that doesn't make sense.
What if he didn't 'have' to intervene, but simply chose to because he happened to be interested in having a relationship with people?Well, if that is true, then God is a sadistic mad scientist, and we are his lab rats. :p
Creation: The Earth is only 10,000 years old. It took seven days for the planet to be formed. Women were created by extracting a rib of the first human male. God created humans in his own image.
Evolution: The Earth is billions of years old. Humans were the product of millions of years of evolution. We share characteristics from our ancestors the further back in history you go. There is very little that makes us different from other animals. The only difference is that we have become sentient beings. Biologically our origins can be mapped.
I won't reject alternate theories that people may have, but the evolution theory works works without god. Present something that can prove god exists, and I'll listen.
Christian Creation: The Earth is only 10,000 years old. It took seven days for the planet to be formed. Women were created by extracting a rib of the first human male. God created humans in his own image
Fixed.
Fine, the Christian version of creation. Happy?
(us from apes) has yet to be scientifically proven, and is simply a theory and hypothesis at this point, albeit with strong evidence for it.
Shwa? (translation: huh?)
Yet to be proven? Why isn't it proven?
And 'simply a theory'? Sounds like the all to common argument of 'It's only a theory', if I'm not mistaking your post's intentions. Gravity is a theory too, you know...