Evolution or Creation?

[3074326]

Originally Posted by bluechillj

['BusNative]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

Beyond the scope of this thread, really, but.. I would be willing to accept that the Flood story in the Bible does address a real flood. Here's what I think on Flood stories (Biblical and otherwise)
1 - Flood stories are embellishments about what the world looked like to man living on coastlines during the end of the ice age. As the ice melted, the water level arose.... Man in North Africa notices the Med is "higher" talks about it... says some god must be responsible.. since no other story makes sense to him.
2 - The Biblical Flood discusses the flooding of the plain that now lies beneath the Persian Gulf. Link

In my view my theory explains why so many cultures have flood myths and it also explains something a little more specific regarding the Biblical story (assuming the data on the link I linked is indeed correct)

Best example of such: Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Taosman]

Originally Posted by 'BusNative

Best example of such: Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe there is an intersting thread on "Great Flood" stories in the Poli Forum some where.

[BUCKYLE]

Originally Posted by Taosman

I believe there is an intersting thread on "Great Flood" stories in the Poli Forum some where.

Link?

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Brewtus

A scientific theory is not a guess or hypothesis. It is an explanation of facts, observances and evidence. A theory remains an theory forever and never becomes a law or is accepted with 100% certainty. But evolution is as equally supported as atomic theory, or the germ theory of disease or the theory of plate tectonics and I don't see Creationists disputing those theories.

No, the funny thing is that no Theory of Creationism exists yet there are people who assume one does. If you disagree, please explain to me the Theory of Creationism and provide what evidence and observances support it.

Theology and science are not based on equal principals. Belief in God does not require any evidence. I think you're also making the assumption that one cannot believe in God and also accept evolution, which is incorrect and has been discussed already on this board.

Yes we do know. Evolution is supported by geology, paleontology, genetics and many other scientific fields that are independent of each other, yet they all support the same conclusion. Creationism is based on religious writings and has no scientific evidence to support it. But if you're looking for conclusive proof of anything, you won't find it in science. Nothing is 100% certain in science and I guess faith can only give you that level of certainty.

If you read closely you would've noticed that I am not an advocate of either creationism or evolution. You've incorrectly attributed multiple assumptions to me then challenged me to defend them.

As for the notion that nothing in science is 100% certain I turn to chemistry. We know with 100% certainty that two atoms of hydrogen covalently bonded with one atom of oxygen forms water. That's not a theory. That's provable fact.

[muffler dragon]

Originally Posted by Jake

As for the notion that nothing in science is 100% certain I turn to chemistry. We know with 100% certainty that two atoms of hydrogen covalently bonded with one atom of oxygen forms water. That's not a theory. That's provable fact.

Apparently, you enjoyed Physical Chemistry much more than I did. First day of class, "Everything that you've learned thus far is theoretical". [censored]ed me the hell off.

[MaxBuck]

Originally Posted by muffler dragon

Apparently, you enjoyed Physical Chemistry much more than I did. First day of class, "Everything that you've learned thus far is theoretical". [censored]ed me the hell off.

First rule of PChem: don't talk about PChem.

[muffler dragon]

Originally Posted by MaxBuck

First rule of PChem: don't talk about PChem.

They say the guy who started it was born in an insane asylum.

[kinch]

Originally Posted by Jake

If you read closely you would've noticed that I am not an advocate of either creationism or evolution. You've incorrectly attributed multiple assumptions to me then challenged me to defend them.

As for the notion that nothing in science is 100% certain I turn to chemistry. We know with 100% certainty that two atoms of hydrogen covalently bonded with one atom of oxygen forms water. That's not a theory. That's provable fact.

Actually, this goes more to observable facts vs. mechanisms. We observe the fact that this happens-- it is the mechanism by which it happens that is never 100% certain.

[Muck]

YouTube - proof of god

[Taosman]

"Politicians now are wrestling with the matter of human cloning, perhaps the most notable controversy now facing science and society. Any developments that concern biology--especially human biology--are liable to arouse passions, as witnessed in the debates over abortion, euthanasia, and evolution.
I have encountered a few ";creationists"; and because they were usually nice, intelligent people, I have been unable to decide whether they were really mad, or only pretending to be mad.
If I was a religious person, I would consider creationism nothing less than blasphemy. Do its adherents imagine that God is a cosmic hoaxer who has created the whole vast fossil record for the sole purpose of misleading humankind?
And, although I do not necessarily agree with the paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin's advocacy of evolution as a major proof of the glory of God, de Chardin's attitude is both logical and inspiring.
A creator who laid the foundations for the entire future at the beginning of time is far more awesome than a clumsy tinkerer who constantly modifies his creations and throws away entire species in the process.
Even the Vatican, while firm in its declaration that the human soul is divinely created and not subject to process, has stated that the theory of physical evolution is more than just a hypothesis "(1996).
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../280/5369/1532

Arthur C. Clark

[BuckeyeTillIDie]

Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found - Yahoo! News

Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor — but each evolved and changed separately along the way.

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeTillIDie

Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found - Yahoo! News

"Ardi"?????!!!!! [censored]!! I'd have gone for "Wapagoo"