Confused about evolution

[BuckeyeSoldier]

ok.. im gonna stop posting on this thread cuz we are getting no where.. plain as i can make it, evolution is not proven that we have come from apes, thats why it is only a theory. creationism has no scientific backing AT ALL, that is why you dont teach it in science class.
i dont know where it all started and neither do you so why make something up.. just let it be, and we will continue to teach the most probable theory that science comes up with.. and dont worry if youall stop attacking evolution and it IS wrong then science will figure that out on its own in a few years..

 

[BrutuStrength]

Devil's advocate...

"ok.. im gonna stop posting on this thread cuz we are getting no where.. plain as i can make it, evolution is not proven that we have come from apes, thats why it is only a theory. creationism has no scientific backing AT ALL, that is why you dont teach it in science class.
i dont know where it all started and neither do you so why make something up.. just let it be, and we will continue to teach the most probable theory that science comes up with.. and dont worry if youall stop attacking evolution and it IS wrong then science will figure that out on its own in a few years.."

Actually, Creationism has as much factual scientific backing as Evolution... hence, they are both theories. Evolution is more widely supported by the majority of the scientific community because they utilize their talents to determine how and why things happen within their realm of existence. Their scientific pursuits are predicated upon facts and theories that are able to contrive through their own efforts and mental capacity, and those thoughts are not typically compatible with faith-based ideologies, which would permit a power that is not proven to their world to have an impact or influence within that world.

In essence, scientists are willing to manufacture and believe their own faith-based initiatives (called theories), while ignoring the possibility to accept faith-based initiatives that are derived from religious teachings. An example of this would be that something like the "Big Bang" theory was plausible to happen by it's own volition, but would not be scientifically plausible if God were added to the theory as a possible enabler of the "Big Bang" process ever
taking place.

It's kind of ironic that man's pursuit to mimic and understand God could simultaneously drive mankind away from the belief of/in God. In summation, since neither Creation nor Evolution have been proven as an absolute, it is unfair to label one theory as more "probable" than another. If you want to set a curriculum for a school that is devoid of faith-based beliefs, a.k.a "theories," then it should be based solely on factual information, which would also exclude the teaching of Evolution.

 

[3yardsandacloud]

Kudos Brutu. One of the few posts on this thread that takes a realistic view of both sides. Both (at this time) are unproven and "faith" based views. I guess the only question at the moment is which do you put more faith in? (Rhetorical question ... no one need answer)

 

[BuckeyeSoldier]

ahhhhhhhh!!!! i cant ignore that... i know i said i wouldnt post again but omg...

science is NOT FAITH BASED!!! WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING???

CREATIONISM IS BASED ENTIRELY ON FAITH, EVOLUTION IS BASED IN FACTS..

IF YOU DONT WANT TO TEACH THEORIES YOULL HAVE TO THROW OUT TEACHING GRAVITY TOO!!! THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FAITH GIVE ME A BREAK..... ARRRRGHHHH....

 

[BuckeyeSoldier]

and could you please present ANY

Actually, Creationism has as much factual scientific backing as Evolution

they are both theories.

one is a scientific theory, the other is something written an old book with no real evidence and is NOT considered a scientific theory since WE HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE IT!!!

scientists are willing to manufacture and believe their own faith-based initiatives

SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS NOT A FAITH BASED INITIATIVE THAT IS JUST PLAN SLANDER AND SPIN OMG!!! YOU JUST QUESTION THE ENTIRE FIELD OF SCIENCE'S CREDIBILITY WITH THAT ONE.....

would not be scientifically plausible if God were added to the theory

THATS BECAUSE YOU CANT INCLUDE FAIRY TALES THAT HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM EITHER IN A SCIENTIFIC THEORY


OMG... IM GONNA BE SICK AFTER THIS...

 

[BrutuStrength]

...OMG... IM GONNA BE SICK AFTER THIS...

I am not asking for you to be sick, I am merely asking for you to be intellectually honest. As it is, you are acting as though you are some sort of intellectual-elitist, meaning that any opinion which does not value your thought processes (in this case scientific methods) in the same weight that you choose to apply them is devalued by default. However, to a theologian, a scientist's unwillingness to include the possibility of some form of divine intervention or an entity such as God, may not only appear to be misguided, it could also be perceived as being blasphemous... which could possibly have a substantially stronger negative connotation associated with it per their value system over anything that a scientist may experience in their value system (as it relates directly to their line of work.

Going back Creationism vs. Evolution:
A scientist could say that the theory of evolution did indeed happen and that man evolved from apes. He could provide all of his scientific data that reinforces his belief in this matter. However, even after all of his data is supplied, reviewed, and tested, he is still left with only a theory that has been derived from his system of belief/faith.

A theologian could say that man was not only created by God, but furthermore that man was created in God's image. In making his claim he would provide the scriptures that have been studied for thousands of years. However, even after all of his data is supplied, reviewed, and tested, he is still left with only a theory that has been derived from his system of belief/faith.

An interesting thought that someone might be left with after reading this scenario is that after the 2 theories are evaluated against each other, the evolutionist theory has messy details that are left over, such as the fact that apes still exist and that since the time that man has been known to exist, man has never seen any other primates evolve beyond their current existance.

The creationists theory, however, does not have any of those messy details pertaining to similar items that could be considered as evidence-of-denial. Another interesting piece of the puzzle is that science has demonstrated that a part of the human brain is programmed to believe in God, or other divine forces. It has been theorized that this may have actually been designed by God so that his creations would know to give him praise and thanks.

The only shared problem of either theory, is demonstrating the beginning of each: how did God come into existence and/or how was the universe formed? If you can accept both of these theories with equal weighting, then you are being intellectually honest, and not educationally biased.

 

[Woody1968]

However, to a theologian, a scientist's unwillingness to include the possibility of some form of divine intervention or an entity such as God, may not only appear to be misguided, it could also be perceived as being blasphemous...

You are completely confusing and misstating the issue. Science is completely separate from religion. Scientific theories are not faith based. they are merely speculation based on overwhelming factual evidence. Religion, on the other hand is faith based on no factual evidence, but mainly word of mouth. If a scientist is presented with evidence that does not conform with the theory, they modify the theory accordingly. If a theologian is presented with factual evidence that does not support their faith, they must discard or refute the factual evidence in some manner.

which could possibly have a substantially stronger negative connotation associated with it per their value system over anything that a scientist may experience in their value system

Not sure what you mean here. Most Christian denominations, including Catholicism accept the theory of evolution. And many scientists who believe in Evolution are also Christian.

 

[BuckeyeSoldier]

meaning that any opinion which does not value your thought processes (in this case scientific methods) in the same weight that you choose to apply them is devalued by default.

do you even know what the scientific method is? from your post im beginning to doubt you do. i think the problem here is a complete misunderstanding in what scientific practices include... science just doesnt make things up randomly and believe them.. it uses FACTS and EVIDENCE to figure out what is MOST LIKELY, and if it gets evidence that contradicts what it knows it changes, there is no FAITH in science because you dont have to say that no matter what happens this is what you BELIEVE, im not even saying evolution is correct... bcuz in 10 20 100 years we may find out its wrong.. that is why it is taught as a theory! but creationism is NOT a theory, creationism is a myth, a fable... to be considered for teaching in a science class you have to have SOME sort of evidence, not just 1000 yr old hear say.. im all for teaching other theorys as to how we got here in school, just not ones that have NO BASIS IN REALITY!!

 

[BrutuStrength]

"...to have SOME sort of evidence, not just 1000 yr old hear say" -- 1000 year old hearsay is worse than 150 year old hearsay (referring to Darwinism)?

Sorry guys... don't blow a gasket. I thought that it was pretty obvious from my previous title that I am merely playing "devil's advocate." I guess what I'm trying to show is that to categorically deny validity in the theory of Creationism, or to even refer to it as a "myth," "fable," or as a "fairy tale," then you would need to completely disprove the existence of God. Doing so would probably be more difficult than proving his existence.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

The fact that God may exist, in the belief of many, is reason enough for those people to believe in Creationism, hence providing that theory as much, or more, credence in their view than the theory of Evolution. Furthermore, if God does exist then that fact in itself would create a "basis in reality" even if science is factually unaware of his existence (kind of like the tree falling and noone is around to witness it thing.)<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

Also, to clarify, when I have referred to "faith" and/or "belief" in association with science, I have done so in the context of scientists having faith and/or belief in their methods to derive their conclusions. The counterpoint to this is that other people have faith and belief in God. They believe in Heaven and Hell. They also believe that due to the absence of scientific facts that clearly demonstrate the transition of mankind from primate to man, combined with the current existence of non-evolving primates that mankind is alleged to have evolved from, that the theory of Creationism should have equal weighting.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

I believe that since this thread is in reference to schools teaching the Evolutonary theory, that this discussion transcends merely discussing evolution in terms of changing alleles. Rather, that the Evolutionary process being taught in the schools also includes the creation of Earth and mankind spawning from primates. (Big Bang theory and so on). It is in this broadest discussion of Evolution that Creationism has as much factual basis as Evolution, since both are predicated upon where the creation process begins. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

Allow me to explain: At this point in time, NOONE is able to state with certainty how the universe was created nor that all life on the planet was derived from a single-celled organism (not enough fossilized evidence,) that would have had to appear or form of it's own volition (sounds as impossible as God existing infinitely of his own volition.) If Creationism believes that mankind and other life on Earth were created by God using dust, then it seems very similar to Evolution's claim that all life was formed from an amoeba.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

In this context, it seems pretty reasonable that they request to have Creationism taught in conjunction with Evolution in school, at least up to the part where evolution is only discussed as the changing of alleles.

 

[BuckeyeInTheBoro]

Thank you BrutuStrength for actually bringing some common sense and level-headedness to this debate. I believe it (in the spirit of entropy) had evolved (or did it mutate?) into an argument on semantics that had very little to do with the original debate.

You bring up a good point:

I was taught in a Christian school that God created the heavens and the earth and all things in them.

Then I was taught in a public school that man evolved from apes who had evolved from lizards or something so-on and so-forth going back to the big-bang.

To say the second theory was devoid of faith is ludicrous. It takes a great deal of faith in the science the men etc. who are finding evidence supporting this theory to believe something that flies in the face of other accepted theories such as entropy, etc.

Evolution (in the sense I described above not the "textbook" definition others have been bantering about) was taught to me as 'almost' fact.. there were "just a few small holes to fill in".

That's what I wouldn't want my children taught. It's bad Christian theory (which I would expect from a public school system) but moreover it's bad science (which I also expect, but shouldn't have to put up with).


"In China its O.K. to criticize Darwin but not the government, while in the United States its O.K. to criticize the government, but not Darwin."

Dr. J.Y. Chen,
Chinese Paleontologist

 

[BuckeyeSoldier]

i cringe everytime i see someone has posted on this thread.. and that arguement is so bogus its scary brutu.. im pretty sure at some point in this thread ive arleady rebutted everything you said so feel free to read the old posts... im gonna try to leave this alone again... ( i had an easier time giving up alcohol than this thread scary huh) but to revert to third grader level for a minute, you are wrong i am right, so i win blah

 

[BrutuStrength]

...but to revert to third grader level for a minute, you are wrong i am right, so i win blah

Intellectual elitism, again?

Do you not find it to be hypocritical to accept that a universe can simply appear from happenstance, but that you won't even consider influence from a divine power? It seems to be that you limit your thought process by shielding yourself behind science. In truth, theories of origin such as the Big Bang theory have no more evidence to support them that of Creation, however, you blindly accept Big Bang as plausible without a shred of evidence due to it's absence of divine influence and it's more popular acceptance among the scientific community. You also defend Evolution (beyond the alleles piece) as being more correct because it doesn't include fabled ingredients... then please explain why no evidence has been found to substantiate the evolutionary stages between primates and humans.

How is it that remains have been found of primates prior to evolution, and likewise of man post-evolution, but none of the middle pieces (aka missiing links) have been located (legitimately, excluding manufactured attempts such as Piltgate & Nebraska)? Would not these "missing links" be fabled items themselves?

To review, the broadscope of evolution being taught in public school systems has: no proven basis of origin, key evidence missing throughout the middle of the equation (which would just happen to be the very glue of the theory, again in broadscope), but it does have support to the defining aspect of "Evolution" in it's particular definition in the changing alleles.

Conversely, the Creationists theory believes in divine creation of the universe (equally unprovable/provable with evo), high level life forms from their beginning (fossils are found for these as opposed to the "missing links" of evo), which would then bring it to a mutual placing with the alleles concept.

From this outlook, things still look pretty even in the broadscope, possibly even a slight edge for Creationism. You know what, maybe everyone should agree with you. Let's not have public schools teach concepts about "fairy tales"... of course this would also include much of the broadscope view of evolution. They still might like to learn about the alleles stuff though.

 

[buckiprof]

A scientist could say that the theory of evolution did indeed happen and that man evolved from apes.

Evolution does not state that man evolved from apes. It proposes that man and apes have a common ancestor from which apes branched off and man branched off.

I think that creationism is fine to be taught in schools, as long as it's in a religion class, or a philosophy class. Since I don't subscribe to the whole "earth and heavens and all things in it were created in 6 days" story, I wonder how creationists rationalize the fossil record. In particular, Cro-magnon and Neanderthal. Were these "rough drafts" God created?

 

[BrutuStrength]

Evolution does not state that man evolved from apes. It proposes that man and apes have a common ancestor from which apes branched off and man branched off.

Point taken, but the preemptive creature still remains absent from factual findings. No fossils = no definitive proof = no more real than the existence of a divine power/being.

I think that creationism is fine to be taught in schools, as long as it's in a religion class, or a philosophy class...

Then shouldn't related theories be taught in religion/philosophy classes as well? Especially those theories that are equally fairy-talish, such as "Big Bang." Otherwise, I don't understand why would receive preferential ditinguishment in a scientific environment.

...Since I don't subscribe to the whole "earth and heavens and all things in it were created in 6 days" story...

If I remember correctly, many of the time items listed in the Bible were never intended to be taken literally. I believe those items were intentionally exaggerated to make the stories appear to be less defined so that the people could pass the information to each other without being persecuted. If you want to think through the "7 days" part of Genesis, it would probably be more fair/correct to do so in thinking of it as 7 stages of creation. Further, you could probably consider present time to be part of the 7th stage where God is resting and admiring his work.

...I wonder how creationists rationalize the fossil record. In particular, Cro-magnon and Neanderthal. Were these "rough drafts" God created?

I'll have to look this one up. Remember, I'm not a theologian or a scientist (although I did stay at a Marriott express last night), I am merely playing the role of devil's advocate in this discussion and I have mostly been advocating from the philosophical standpoint of these issues.

 

[FKAGobucks877]

do you even know what the scientific method is? from your post im beginning to doubt you do. i think the problem here is a complete misunderstanding in what scientific practices include... science just doesnt make things up randomly and believe them.. it uses FACTS and EVIDENCE to figure out what is MOST LIKELY, and if it gets evidence that contradicts what it knows it changes, there is no FAITH in science because you dont have to say that no matter what happens this is what you BELIEVE, im not even saying evolution is correct... bcuz in 10 20 100 years we may find out its wrong.. that is why it is taught as a theory! but creationism is NOT a theory, creationism is a myth, a fable... to be considered for teaching in a science class you have to have SOME sort of evidence, not just 1000 yr old hear say.. im all for teaching other theorys as to how we got here in school, just not ones that have NO BASIS IN REALITY!!

The problem with this statement, my friend, is that there really isn't that much "proof" to support either argument. And when you have such a massive hole in the theory of evolution (the origin of it), then why do scientists pursue it? Isn't that flaw, in and of itself, enough to prove the evolution theory cannot be correct? And please, try not to argue semantics with me. I fully admit that "evolution" does occur on one scale or another. I am discussing the "beginning" of our universe and existence as we know it.

Also, I would like to know what proof there actually is for evolution. Everybody talks like there is all this "scientific proof" that supports the theory of evolution. I guess I wasn't taught any of that, as I was taught creationism in my private high school. I can offer a lot of scientific proof that many of the events in the bible DID take place, such as the flood referred to earlier in this thread. I don't believe it is possible to prove or disprove conclusively whether Noah existed or had an ark (and don't really feel it is relevant to this argument), but the world of science does admit that at one time in the not too distant past, there was a massive, world-wide flood. Please, somebody enlighten me as to the loads of scientific proof that supports the theory of evolution (and I mean evolution as a whole, one genus evolving into another-again, let's not argue semantics).