The subject has been brought up regarding evolution or creation. Since both are viewed as religions, I thought it should be posted as a new thread.

Personally, I enjoy this debate and am interested in learning the opinions of the others on this board. Here are a few points to begin on.

The Geologic method of dating fossils is inaccurate.
Genetics cannot prove evolution.
The fossil record proves creation.
The 2nd law of Thermodynamics does not the possiblity of evolution.

i say evolution, though its hard to say if i believe that we all came out of the ocean starting as sea organisms.


"The Geologic method of dating fossils is inaccurate.
Genetics cannot prove evolution.
The fossil record proves creation.
The 2nd law of Thermodynamics does not the possiblity of evolution.t of the sea."

and where do you have evidence to support this theory of yours?

Evolution is not a religion.

More than one method of dating is used.
It already has, the research is out there in abundance.
The fossil record doesn't allow for Creation.
The 2nd law of Thermodynamics is not broken, as the Earth is not a closed system.

Then why is it preched as one? It has no scientific basis and cannot be proven....it is based on Faith


sounds like a religion

It isn't preached as a religion. If it had no Scientific basis, why on earth would it be a fundamental part of Science? The process of Evolution is proven. The theory has a vast amount of supporting evidence. Just because you disagree with that from a religious standpoint, does not make the Science invalid.

I hear there is alot of evidence, but I see nothing. I hear about fruit flys, but when asked about them, no one tells me.

And he wasn't denying evolution based on religion, he was denying it based on science.

Lets start with the first argument often put forth by creationists...

WHY DO SCIENTISTS DEBATE EVOLUTION AMONG THEMSELVES?

A question often raised by creationists is "why, if the evidence for evolution is so sound, do scientists continue to debate it among themselves"? The answer is that scientists do not debate whether or not evolution occurs, because the strength of this evidence is overwhelming. Debate generally centers, instead, on topics such as those listed below. mechanisms that have driven evolution
the time course of various evolutionary events
specific ancestor for an organism or group of organisms

a. Mechanisms that have driven evolution

As one example of the kind of debate on evolution that occurs among scientists, examine briefly possible mechanisms that may operate to drive evolution. Darwin proposed that the driving mechanism for evolutionary change was natural selection. Basically, Darwin observed that variations occur within a species and that more offspring are produced than survive to reproduce. He proposed that individuals bearing variations that prove to be beneficial (adaptive) to a particular environment are the most likely to survive to produce offspring, thereby passing along those traits to the next generation. As the process continues over time, the population gradually changes as heritable environmentally selected adaptations are passed on to successive generations.

Since the time of Darwin, however, evidence has emerged to suggest that natural selection may not be the only mechanism leading to change. For example, chance plays a role (the Sewell-Wright phenomenon of "genetic drift").

b. The time course of various evolutionary events

It has been proposed that change may not always be gradual as proposed by Darwin; instead, evolution may occur in "fits and starts" (Eldredge and Gould’s hypothesis of "punctuated equilibrium).

c. Specific ancestor for an organism or group of organisms

An example of a more recent and widely publicized debate centers on the origin of birds. Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, faculty members in the Department of Biology at UNC-Chapel Hill, recently provided evidence that the widely held hypothesis that birds arose from dinosaurs may be false [5]. Both dinosaurs and birds have only 3 digits (fingers) in the ‘hand,’ and dinosaurs possess digits I, II, and III. Burke and Feduccia found, from examination of embryos of birds, that birds possess digits II, III, and IV, suggesting that birds cannot have arisen from the dinosaurs.
Debate among scientists is useful, even critical, but has created problems of credibility outside the scientific community. For example, coverage in The Charlotte Observer of the discovery by Burke and Feduccia bore the headline, "Thumbs down on dinosaur-bird link? UNC embryo study suggests evolution theory is ‘definitely in trouble.’ [6]" Feduccia confirmed, of course, that it is not the theory of evolution that is in trouble, but only the origin of birds from dinosaurs. Feduccia stated that "birds are derived from archosauran reptiles. [7]"

How big a role does chance play in directing evolution? How common is discontinuous evolution? Are birds derived from dinosaurs or from other reptiles? These are the kinds of questions that scientists debate scientifically, not whether or not evolution occurred.

The implication of the problem scientific debate causes outside the scientific community is well stated by Stephen J. Gould:


Most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern among my colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy debate about theory that has brought new life to evolutionary biology. It provides grist for creationist mills, they say, even if only by distortion. Perhaps we should lay low and rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment -- a kind of old-time religion on our part. But we should borrow another metaphor and recognize that we too have to tread a straight and narrow path, surrounded by roads to peridition. For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost [8].

I will post more aftre I hear some sort of preordained arguments from teh creationists...

also a note we have had this argument before....

This hypothesis was proven by Theodosius Dobzhansky and his various experiments on fruit flies....

Now you have your answer Light.... and please attempt to keep the conversation tactful.....

Good idea on the thread.... yet your statement is inherently untruthful... Creationism is a religious ideal.... evolution has nothing to do with religion nor with faith.... it is a scientifically proven fact... with loads of experiments to rely upon.... it has been shown that creatures will adapt and evolve in laboratory conditions which mimic natural changes of conditions over time.... or mutations if you will....

Creationism is not entirely religious based. Science also plays a part.

If I asked you where did everything come from, you would have to give an idea that requires a leap of faith. Or you would have to say, I don't know.

Adapting creatures is one thing. But do these fruit flys grow things that weren't there? Do they grow fangs? Develope an anti something or other for the problems they are faced?

From what I have been told, my bible teacher was a evolution biologist major(if thats the title) there is evolution, but its called de-evolution. For instance if the wings of a lady bug, keep getting caught into the wind, and getting swept into the water to drown.Then they will adapt and loose the wings.
But from what I have been told, it doesn't work the other way.
Like the gazelle won't develope wings to fly away, or grow some kind of weapon from its body.

Evolution makes sense.

Science plays no part in the Religious ideal of Creationism.... it is an ideal based on complete faith..... for you to say differently shows your lack of understanding of scientific principle.....

First lets cover some basic scientific terminology for you... it will help you understand what I am talking about when we discuss scientific principle and law..... oh... by the way.... evolution does not in any way break the second law of thermodynamics..... if you were to fully study the principles of evolution you would know that this is true.... one of the funniest actions a religious creationist can partake in is attempting to use scientific principle to prove itself wrong when they do not understand it.... if you do understand it you would not be saying that evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics.....

Ok... terms...
"""Glossary of Terms Used in Teaching About the Nature of Science
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Hypothesis: A testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.""

Evolution falls under the term "fact" because it is an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.... through thousands of experiments and over dozens of different branches of scientific study...... speak to an archeologist.. he will tell you evolution is fact.... speak to a biologist and he will confirm what the archeologist told you....

The Light you have a rudimentary understanding of what evolution means.... those fruit flies did not need to grow appendages to show evolution at work.... they showed diversity and adaptation.... which is evolution at work.... we are not talking science fiction here... we are speaking of science fact.....


""""Dobzhansky moved to the United States in 1927, and, through his lifelong experiments with fruit flies, showed that natural populations of the flies exhibited the same kinds of genetic variations that could be produced artificially by mutation in the laboratory. Moreover, he showed that natural populations included enough heritable variation for natural selection to work. Dobzhansky thus bridged the gap between laboratory experiments and field observation, and his 1937 book Genetics and the Origin of Species was one of the cornerstones of the modern synthesis. """"

Has it occured to anyone that Evolution is to Observation of Creation. If you have ever looked at the First Page of the Bible, the moon and sun were placed in the Heaven, so Mankind could keep track of time as it passes. Therefore, God's days are not dirrectly related to our days.

Ipso facto the days of God could be infinetly longer than our own. However in my paper I found the days to be roughly 650 million years long and the nights about 250 million years. The nights revolve around when Ice Ages happen.

Here's the page if you want to look at it, the Ice Age theories are not available.

http://www.geocities.com/n_maries/in...enceofgod3.htm

"With the discovery of human life at 100,000 years if you take 1,800 million years and subtract 100,000 years and divide it by two (for the two estimated days) it equals 899,950,000 years. Then times it by five (for the total five days) and receive 4,499,750,000 years or 4500 million years. It is the same time the Hadean Era began."

Ok if evolution makes sense, then explain it to me. Please explain to me how evolution made everything.
Right from the beginning.

According to what you "believe" science plays no part in creation.
We have thermodynamics, evolution, and the laws of physics.
What do you have?

If evolution made everything, then explain it to me. If you can.

Explain to me how the 2nd law, doesn't contradict evolution?

In the fruit flys, what mutations took place?
In the fruit flys, what were the problems, and how did they solve them or change?

A cat can jump on a hot burner, and learn to not jump up there anymore. If thats your idea of evolution, then there is evolution. But that to me is just learning. But the idea of evolution is that birds came from reptiles, and things of that nature. Science fiction kind of stuff.

Evolution deals with the development of organisms throughout time, starting from the first living organisms. It doesn't claim to deal with how everything got here. Your argument is based on the idea that the first male human was formed out of dirt. The first female human was then made from a rib. Does this make sense to you, really?

Science Fiction often becomes Science Fact, but that is not the point. The theory of Evolution has more evidence to support it than most other Scientific theories, so you will have to come up with a solid argument if you want to question it.

I think that there's no need to think what was true: evolution or creation. The science of today is able to construct the world which was many many yars ago. Why shouldn't we believe scientists?

So, there's another problem... What was the reason of "creation of evolution". I'm not asking about how it has been done, but what for?