Origins

[JCampbell]

For Creationist Theory:
www.trueorigins.org
For Evolutionist Theory:
www.talkorigins.org

Both are comprehensive, and probably above most of this site's members' intellectual level. Fortunately, this will limit the discussion to people who actually know what they're talking about, and not one-liners from either side.

Example:
"God did it."
"Creationists don't use science."

Each is equally ignorant and expresses a very obvious ignorance to the subject.

I will start. I believe that the Theory of Evolution is a misguided and inaccurate perspective based on the humanistic belief of naturalism. I believe that Creationism, as described on this website, accounts best for the available evidence.

I will ask that anyone who posts in this thread at least has a valid claim to make that isn't in the form of a sarcastic "comeback." Bottom line: if you make a grandiose claim, back it up."

I will reply as time permits.

 

[Stigmata]

Evolution is observable, Creationism is not.

Example: A virus/pathogen/etc becomes immune to a previously-effective vaccine.

Q.E.D.? [probably not, but a man can dream...]

 

[Glirk Dient]

That is why the whole problem exists. You can't disprove creationism. There are no facts to support it nor is it even possible to prove or disprove because of that.

Evolution has facts tied to it, evidence...tangibility! There is something there, whereas creationism comes from a book.

 

[staticprimer]

Many creationists do not deny the existance of micro-evolution, as there is tangible evidence of it today (ie, the galapagos islands). What they fail to realize or admit is, that the Theory of Evolution can be considered the result of millions of years of different micro-evolutions. In addition, many creationists disregard evolution as 'merely a theory', as if that means that it is unsubstanciated. In the science community, a theory is the second highest certainty, the highest being a law. The only way a theory can become a law is if it can be proven unequivocably through numerous repetition of experiments that cover every possible scenerio of the subject. Seeing as evolution occurs over millions of years, there is no way we can prove it in this manner. Scientists must do the next best thing, which is to collect data and evidence to further substanciate their claim, as has been done. The problem with creationism is, that it cannot even be concidered a theory in scientific terms. The only 'evidence' to support creationism comes from a book that was written over 2,000 years ago by men (even in courts, eye witness testimony is almost never enough to prove something) and the idea that everything is simply 'too complex' to happen by random chance. This is misleading because evolution does not happen by random chance. Changes occur in a species because that change is beneficial to the specie. Granted there are anomolies to this, but not enough to disprove it.

I would continue, but I got distracted and lost my thought line, but you get my basic thoughts on this.

 

[Absinthe]

A completely unfalsifiable concept vs. a falsifiable one. How wonderful.

 

[JCampbell]

Evolution is observable, Creationism is not.

Example: A virus/pathogen/etc becomes immune to a previously-effective vaccine.

Q.E.D.? [probably not, but a man can dream...]

Although I'm not familiar of Q.E.D. or what it is, I can offer some information as to what is actually going on when bacteria 'evolves.'
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0408lab_evolution.asp is fairly thorough and is general enough that most can understand it.

It is important to distinguish between Micro-Evolution (i.e. variation within species etc...) and Macro-Evolution, as one is not proof of the other. Microevolution deals with changes within the existing genetic material, whereas macroevolution predicts the rise of new genetic material where none before existed.

That is why the whole problem exists. You can't disprove creationism. There are no facts to support it nor is it even possible to prove or disprove because of that.

Evolution has facts tied to it, evidence...tangibility! There is something there, whereas creationism comes from a book.

Technically Creationism isn't falsifiable; how you came to the conclusion that no facts support it as a result of that is beyond me. However, neither is Evolutionism, as ANY evidence can be somehow twisted, re-interpreted, or discarded based on how it fits in the the current evolutionary framework.

While the religious implications of Creationism are hard to deny, the scientific theory is separate from the Bible. I personally don't believe the Bible should be used to prove Creationism, as it was not written with the intention of being a scientists companion. It exists in its own right.

Since in the first post in this thread I posted a link to one of the most comprehensive collections of data regarding the Creationist model, I find it hard to believe that you believe there are no 'facts' to support Creationism. And I assure you, Biblical references to fill in gaps in scientific method are not found on this site.

Many creationists do not deny the existance of micro-evolution, as there is tangible evidence of it today (ie, the galapagos islands). What they fail to realize or admit is, that the Theory of Evolution can be considered the result of millions of years of different micro-evolutions. In addition, many creationists disregard evolution as 'merely a theory', as if that means that it is unsubstanciated. In the science community, a theory is the second highest certainty, the highest being a law. The only way a theory can become a law is if it can be proven unequivocably through numerous repetition of experiments that cover every possible scenerio of the subject. Seeing as evolution occurs over millions of years, there is no way we can prove it in this manner. Scientists must do the next best thing, which is to collect data and evidence to further substanciate their claim, as has been done. The problem with creationism is, that it cannot even be concidered a theory in scientific terms. The only 'evidence' to support creationism comes from a book that was written over 2,000 years ago by men (even in courts, eye witness testimony is almost never enough to prove something) and the idea that everything is simply 'too complex' to happen by random chance. This is misleading because evolution does not happen by random chance. Changes occur in a species because that change is beneficial to the specie. Granted there are anomolies to this, but not enough to disprove it.

Microevolution stems from changes in existing genetic information. Macroevolution is the spontaneous creation of new genetic material (ever heard of the Cambrian explosion?) Evidence of one does not grant immunity to the other.
It is interesting in your allusion to the law of gravity, you fail to mention that even this was subject to revision. Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics differ greatly.
As for your comments regarding Creationism, please at least read a couple of the articles on the site I posted and tell me again with certainty that there is no non-Biblical evidence for Creationism.
Evolution, by definition, is a series of random mutations guided by Natural Selection. This is not disputable. The changes do not occur because they are beneficial, they are said to be 'kept' because they are beneficial out of all the unbeneficial ones. Random mutations do not know which ones are 'good' or 'bad.' They're random.

 

[kirovman]

Although I'm not familiar of Q.E.D. or what it is, I can offer some information as to what is actually going on when bacteria 'evolves.'

Either quantum electrodynamics or some Latin Acronym.

 

[CptStern]

ummm I dont get it ...is there some new type of creationism besides Genesis?

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Isn't it awsome that God gave viri the ability to do that? :E
ROFL

God (if he exists) gave life the ability to evolve. Its a pretty awesome algorithm he coded, because we've descended from the humblest of beginnings. Its not just Virii that change.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Glirk Dient]

ummm I dont get it ...is there some new type of creationism besides Genesis?

There are 2 different stories. One where god created everything in a few days(and man and women at the same time).

The other where god created man first and then stole a rib and created women out of that(adam and eve).

 

[CptStern]

There are 2 different stories. One where god created everything in a few days(and man and women at the same time).

The other where god created man first and then stole a rib and created women out of that(adam and eve).

but they're both from genesis

 

[Ikerous]

Either quantum electrodynamics or some Latin Acronym.

Quod erat demonstrandum - which was to be demonstrated
I used to have it in my sig cuz its also a math joke

And this is the best thread ever ^_^
I've been waiting for someone with a decent understanding of creationism to come on here
Good luck

 

[JCampbell]

ummm I dont get it ...is there some new type of creationism besides Genesis?

Creationism is the belief that life is created. The Bible is an account of this Creation. However, just because both state life is created, it is possible to examine Creationism outside of the context of the Bible. First, one would have to define the criteria of how something 'created' would look. Second, a body of evidence would have to be accumulated and interpreted to see if it fit into this idea. Fortunately, both of these exist.

For more information on the definition of Creationism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism_(theology)

For an exhaustive look at the Theory of Creation:
http://www.trueorigins.org/creatheory.asp

God (if he exists) gave life the ability to evolve. Its a pretty awesome algorithm he coded, because we've descended from the humblest of beginnings. Its not just Virii that change.

-Angry Lawyer

Are you saying that Evolution is so improbable that it pretty much points to the existance of God? By saying that he gave life the ability to evolve (which I agree with, in the sense of micro-evolution), you're undermining the entire premise of Evolutionism, which states that all species today have accumulated through random mutations with Natural Selection being the guiding light.

There are 2 different stories. One where god created everything in a few days(and man and women at the same time).

The other where god created man first and then stole a rib and created women out of that(adam and eve).

Although I know where your second story comes from (and it is besides the point, as I am intending to keep this discussion as free of the "god of the gaps" mentality as possible), where does the first? I have never heard of this doctrine.

Quod erat demonstrandum - which was to be demonstrated
I used to have it in my sig cuz its also a math joke

And this is the best thread ever ^_^
I've been waiting for someone with a decent understanding of creationism to come on here
Good luck

Ah...must not know enough latin. I encourage you to join if you have anything useful to contribute or even just questions regarding anything relevant to the topic.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Are you saying that Evolution is so improbable that it pretty much points to the existance of God? By saying that he gave life the ability to evolve (which I agree with, in the sense of micro-evolution), you're undermining the entire premise of Evolutionism, which states that all species today have accumulated through random mutations with Natural Selection being the guiding light.

Don't try to twist my words, kid. I meant as in evolution happens through randomness. Randomness falls back from the big bang, and the start of physics. Where did physics come from? Nobody knows, but if there *is* a God, then he's written it.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[CptStern]

Creationism is the belief that life is created. The Bible is an account of this Creation. However, just because both state life is created, it is possible to examine Creationism outside of the context of the Bible. First, one would have to define the criteria of how something 'created' would look. Second, a body of evidence would have to be accumulated and interpreted to see if it fit into this idea. Fortunately, both of these exist.

yes I understand but we're talking about christian creationism which is the book of genesis ..so in other words the only standard it should be judged by is held within it's pages ...any material written after the fact is immaterial because the book itself is the historical account behind the creation

For an exhaustive look at the Theory of Creation:
http://www.trueorigins.org/creatheory.asp

highly disappointing ..it spends much of the time trying to debunk evolution and not nearly enough time explaining how creationism is valid today

 

[Sulkdodds]

Let me get this straight: you believe that the theory of evolution is wrong. I'm just wondering how else you can account for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Horseevolution.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Evolution_pl.png

Just two things there.

 

[Mith']

In Genesis God also created light before the sun...
I can't believe people actually take Genesis seriously..

 

[southernman17]

Genesis should be taken seriously. I don't interpret Genesis as literal but figurative. Its about the greatness of God and lays groundwork for ethical behavior.

 

[Absinthe]

Genesis lays no groundwork for ethical behavior that can't be derived elsewhere.

 

[southernman17]

Ok well Christains and Jews derive their ethical groundwork from Genesis, not outside sources. I never implied Genesis was the ONLY place to gather that from.

 

[Absinthe]

I think it's frightening that the only thing keeping their moral behavior in line is a book.

 

[The Monkey]

Ethnic and morale would've came without Christianity.

 

[southernman17]

There is no denying that Genesis serves as a groundwork for the ethics Christains and Jews. Undebatable. Its fact. I just wanted to prove that for many, Genesis is taken seriously.
Morals*
Morale is different.

 

[CptStern]

In Genesis God also created light before the sun...
I can't believe people actually take Genesis seriously..

well let's see ...Genesis taught us that it's ok to

- accept strange fruit from snakes
- nudity is the work of satan
- fig leaves provide excellent coverage for nakedness ...hair too
- it's ok to kill your brother
- it's ok to sleep with your sister, mother
- light came before the sun (who knew?)

 

[Sulkdodds]

- truth
- duh
- I know from experience this is correct
- Ditto
- Why not?
- WELL OBVIOUSLY.

 

[JCampbell]

Don't try to twist my words, kid. I meant as in evolution happens through randomness. Randomness falls back from the big bang, and the start of physics. Where did physics come from? Nobody knows, but if there *is* a God, then he's written it.

-Angry Lawyer

Kid? It's hardly respectable to be condescending when you don't know who you're talking to. I didn't twist your words, by the way. I started with a question asking you to clarify your statement, as I don't think you realized how ambigious your first statement was.
Also, the Big Bang doesn't relate to this discussion, as it is beyond the scope of evolution. And since this is a comparison between evolutionism and creationism, I don't think it is relevant to this thread. Also, the physical properties of atoms and molecules don't actually have a predisposition towards ordering themselves into amino acids and such, so I hardly see how physics is relevant to the theory of evolution.

yes I understand but we're talking about christian creationism which is the book of genesis ..so in other words the only standard it should be judged by is held within it's pages ...any material written after the fact is immaterial because the book itself is the historical account behind the creation

By this logic, any subsequent theories regarding evolution that do not fall within the pages of "Origins of the Species" can be considered invalid, because they are not part of the original theory of Evolution via Natural Selection.
As I said before, the Bible is not meant to be a scientists companion, and as such there are certain things that it is not meant to explain (ie anatomical paralogy, vestigial structures). It is merely a framework in which to view the evidence. One looks at the evidence and decides whether it fits the evolutionist perspective of the creationist perspective.
For example, the Bible does not explain how fossils form, but that does not mean that the fossil record cannot be used to provide evidence for creationism. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

As for your comment on the link, are you saying that you didn't read the entire page? The first part was a clarification to help people realize where the site was coming from. The second deals with the actual theory.

Let me get this straight: you believe that the theory of evolution is wrong. I'm just wondering how else you can account for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Horseevolution.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagevolution_pl.png

Just two things there.

Wishful thinking.
First Picture:
I do not know what dating method was used, but such information would be useful before the automatic assumption that these creatures were related to eachother was made. (which isn't COMPLETELY unlikely, as variations within species is perfectly acceptable within Creationist thinking) Even so, it doesn't prove anything other than environmental adaptation can occur within the existing genetic material.

Second Picture:
This isn't valid evidence because just as one can say that common parts arrived from a common ancestor, it is just as easy and plausible to believe that common parts came from a common designer.
http://www.trueorigins.org/theobald1d.asp#pred11
This link deals with anatomical paralogy. Keep in mind that this is a rebuttal to an article posted on talkorigins.org, and as such will come across like one. Regardless, the information is still relevant.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Wait a second, exactly which part of the theory of evolution don't you agree with?

macroevolution predicts the rise of new genetic material where none before existed.

It's this bit, isn't it? I don't see how this is correct though. It's the rise of new genetic material from old; fish to amphibian to reptile to dinosaur to bird or whatever. It's not claiming that new genetic material magically appears.

edit: I don't 'get' this at all. What is the creationist argument? If you're seperating it completely from the bible then all it can be is 'a god created the earth and everything on it'. Now I don't see how evolution contradicts this at all - but everything on that website you keep linking seems to be (admittedly I only took a short look) rebuttals and responses. All it does is persistently argue that macroevolution doesn't happen. What reason is there to believe it didn't?

 

[CptStern]

By this logic, any subsequent theories regarding evolution that do not fall within the pages of "Origins of the Species" can be considered invalid, because they are not part of the original theory of Evolution via Natural Selection.

I disagree ..as a theory it is allowed room to grow and change ..it's not a historical document unlike the bible

As I said before, the Bible is not meant to be a scientists companion, and as such there are certain things that it is not meant to explain (ie anatomical paralogy, vestigial structures). It is merely a framework in which to view the evidence.

that doesnt make much sense ..that's like saying you have a historical document written by someone but then adding an addendum centries after it was written ..the first account is the only account ..all else is just observing after the fact

One looks at the evidence and decides whether it fits the evolutionist perspective of the creationist perspective.
For example, the Bible does not explain how fossils form, but that does not mean that the fossil record cannot be used to provide evidence for creationism. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

but isnt that just a convience? I mean isnt that just molding to theory to suit today? ...if you take it literally it means what it means, if you decide to interpret it as you see fit then you are changing it from what the original writers meant it to be

As for your comment on the link, are you saying that you didn't read the entire page? The first part was a clarification to help people realize where the site was coming from. The second deals with the actual theory.

I read it, it doesnt explain much

 

[short recoil]

Creationism is almost certainly invalid in the fundamental genesis form.

I have been thinking about this subject for many years, no matter what evidence or argument comes up there is always something that tells me we evolved into our current state as did all biological life on earth, just like the constant change of the earths surface and climate.

You are correct about you can never entirely prove or disprove something, i could say "but how do you KNOW for cetain the cola is in this can?", you can see it, smell it, feel it and taste it but those are just your senses.....they can be faulty.
If we thought like that we would get no where, science has helped our soceity develop, if we waited on 100% evidence we would never get anything done.
It is all about being realistic and trying to find the most likely occurance.
Whilst creationism COULD be the reality, so could the reality we were created by mr blobby. (about as likely if you ask me)

Looking at the evidence on earth i am roughly 99.5% certain biological life has formed here through evolution, our existence and self awareness from our advanced brain.
Of course, if god created us he could have placed evidence to make us think that.....but isn't thinking like that just silly?
Thats what a lot of hardcore creationists do, fit the wrong pieces of jigsaw in by cutting the stumps off, ending up with an incorrect picture.

It is so obvious to me that once life started, although very slowly the process of natural selection over time has moulded the life we see today.
If anyone wants me to go into the evidence i will, i could write for hours on this.

I see it as that, i will not try and argue how the universe formed, wether it was created by god or not but i am almost certain that we are a formant upon the earth, a result of electro chemical activity upon it's surface.
Life is just a system much like weather and rock movement upon the earth, much more advanced yes, but if it wasn't then we wouldn't be there to question it.

Many people, including "top scientists" and "Great philosophers" make the mistake of thinking we are the centre of everything.
"oh this universe is just perfectly tuned for life, it must have been created to be this perfect"
Every imperfect place for our life to form would not have life, there would not be life there to question existence, only the perfect places would have people thinking "oh this place is perfect for us!"
Duh!
And yet another piece of evidence for evolution there.

As for morals, yes the bible has SOME good sources but don't you think it's better to work on morals suited to our modern soceity?
Before the bible, we were not all imoral beasts, morals must be there for a soceity to work, and are a human creation, not gods.
I used to think, i should fight only for myself, not care about another but it would not be in my benefit to do so, others can help so you help them first, they would soon stop helping you if you were evil to them.

Whilst the basis is entirely selfish, it works.
"selfishness and selflessness"

 

[Lemonking]

omg god just spoke to us!

 

[JCampbell]

Wait a second, exactly which part of the theory of evolution don't you agree with?



It's this bit, isn't it? I don't see how this is correct though. It's the rise of new genetic material from old; fish to amphibian to reptile to dinosaur to bird or whatever. It's not claiming that new genetic material magically appears.

The problem isn't is equally with the theory and with the evidence that is presented. There has never been a transitional fossil found between a fish and amphibian, or a bird and a dinosaur. There is either or...and it take a lot of speculation to simply 'gloss over' the very apparent gaps in the fossil record.

edit: I don't 'get' this at all. What is the creationist argument? If you're seperating it completely from the bible then all it can be is 'a god created the earth and everything on it'. Now I don't see how evolution contradicts this at all - but everything on that website you keep linking seems to be (admittedly I only took a short look) rebuttals and responses. All it does is persistently argue that macroevolution doesn't happen. What reason is there to believe it didn't?

Since you admittedly didn't take a more in-depth look (which I suggest you do if you're going to keep claiming that all the site does is rebuttals and responses.
Also, if you'll note on the title page

This site was established to provide an intellectually honest response to the claims of evolutionism’s proponents (including, but not limited to, the likes of the “Talk.Origins” newsgroup and website). Most advocates of evolutionism subscribe to a set of naturalistic and mechanistic—if not humanistic—philosophical presuppositions, attaching a “fundamentalist” bias to their perspective. This fact (which they zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists’ credibility, disqualifying them from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science. Much of the material published by evolutionists embodies precisely such a pseudo-scientific bias, often articulated under the pretense that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced study.

So understandably, it has a lot of this stuff. However, for one to even take the Creationist approach seriously, one has to question evolution objectively (as much as they can), as they are not compatible theories (at least in the sense that I'm talking about them in, as well as trueorigins).

I disagree ..as a theory it is allowed room to grow and change ..it's not a historical document unlike the bible

I will pull this quote from trueorigin's article Thermodynamics vs. Evolution.

To be sure, many corollary hypotheses have been produced to show how one or another biological or geological phenomenon—or an empirical fact gathered in any scientific discipline—might be explained in evolutionary terms (often not without the use of highly convoluted, incredible, and unprovable stories). But as Karl Popper observed, a theory that seems to explain everything really explains nothing. Popper insisted that a theory’s true explanatory power comes from making narrowly defined, risky predictions—success in prediction being meaningful only to the extent that failure is a real possibility in the first place. Evolutionists find ways to explain and/or produce after-the-fact “predictions” for any and every empirical fact or phenomenon presented to them—frequently ignoring established standards for logic and scientific method.

As for your comment regarding the Bible being the limit of Creation Science's explanatory power, I will offer this analogy: Suppose you observe an event, and you write down what happened from your point of you (ie...aurora borealis). You state that there were bright colors banding across the sky. Now, say someone else comes along and takes your paper and offers a scientific explanation as to why this happened (ie...residual effects from solar flares). This does not invalidate your initial information, as you described within your knowledge. Similarly, the Bible is not meant to explain 'how' as much as it is meant to explain 'what,' just like any historical document. Evidence suggesting that this idea is true does not contradict what was written.

that doesnt make much sense ..that's like saying you have a historical document written by someone but then adding an addendum centries after it was written ..the first account is the only account ..all else is just observing after the fact.

Obviously, the first account isn't specific enough for today's scientist. So doesn't it make sense to examine the facts to see whether or not they fit within this idea?

but isnt that just a convience? I mean isnt that just molding to theory to suit today? ...if you take it literally it means what it means, if you decide to interpret it as you see fit then you are changing it from what the original writers meant it to be

This isn't a re-interpretation of the Bible. This is an interpretation of data available today to see whether or not it fits within the Creationist idea. I don't see how you come to the conclusion that any evidence pointing towards Creationism shouldn't be admissible because it somehow 'changes' the theory.

I read it, it doesnt explain much

That's interesting, because it explains how various information within the fossil record, gene theory and other aspects fit within its model. I don't see how this 'doesn't explain much.'

 

[southernman17]

Its ok JCampbell, stern says he let's others have their opinion, then bashes it, questions it, tries to disprove it and insult until you finally have had enough of it.

 

[short recoil]

The problem isn't is equally with the theory and with the evidence that is presented. There has never been a transitional fossil found between a fish and amphibian, or a bird and a dinosaur. There is either or...and it take a lot of speculation to simply 'gloss over' the very apparent gaps in the fossil record.

That's because there are fewer of them.

part of evolution is that a well suited spieces will stay in that state for a long time, it dosn't need to change a lot....(anything that changes for the better becomes a new spieces, anything that changes for the worse dies)

Lets take an imaginary spieces X, it does quite well for thousands of years, leaves loads of fossils.....
Then there is a new predator that starts doing extremely well, only spieces of X with good armour survive, these are the transitional creatures.
They evolve more armour and are now able to do well again (otherwise they would have died out like many had) if these do well these also leave lots of fossils, more so than in the "dodgy period" where they were being hunted.
It looks like only the two seperate but SIMILAR speices were there.
Think of probability of fossils being created and then the number of each creature.
Fossils are only an absolutley insignificant amount of the creatures that were once there.

 

[JCampbell]

Creationism is almost certainly invalid in the fundamental genesis form.

Examples would be nice.

I have been thinking about this subject for many years, no matter what evidence or argument comes up there is always something that tells me we evolved into our current state as did all biological life on earth, just like the constant change of the earths surface and climate.

Gut feeling hardly constitutes a valid rebuttal, but I'm open to your evidence.

You are correct about you can never entirely prove or disprove something, i could say "but how do you KNOW for cetain the cola is in this can?", you can see it, smell it, feel it and taste it but those are just your senses.....they can be faulty.

And as such, I believe that you should give equal weight to the Creationist theory, as you believe you 'could' be wrong.

If we thought like that we would get no where, science has helped our soceity develop, if we waited on 100% evidence we would never get anything done.

Science has been very influential in the development of our society. But can you name one advance that has come about strictly relating to evolution being true?

It is all about being realistic and trying to find the most likely occurance.
Whilst creationism COULD be the reality, so could the reality we were created by mr blobby. (about as likely if you ask me)

Then you obviously haven't researched both sides of the argument, as it is apparent that you are ignorant towards Creationists in general.

Looking at the evidence on earth i am roughly 99.5% certain biological life has formed here through evolution, our existence and self awareness from our advanced brain.

I'm open for supporting evidence.

Of course, if god created us he could have placed evidence to make us think that.....but isn't thinking like that just silly?
Thats what a lot of hardcore creationists do, fit the wrong pieces of jigsaw in by cutting the stumps off, ending up with an incorrect picture.

I believe this is incorrect. The 'hardcore creationists' you speak of have just as small a grasp of the scientific data as the 'hardcore evolutionists' who think there is no problem with their theory and that it can explain/predict/accomodate everything--including Biblical Christianity!

It is so obvious to me that once life started, although very slowly the process of natural selection over time has moulded the life we see today.
If anyone wants me to go into the evidence i will, i could write for hours on this.

Although I won't ask you to write for hourse on the subject, a few choice arguments would be invaluable in this discussion, as so far only Sulkdodds has posted anything resembling an argument.

I see it as that, i will not try and argue how the universe formed, wether it was created by god or not but i am almost certain that we are a formant upon the earth, a result of electro chemical activity upon it's surface.
Life is just a system much like weather and rock movement upon the earth, much more advanced yes, but if it wasn't then we wouldn't be there to question it.

I don't think you realize just how advanced life on earth is. But I will leave it at that because you also agree that you won't try to argue that point.

Many people, including "top scientists" and "Great philosophers" make the mistake of thinking we are the centre of everything.
"oh this universe is just perfectly tuned for life, it must have been created to be this perfect"
Every imperfect place for our life to form would not have life, there would not be life there to question existence, only the perfect places would have people thinking "oh this place is perfect for us!"
Duh!
And yet another piece of evidence for evolution there.

It is absolutely mind-boggling just how finely tuned the earth, solar system, galaxy and universe are for life to exist on this planet. But since this isn't in the scope of the thread, I will let it go, as well as the rather baseless comment that this is somehow proof of evolution

As for morals, yes the bible has SOME good sources but don't you think it's better to work on morals suited to our modern soceity?
Before the bible, we were not all imoral beasts, morals must be there for a soceity to work, and are a human creation, not gods.
I used to think, i should fight only for myself, not care about another but it would not be in my benefit to do so, others can help so you help them first, they would soon stop helping you if you were evil to them.

So you believe in moral relativity, ie that morals are whatever the majority at any given time think is 'good' and are subject to change? Different topic though.

Whilst the basis is entirely selfish, it works.
"selfishness and selflessness"

Indeed.

 

[JCampbell]

That's because there are fewer of them.

part of evolution is that a well suited spieces will stay in that state for a long time, it dosn't need to change a lot....(anything that changes for the better becomes a new spieces, anything that changes for the worse dies)

I disagree. Evolution via Natural Selection states that random mutations will occur and that the deciding factor of them being 'kept' or not is whether they are beneficial for the organism to survive. I could get into irreducible complexity if you like.

Lets take an imaginary spieces X, it does quite well for thousands of years, leaves loads of fossils.....

Sounds good.

Then there is a new predator that starts doing extremely well, only spieces of X with good armour survive, these are the transitional creatures.
They evolve more armour and are now able to do well again (otherwise they would have died out like many had) if these do well these also leave lots of fossils, more so than in the "dodgy period" where they were being hunted.
It looks like only the two seperate but SIMILAR speices were there.

In a sense I agree with you. Obviously, it's survival of the fittest. But this only explains variation within species, and is not sufficient enough to be admissable as evidence for Macroevolution.

Think of probability of fossils being created and then the number of each creature.
Fossils are only an absolutley insignificant amount of the creatures that were once there.

Considering the supposed 'millions and millions' of years, I would think that compared to the total number of animals every existing on earth, even a fractional percentage of them being turned into fossils would yield VAST amounts of available fossils. Unfortunately, this isn't the case.

It is also important to realize that this mutation you speak of is not nearly as fast as you make it out to be.

 

[Tr0n]

Zomg short recoil is here. Done running faster then 30 mph?

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Zomg short recoil is here. Done running faster then 30 mph?

I think he hit 32mph, and punched a hole in a land rover, too.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Tr0n]

There is no denying that Genesis serves as a groundwork for the ethics Christains and Jews. Undebatable. Its fact. I just wanted to prove that for many, Genesis is taken seriously.
Morals*
Morale is different.

You do know judaism and christianity ain't the first and oldest montheistic religion(s). Right?

 

[Angry Lawyer]

You do know judaism and christianity ain't the first and oldest montheistic religion(s). Right?

You do remember that 90% of arguments made on the Politics forum are ill-informed, poorly researched, and mostly based on a combination of personal opinions and facts twisted to serve a purpose they were likely never intended for?

And you do remember that Short Recoil ate four carrots before logging onto HL2.Net today? D:

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Tr0n]

Jesus christ...that sonnva'bitch ate my carrot. Also yea you're right AL about the 90% thingy...but I'm apart of that 10%!