Creationism vs. Evolution

stevenfermi

Registered Member
#1
Well, this is my first thread opening, so to any moderators: if my thread is wrong, or belongs in a different forums, I would like to apologize and ask that you please move it. :p

So, I think the title is pretty descriptive--do you believe in Creationism or Evolution? I made this in response to a previous thread, and this topic is very, very interesting. xD

I, being rather unpious, believe in evolution. Without discounting anyone's religious or personal beliefs, I believe that the evidence for evolutionary theory outways any concerning creationism.
While I could present argument after argument, it seems creationists tend to bring up the event of abiogenesis--that is, creating life from unorganic material.
...
We are not 100% sure. We have done experiments like the Miller-Urey experiment (see Wikipedia for more details) that have proven that amino acids (the building blocks of life) can be formed from abiotic materials.
However, we are sure (by detecting red shift from supernovae, seeing the oldest stars, and the omnipresent background radiation in space0 that the universe is around 13.7 billion years ago, contrary to the belief that it was created around 6000 years ago. And about the question about the Big Bang, we are also not 100% sure. But trying to justify it by God brings up the next question--who/what created God? While I am agnostic, putting God as the Prime Mover brings any number of unresolved questions.

Now about the actual creationism.
We have observed microevolution in many biota, the most common being fruit flies and of course, microbes. Life adapts. When humans migrated out of Africa, we lost most of our melanin, and developed genes that gave us different hair and eye colours (mostly in Europe, however). Even as late as the 1300s we have developed new mutations, this one in response to the Black Plague (about 10% of Europeans have a mutation that makes them more resistant to the bubonic plague and apparently HIV).

Well, I am sure many of you are more qualified or have more credentials, or just know more about biology than I do. So, I open the floor to discussion, and hope, well, I am not breaking any rules or trying to flamebait.
 

TheTartanKing

Registered Member
#2
I'm not going to act like i know what im talking about here more than i do (and i really know very little about this subject) and i dont want to cause offence to anybody at all but personally i find it difficult to believe that someone had created everything, when evolution has a lot of proof to back it up!
 

stevenfermi

Registered Member
#3
It does, considering any object that is more than 6000 years old disproves young-earth creationism. xD But, you can't really say for sure, because science has gaps in it. We aren't sure of everything, yet.
 

TheTartanKing

Registered Member
#4
It does, considering any object that is more than 6000 years old disproves young-earth creationism. xD But, you can't really say for sure, because science has gaps in it. We aren't sure of everything, yet.

Yeah that is exactly how i look at it. Love the use of the word "yet" there, very classy ;)
 

Bananas

Endangered Species
#5
There has been loads of threads like these. The two should not even be comparable, mythology ahould not be put on par to science.
 

fractal

Eye see what you did ther
#6
I was wondering if they could exist in parallel: God created the first lifeforms which then evolved?

Evolution is a fact i.e. it has been observed. So there's no point arguing if evolution takes place. The real question is if only evolution took place.
 

dDave

Guardian of the Light
V.I.P.
#7
Evolution is a fact i.e. it has been observed. So there's no point arguing if evolution takes place. The real question is if only evolution took place.
Evolution is a fact? Who said it was a fact? If it was a fact it wouldn't be called the "Theory of Evolution" key word there being theory of course.

It most certainly has not been observed anywhere outside of microevolution, the bulk of the theory of evolution is all about macroevolutoion (the formation of modern day species). There is a point in arguing whether or not evolution took place, because we do not know, to put it simply we do not know.


There are so many countless holes in the theory of evolution, it's far from fact, try answering a few of these, just think about them.


How did bisexual reproduction evolve?

Where are the in between fossil stages?

How did photosynthesis evolve?

Why aren't meteorites found in rocks that are supposed to be millions of years old?

Why do 3 planets spin backwards? How about 3 moons spinning backwards? Why do entire galaxies spin backwards? (Law of conservation of angular momentum - Look it up)
 
Last edited:

fractal

Eye see what you did ther
#8
Evolution is a fact? Who said it was a fact? If it was a fact it wouldn't be called the "Theory of Evolution" key word there being theory of course.
When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

It's both.

How did bisexual reproduction evolve?

Where are the in between fossil stages?

How did photosynthesis evolve?
I don't know the answers to those questions, but why are they holes in the theory of evolution? They're limitations, meaning that we do not know how to answer those questions in terms of evolution. They aren't counter-examples, are they?

Why aren't meteorites found in rocks that are supposed to be millions of years old?

Why do 3 planets spin backwards? How about 3 moons spinning backwards? Why do entire galaxies spin backwards? (Law of conservation of angular momentum - Look it up)
I'm not sure how these questions are related to evolution. Even if you take the creationist argument, I can still ask 'why?'.
 
Last edited:

dDave

Guardian of the Light
V.I.P.
#9
No it's actually not both, something cannot be both a fact and a theory, I don't care what the article tries to say, it's quite literally impossible, facts are indisputed, theories don't have enough proof to be called fact. It might be supported by some facts but macroevolution is not a fact.

Theory
1.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.
Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.
the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6.
contemplation or speculation.
7.
guess or conjecture.
 

fractal

Eye see what you did ther
#10
You should have read the article dDave. Evolution is an observed fact. But we do not know how evolution occurs. The theory to explain the mechanism of evolution is called the Theory of Evolution. Sometimes it's shortened to simply 'evolution' which is the source of confusion for a lot of people.

I'm referring to the fact 'evolution'. I do not know much about the theory of evolution. The article might have been titled "The word 'evolution' can refer either to the fact, or the 'Theory of Evolution'"
 
Last edited: