Evolution vs. Creation

[Zhorken]

he hasn't posted again yet; give him a chance to ignore you if he's going to before you remind him of your other post o.o

 

[Philly]

Please, that would be rediculous, cats evolved from cattails, not the other way around[/JK]

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

repostin' this to pre-emptively dispel some bullshit:

 

[ultraviolet]

Hee, I love that comic~

 

[Music Dragon]

Actually, it does have something to do with the topic. Music Dragon said that I could feel something wrong with the world. I do feel that Bush is what is wrong, therefore, justifying my point.

Haaaaang oooooon...

...

You are a hacker, aren't you?

 

[Harlequin]

Creationism is silly. God's not real and um we have proof that evolution happened (and is happening).

Look in a fucking mirror. You are an example of evolution. Your pet cat or dog is an example of evolution. everything alive is an example of evolution.

Also: macroevolution is just lots and lots of microevolution so um if you believe in microevolution you sort of have to believe in macroevolution.

 

[Philly]

Haaaaang oooooon...

...

You are a hacker, aren't you?

How do you figure that?

 

[GameFreakerZero]

Wait what? Now you're just confusing me.

You said there isn't a necessity for a god; why believe in one when it isn't needed?

Show some proof that the world is pver sixy five million years old, then I'll be able to answer the first wuestion. Although minor changes in appearance would spring up every few thousand years or so, atleast I believe so.

I honestly can't believe someone just asked for proof that the Earth is over sixty five million years old.

Birds would come from birds. One bird would be the base and evolve over time into other species of birds.

If birds and dinosaurs are unconnected, explain this please.

It implies alot. You can not call something a lizard and say that it doesn't come from the lizard family, it makes no sense.

Yeah you can. Please keep in mind the English language was made long before science was able to say "but it isn't a lizard". Most names are based on what people can see, rather than what things are.

 

[opaltiger]

Yeah you can. Please keep in mind the English language was made long before science was able to say "but it isn't a lizard". Most names are based on what people can see, rather than what things are.

This is further complicated by the fact that scientific names cannot be changed. Thus there are a lot of names that make absolutely no sense.

 

[Dannichu]

This:

Personally I follow Evolution but I'm not about to go around saying everyone who doesn't is a dumbass.

 

[Retsu]

You can't follow evolution. You can choose to accept it for what it is or you can choose to ignore scientific fact.

 

[xkze]

I choose to accept actual logic and I do believe that anyone who chooses to be ignorant of logic is a dumbass

 

[Minka_Glameow]

I believe in both.

There's nothing that states that, because God created everything, nothing could have evolved.

^Me too. cause it could be like God created the creatures that we're evolved from. He could've created the single celled organisms, that eventually evolved into monkeys, then to us.

This is a debate we might never find the exact answer to.

 

[xkze]

aa
yes we did
this is exactly what we have been disproving for the past few pages
read the threeaaad

 

[ultraviolet]

You can't follow evolution. You can choose to accept it for what it is or you can choose to ignore scientific fact.

AARGH stop splitting hairs! What I mean is that I agree/believe/follow/accept/whatever evolution, obviously.
For crying out loud, I'm agreeing with you.

 

[Time Psyduck]

Ooh look shiny debate. I'll regret posting here later but still...

I believe in both.

There's nothing that states that, because God created everything, nothing could have evolved.

Very true. Nowhere in the bible is it specific about what God* created. We don't know the levels of division, nor the methods God* used.

In my opinion, it's entirely silly to not believe in natural selection because well, it's basically applied to breeding dogs and forming breeds.

Not entirely, since as has been mentioned this is artificial selection, but the analogy stands, since it's still selective pressures regardless of the source (and is not man part of natureanyway?)

Evolution is based and backed with fact, and plausible, but it's just a theory.

All true. Saying 'Just' a theory is inaccurate, since there is very little which is 'more' than just a theory, but evolution is not proven fact.

Evolution doesn't rule out the possibility of a God or gods, either. It just explains how things developed and could have easily been started by some sort of deity.
Also, if the Bible attempted to explain evolution/natural selection, how many supporters do you think it would have gained initially? People would likely not understand or something. It would be fairly easy for God to present a simplified version to appease people because in this scenario he technically did create everything. People back then would probably shy away from a religion that presented itself as that complex, and it might be called ridiculous because obviously, their science was not that far advanced.

Of course. People seem to forget the time old books have been around. People claim that the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, because that word isn't in there. It may or may not, but there is a passage which may do.

I support evolution basically because it is a sound theory with fewer holes than some may make out. It's been observed not only in micro-organisms but in macroscopic species (see the wall lizards introduced to an island in Croatia and how they quickly adapted to their new environment). These are simply examples of microevolution, but it wouldn't be hard to imagine given more time macroevolution would occur.

True. It is a simple task to extrapolate, although care needs to be taken that people don't put too much emphasis on this, as it is (at this point) a hypothesis.

There is the possibility that an outside force, a God perhaps, may have created everything, and if they did, I think evolution would have been the means. Though personally, there's nothing to give me any motivation to believe that a God created us, because I haven't seen any evidence, nor has any evidence arisen to prove a God's existence. (I guess that's why they call it faith)

Yes, of course. God could manipulate selection to produce the results he wanted by the method of evolution. Makes sense

STOP SAYING "JUST A THEORY" HOLY FUCKING CHRIST I HATE IT ARGHHHHH

We know less about the theory of gravity than the theory of evolution. Let me say this slowly: as far as the scientific community is concerned, evolution is true. The chance it is wrong is negligible. You will be laughed at for saying "but it's just a theory!".

Science never proves anything to be true. It simply fails to disprove. That is what distinguishes science from faith; falsifiability. The chances of the theory being proved wrong seem negligible now, but we don't know what the future will bring. Evolution may never be disproven, either because it is correct or because we never reach the truth, but it might be, because that's what makes it science.

I follow both. There's nothing saying that they can't both work out. The way I see it is that God made the basing of every animal ((IE: one cat species, one dog species, etc.)) and allowed them to change over time into different forms of said animal.

This is a valid hypothesis, given the relative lack of transition forms between larger groups, although as an article of faith it cannot be disproven, and so is not scientific.

what
I'm not saying a god didn't do it (though this is true)
I'm not saying that a god that didn't do it doesn't exist (though this is true)
I'm saying that if a god did it, it wouldn't be evolution

It wouldn't be the method you know, but God* would have been the driving force which produced the results you see.

Creationism is silly. God's not real and um we have proof that evolution happened (and is happening).

We have no proof; We never have proof. All we have is the failure to disprove something. We have evidence, and it seems that to some degree evolution is occuring, at least in some organisms, but we never have proof. You also don't know God isn't real, but that's another issue altogether, and rather outside this debate.

Look in a fucking mirror. You are an example of evolution. Your pet cat or dog is an example of evolution. everything alive is an example of evolution.

Or, on the other side of the coin, everything alive is an example of creation.

Also: macroevolution is just lots and lots of microevolution so um if you believe in microevolution you sort of have to believe in macroevolution.

Not really, and I can sum this up in one word: Limits. There is this (probably insane to many of you) notion that you can only have so much genetic change before you become unable to compete for food as well.

To sum up: Evolution is a plausible theory with some good reasoned evidence behind it. What it is not is proven fact, and should never be taken as such. In scientific work, where 'theory' is the closest thing to fact that exists, then it is acceptable, but it should never be promoted as a fact to the layman, or taught as dogma.

* if He exists.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

Are you saying evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, and creationism should take its place?

Science never proves anything to be true. It simply fails to disprove. That is what distinguishes science from faith; falsifiability. The chances of the theory being proved wrong seem negligible now, but we don't know what the future will bring. Evolution may never be disproven, either because it is correct or because we never reach the truth, but it might be, because that's what makes it science.

You think creationism has more scientific backing than evolution? And I'm sorry, but faith is a lot easier to disprove than science. Look at the Bible's scientific record: bats are birds, insects have four legs, shellfish is evil.

 

[Butterfree]

Honestly, I have to agree with ultraviolet. There is no need to pick so much at how people word things when it is obvious what they meant. People have a very silly tendency to do this in the debate forum here for some reason.

Yes, we evolved. I don't personally see what's so horrible about not seeing the need to verbally abuse people who have been raised to believe something else. A person's personal beliefs don't harm anyone; by all means debate it if they actually start seriously trying to convince others of it, but there is no need when they just happen to believe it and are leaving you/everyone alone about it.

Also, Minka_Glameow was essentially saying the first life was created and then it evolved by natural selection, without the aid of a god; not the same thing as the whole "guided evolution" concept the thread has been dealing with.

Much amusement at the idea that the name etymology of the word "dinosaur" has some bearing upon their evolutionary descent. If you think about it, dinosaurs don't even look that much like lizards in the first place; their skeletal structure is wholly different. They just happen to be reptiles.

I always find evolution-deniers kind of funny in that they tend to miss the fact that, well... evolution is logical. Natural selection makes obvious sense. Even if God had created life, it would still have evolved since, because if you have a basic knowledge of what evolution is and how DNA works, it's obvious that evolution must inevitably happen. The only thing even up for doubt is whether the current complexity of life could have evolved in the time that has passed since the first life came to be (and as it happens all the evidence points to this being well possible). Any argument that supposes evolution does not happen in the first place is gravely misunderstanding the concept.

...Ooh, new posts made while I was posting.

Very true. Nowhere in the bible is it specific about what God* created. We don't know the levels of division, nor the methods God* used.

...uh, what? The Bible is very specific about it. The only way that you can believe that God created the first life and it evolved from there is if you deliberately ignore the creation story (or stories, rather) or specifically interpret them as being symbolic.

All true. Saying 'Just' a theory is inaccurate, since there is very little which is 'more' than just a theory, but evolution is not proven fact.

Nothing is "proven fact" as far as science is concerned. You have a theory, which gradually becomes accepted if new evidence always agrees with the theory or can be explained by it, and perhaps one day new findings will turn it on its head and demand a new theory. Evolution is quite a well-supported theory, and with today's tools and knowledge, it would be nigh-impossible for an entirely erroneous theory to gain acceptance as widely as it has with such a mountain of evidence that just happens to appear to support it. It helps that, as I said, evolution is logical. It makes such perfect sense that it simply has to happen. The only thing you could even remotely challenge is the idea that evolution produced us in particular.

This is a valid hypothesis, given the relative lack of transition forms between larger groups, although as an article of faith it cannot be disproven, and so is not scientific.

There are plenty of those all over the place. :/

Not really, and I can sum this up in one word: Limits. There is this (probably insane to many of you) notion that you can only have so much genetic change before you become unable to compete for food as well.

*headdesk* No! You don't get it! By your logic, because cats and dogs are different, only one of them can be able to compete for food! Something that is different from something else by such and such margin doesn't magically become unable to compete for food just because it's different! The genes have no idea that they're any different from what the predecessor was like!

Yes, if you choose changes completely at random and make a lot of them, it is astronomically unlikely that none of those differences will cripple the outcome. Nobody disputes that. But natural selection is not random, and happens in many steps. Minor mutations get through one by one, generation by generation; each mutation that gets through the filter of natural selection is at least not random, and is on average likelier than chance would have it to be beneficial. If you pile many neutral or beneficial mutations together, one by one, with each proving itself before proceeding for more improvement, there is no way that simply the very fact that it is changing will magically make it unable to compete for food.

To sum up: Evolution is a plausible theory with some good reasoned evidence behind it. What it is not is proven fact, and should never be taken as such. In scientific work, where 'theory' is the closest thing to fact that exists, then it is acceptable, but it should never be promoted as a fact to the layman, or taught as dogma.

All science is made up of theories. You're saying people shouldn't be taught about gravity, or about the atom, or generally any of the other things that have mind-boggling predictive power about the universe and have enabled us to do, well, just about everything useful that humanity has done since the Middle Ages, because they're not "fact"? That just does not make sense.

 

[Zeph]

Time Psyduck, if I recall orrectly, Evolution has in fact been proven many times. But I dunno. And it is definitely not a hypothesis. Fossils?

 

[opaltiger]

To sum up: Evolution is a plausible theory with some good reasoned evidence behind it. What it is not is proven fact, and should never be taken as such. In scientific work, where 'theory' is the closest thing to fact that exists, then it is acceptable, but it should never be promoted as a fact to the layman, or taught as dogma.

Then we might as well throw out all science, as none of it is fact. Yes, nothing is ever completely proven. But at one point, when the odds of it being wrong are so very small, we have to ignore that chance for the sake of progression: otherwise science would never get anywhere. There are few theories with more evidence or more support than evolution. For all intents and purposes, especially to a layman, it is fact.

All true. Saying 'Just' a theory is inaccurate, since there is very little which is 'more' than just a theory, but evolution is not proven fact.

Wait wait. You have to differentiate between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. The fact is undeniable: evolution has happened. There is too much evidence too suppose otherwise. The theory of natural selection explains all the evidence, makes accurate predictions, and has no large holes. Like I said, you can go around saying "it's not COMPLETELY proven!" for anything, but at one point you have to drop it and say "the odds are astronomically against this being wrong, we should just ignore them and move on."

In conclusion: if you think evolution should not be taught as fact, then there is no reason to teach the theory of gravity, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, or any of a dozen other rules and theories, because they have no more backing than the theory of natural selection.