creation science vs. evolution

[Carphunter]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

I believe that Aspeck hit the nail squarely on the head.<br /><br />I believe in creation, and I believe in some forms of evolution. They both should be taught as theory. (as Aspeck says).<br /><br />My brother is an athiest. We debate all the time about this. We always go back to the beginning, and that is where we get stuck. He says, "Scientists have proven that the Earth and galaxies were formed from the big bang theory". Where I always say, "Well, what caused that big bang to happen?...... I believe a higher power". So in other words, neither one of us can absolutely "prove" what we believe.<br /><br />Remember one thing though, believing without seeing is called faith. In the Bible, Jesus says to Thomas, "Thomas, you believe because you have seen, blessed are those that believe yet have not seen". So, in my opinion, just because it ain't there in front of your face, doesn't mean its not real and shouldn't be believed.<br /><br />Again, creation and evolution should both be taught as theories, and let the children decide for themselves..............those kids are much smarter than many of you give them credit for, and i'm sure the parents of those children will help to form their opinions about this subject.<br /><br />Mellow, my kids are in 2nd grade and they have not started to teach this to them yet. I have a friend who is a teacher, and I will ask him what is taught in the High school the next time I see him.

 

[Toad2001]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Isn't an example of evolution when an apple seed grows into a tree and bears fruit?<br />Or when humans or other species reproduce and bear offspring?<br />These are unimaginable events happening right in front of our eyes. Much like what has happened to our planet (evolution) over the past (debatable) many years.<br />Evolution? A bad example is that in America obesity has more than doubled since the seventies. Slowly, the human species is changing. It has changed.<br /><br />There are trillions of suns, moons and planets in its potentially unlimited number of galaxies. Some may even be much like ours, supporting similar life out there. Our sun is about 93 Million miles away from us. Out of all the suns and planets out there, (trillions of them) there must be a planet (with water) not too close and not too far from a sun that's not too big and not too small. <br /><br />There is either a lot of creation science going on (a very busy guy) or there is perpetual evolution going on. You can't single Earth out for your creation science model. It would have to apply to everything (on this world and beyond). IMO

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Darwin first published his scientific paper "origin<br />of species" 150 years ago. don't you think if it<br />was bad science that scientists would have debunked<br />it by now? yet, the opposite has occured. the more<br />the physical evidence is examined, the more his<br />theory is proven as extremely probable. that is<br />why it is being taught in our schools.<br />this reminds me of when Copernicus first published<br />that the sun was the center of the galaxy rather<br />than the earth in the 1500's and was put on trial<br />for blasphemy.

 

[18rabbit]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Isn't an example of evolution when an apple seed grows into a tree and bears fruit?

Nope. I tadpole does not evolve into a frog; a caterpillar does not evolve into butterfly. It is common to refer to these changes in a life cycle as evolution but the theory of evolution is when one species of life form changes into a whole different species of life form. An example would be when an apple seed grows into a tree and bears oranges for fruit.<br /><br />Darwin’s theory was a product of his youth, early in his career when there was a global effort to split everything that was not directly related to the human spirit from the church. Gov’t was split, art was split, and science was split further. Toward the end of Darwin’s life, after he acquired more knowledge and had matured considerably, he all but resigned from the theory, stating it was the product of youthful ambition and had no real bases. From his time to now, no one has been able to provide any scientific support whatsoever for the idea that one species of life form did/can/will change into something that is a whole new species with different chromosomes.<br /><br />Ironically, by today’s standards, Darwin is anything but an authority on the theory of evolution. Today, we know much more about chemistry, biology, DNA, and chromosomes. The more we learn about these sciences, the less likely it appears that any life form could ever change into another, different life form. And the more an individual studies these disciplines, the more like he/she is to pull away from the theory of evolution. The crème de la crème of knowledge in these sciences, the Nobels, are suspiciously quiet on their support for the theory of evolution.

 

[Bassy]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Right on, Carphunter! I'm in full agreement! Boy, I sure enjoy these discussions. I learn so much and my mind enjoys the challenge. Thanks all!<br />Bassy

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Rabbit, what the heck have they been feeding you?<br />your observations are quite confused <br />this has nothing to do with darwin's feelings<br />or the culture at the time. it is a scientic paper<br />pure and simple. it stands by itself on it's own<br />merit and has for 150yrs. not a single scientist<br />EVER has been able to dis-prove this theory.<br />(maybe you should actually read it before debating)<br />if they had, it would be in the trash bin like a<br />million other theory's that have been published<br />over the last 150yrs and proven wrong.<br />and with all the new technology you mention we<br />have today, not a single scientist can prove this<br />theory wrong. nobel's can "think" all they want,<br />but let one of them publish a paper dis-proving it.<br />if they could they would! talk about immediate<br />recognition and a purlitzer prize.<br />anybody have any scientific evidence, whatsoever<br />that the earth is only 6,000 yrs old contrary to<br />all of the compelling evidence otherwise? NO!<br /><br />this sorely reminds me of some of the liberal<br />dribble that is posted here from time to time.<br />many of you are quick to point out that it is just<br />that; dribble! I guess it's quite diff. when it<br />comes from the religious right eh? <br />like copernicus, darwin was completely chastised<br />by the religious establishment. god forbid you<br />think for yourself I guess?<br />there was even a trial here in the US because a<br />teacher taught evolution. of course, he was found<br />innocent <br />if there is some scientific evidence that I am not<br />aware of (doubt it), please post. I promise to<br />have an open mind even if 99% of you don't.

 

[RadioWaves]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Originally posted by mellowyellow:<br /><br />First let me say I'm not picking on mellowyellow, the post just struck a nerve.<br /><br />

ditto SCO, the theory of evolution has an enourmous amount of scientic proof and physical proof.

What's the physical proof? The bones of creatures that no longer wander the earth's surface? That's extinction, not evolution. We've all seen or heard of a species extinction. I have never seen an improved creature popup, evolved from an earlier form or from nowhere. I recently saw a 3 headed frog in the news. Is that evolution or de-evolution?<br /><br />

Charles Darwin first published "the origion of species" in 1859. Scientists have proven this theory again and again in the last 150yrs.

How? Bones of extinct creatures? You've also seen the fraud in this field from scientist(s) that desire recognition. Piltdown man is a good example of this.<br /><br />

This non-scientific theory stems from the literal translation of the bible. Genesis says God created the world in 6 days, so it must be true. This is so narrow minded, it is ridiculous. They claim the earth is really only 6,000 yrs. old and that the grand canyon was formed in 1 day by the great flood.

Many claim the bible is literal in every aspect. Many believe it's figurative. In either version the creator, God, is there. <br /><br />The statement that the Grand Canyon was formed in 1 day is not Biblical. It's somebody's interpretation.<br /><br />The theory of Evolution is like saying that elemental metals form alloys instead of breaking down to simpler forms. Just give it enough time, you'll see. I gotta say that the term "crazy" can be difined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Yes, just let that iron pipe sit in the backyard and a million years from now it will combine with nickel on its own and form steel instead of rust. Just wait! <br /><br />

I just can't believe school boards will actually teach this as science?

Creationism is as much the theory of evolution with a creater, a divine hand, as the theory of evolution is a theory without a creator.

 

[Toad2001]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Why hasn't the creator simply re-created extinct species?

 

[RadioWaves]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Creation is done. God has put Man in charge of this earth. We're very good at destroying animals, not creating them. <br /><br />Unless you want to get into a cloning discussion??? Just kidding, I don't want to go there.

 

[CrappieFisherman]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Hmmmmmmm<br /><br />The debate rages on, 170 years since the Beagle took that fateful trip<br /><br />On good ol Chuck - <br /><br />He was a man in conflict, his scientific side knew he had found something of great importance, yet the Church was a profoundly powerful influence in the days of Queen Victoria. He didnt want the Church and by that association, society, breathing down his neck. He didnt even publish his works until it was revealed to him that others had drawn similar conclusions from his findings of genetic variation amongst the finches and other findings, including marine fossils in the Andes mountains thousands of feet above sea level. Thus pressured, he published, and the outcry began, and his fears were realized.<br /><br />now, we do know this, the formation of sedimentary rock is a very time consuming process, and the resultant upheaval of that rock once formed beneath the sea and driven by tectonic forces to a point thousands of feet above the level of said sea is somthing that would take far more than 6,000 years<br /><br />enough of evolution, the timeline is thus defined, and creationist account is lacking, with the sole exception of confusion over the length of a biblical day or year or eon for that matter<br /><br />On Theory:<br /><br />what is a theory? a half baked idea?<br /><br />ummmm, no<br /><br />its an idea that is supported by a tremendous amount of evidence (like ancient rocks filled with encased fossils, or birds adapted to their environment)<br /><br />Granted there are scientists that do indeed take a half baked idea and find half baked grounds to support said Idea, but those are dismissed as psuedoscience and bunk<br /><br />in the end, its a matter of faith, do you believe One book or do you consider the content of thousands upon thousands of books representing millions of man years of research and investigation?<br /><br />Teach both with equal conviction, without prejudice.<br /><br />Easier said than done though.<br /><br />

 

[RadioWaves]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Originally posted by CrappieFisherman:<br />Teach both with equal conviction, without prejudice.<br /><br />Easier said than done though.<br /><br />

Absolute agreement here.

 

[JB]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Creation "science" is not science. It is religious doctrine. It has no place in public, tax supported, schools.<br /><br />Religious doctrine, as contained in the Holy Bible, is the business of churches, mosques and synagogues; and of the families that suscribe to that doctrine.<br /><br />Whether it is correct or not is irrelevant.<br /><br />History, on the other hand, is not physical science, it is social science. The Holy Bible is valid as an instrument of the study of history. So, too, are the Talmud, Torah and other documents that guide the worlds great religions. Much of what they say is arguable, just as the content of any other historical record is arguable.<br /><br />I think it is valid to include those documents in the study of history, but not to present any one as the only truth of history.

 

[CrappieFisherman]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

In the case of creationism, its not doctrine.<br /><br />its dogma<br /><br />I wholeheartedly agree, the bible is a book of history that went through several transitive editions (translation from ancient languages to successively more modern ones) and is at best a collection of roughly transcribed stories, told through prejudicial eyes to equally prejudicial ears.<br /><br />however<br /><br />if you do NOT teach the biblical creationism paradigm, you run afoul of the Moral Majority and ... the rest of the Bible Thumpers ... net result, the hue and cry over the importance of teaching creationism gives it a greater level of credibility.<br /><br />(the political correctness out of the way, RIGHT ON JB, public schools are for teaching valid scientific theory, theology should be taught in religious venues)

 

[JoeW]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

I believe that much (not all) of the discontent about the teaching of evolution would be appeased by simply emphasizing that it is indeed a theory. As logical of a deduction as evolution may seem to many of us, it is nevertheless a theory. That is not the way evolution is being taught in our schools (at least not the schools my kids go to). It is being taught as FACT. It is this arrogance in teaching that drives parents (including me)crazy. <br /><br />The same is true about History. The schools in this country teach a politically correct form of History. They always have. How many U.S. history books talk about the work of Helen Keller after she was grown? None. Why? She was an active member of the Communist party. How many children are taught that during the 1918 revolution in Russia, Woodrow Wilson sent American troops to Siberia to fight against the revolutionaries? How about the fact that in 1857, Brigham Young, the leader of the LDS church, declared war againt the United States. Again, NONE. Why? Because those are politically sensitive subjects.<br /><br />Well, in case you hadn't gathered as much from this thread, the theory of evolution is a politically sensitive subject. It should be handled as such. Not by removing it from the curriculum, but by explaining the significance of the THEORY part. <br /><br />Creationism can't be taught in public schools because we would have to teach every version under the sun. No time or dollars for that. Besides, there is a venue for teaching creationism. It's called the church.

 

[Raghauler]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Regardless of which side of the argument you're on, it seems Darwin got one thing right... the concept of survival of the fittest, although this board may be disputing even that. (MHOO)<br /><br />Lubedude: Opinion is one thing, facts are another. You obviously have not read the Catholic Bible to make such a broad statement that it was revised by whomever / whenever, and does not compare to the King James et. al. I've compared many protestant Bibles to the Catholic version... You'd be quite surprised how similar they are, although interpretation and execution of doctrine may differ (eg., Lenten sacrifices, etc.) Maybe I got you wrong, but that's how I interpreted your post. And therein lies the greatest problem with the "Bible". Interpretation. It is difficult for everyone to come to terms with what the original scriptures really said, and mankind has fought and killed over the various interpretations ever since. And that's just within the Christian communities... many more die fighting between the major religions. What a waste. Can't we all get along?<br /><br />It seems every major religion teaches tolerance toward others, including those outside your faith. It fascinates me how often that doctrine is lost to the masses... sinners, all of us, indeed.<br /><br />To answer the original question, a member of our local school board attempted to have a sticker placed in each 7th grade science textbook in the section teaching the THEORY of evolution. The sticker had some verbiage to the effect that creationism is as scientific as the TOE. There was an uproar in the community not unlike that seen here, and I believe the whole thing got shelved because none of the other board members wanted to experience the fate of the community similar to what Jesus went through in his final hours.<br /><br />Hey, as Americans, we all have the right to say what we want to say, to agree to disagree, and to believe (or not) in any form of religion. I will still come to the aid of your vessel when you are in distress, and I will assume the same from you. For that I say, may YOUR god bless you, whoever that is that you choose Him to be.

 

[18rabbit]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Creation "science" is not science. It is religious doctrine. It has no place in public, tax supported, schools.

I agree!!! All religious doctrine should be stricken…even the religious doctrine of evolution!<br /><br />Oh, wait! We need to have some kind of religion…let’s seize the religion of evolution…promote it as if it was fact…albeit, without scientific support…and if we lie often enough…the people will believe!!! In no time at all, we will have them bowing to that god which is called evolution, and they won’t even question it...and they won't question their faith in it.<br /><br />Yup…you are definitely onto something here, JB. <br /><br />Ok, without the sarcasm…I think evolution should only be taught as an unsubstantiated idea that rocked the world…enough so that tremendous efforts are still poured into it in the hope of achieving proof for the theory, but it hasn’t happened in (what?) 160+ years.<br /><br />Does anyone even care what the mathematical odds of evolution are? That alone will cause all but the truly faithful to question evolution. Definitely teach evolution, but only as the faith that it is.

 

[kd6nem]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Mello and gang,<br /><br />I wish I had more time to get into this with you. This is the most stimulating discussion I've been seen in a long while. I am no scholar and no expert here, though have looked at it some. I have yet to see any example of any reversal of the second law of thermodynamics in an open system- and only know of apparent (temporary)reversals in closed systems being manipulated by an intelligent being who was pumping energy into it. Much faith is most certainly required to make assumption that the rules (which we've only seen as at present)were somehow different at some distant age past so the mechanism might have actually worked. After all thermodynamics is pretty fundamental to physics and matter, right?! Was this imagined environment for evolution conducive to order? Nope! Order is never an accident. Requires guidance, can't happen by random. Have any idea how many chemicals would have to accidentally come together in precise order in an overtly hostile environment to just get the first DNA never mind a cell? Mathmatically quite impossible. More likely a chimp would type a novel in a minute than for this to happen. And our best scientists know they can't do it no matter how much anything they have- time, money, etc. Has been tried many times, but their contrived environment ultimately cannot be made to violate the law of increasing entropy.<br /><br />Ever see a GOOD genetic mutation? A certified, bonifide, good and helpful mutation? (BIG assumption that the billions of molecular accidents would happen in the right order so that DNA could accidentally form, then gain enough additional structures to survive and even reproduce before it died so that we even get to this mutation problem) Has anyone ever actually seen one of these genuinely beneficial mutations? No, they haven't. One can guess and surmise, but not actually observe such. Mutations are harmful. Nearly all cause cell destruction. The few which do survive are harmful. The best you can hope for is a benign change. Not what it takes for evolution.<br /><br />As I said before this argument will not be settled purely scientifically while we're standing here on this earth. The evidence is out there to sway some toward creationism if anyone cares to look closely enough. Most will choose not too because it is simply too convenient to make up one's mind with only a little info and call it good enough. (As I did for some years) Besides, there are many who believe this. Easier to hang with your crowd, right? I will not ever change anyone's mind. You have to do that yourself. <br /><br />Furthermore, to choose to not choose sides is to choose, though I fully expect that there will be plenty (former) evolutionists in heaven and many non-evolutionists in hell. I don't think that this one issue will make or break one's faith, in other words. I believe it remains a foundational issue, though. Our (beliefs about) cosmology is a primary question and does indeed come to bear in our approach to God and His Word. All our arguments aside, we are supremely arrogant if we think God fails to grasp the implications of the intricacies of His Creation. It is my OPINION that He did what He did so that we might scratch our heads and wonder how it all got here, perhaps causing some to seek Him. Any way you slice it, regardless of your beliefs, it is an impressive universe. Enough to make us think deeply for an entire lifetime if we care to. It is tainted now and only a faint shadow of the wonder it once showed, according to scripture. Above all else, I am sure that one day we will indeed find out how this happened. But by the time we figure it out for sure how we got here it will be too late to change our minds or the outcome. We only get one chance to figure it out before eternity. If Einstein possessed maybe a tenth of available knowledge during his life, how much more do we not know? In that 90%+ which we don't know, what if we miss that which is essential? What if the answer to the meaning of life is in the part we miss? What if our "operator's manual" was indeed left with us only to be ignored? God is a loving God and does not desire to lose any. But He is a fair and just God. He always plays by the rules. So is this all an utterly remarkable accident or not? I've examined the evidence and drawn my conclusions, as have most of us. We may not have all concluded the same thing. OK, that is up to each of us. Folks, please do not insult me or those who believe in Creation as having ignored science when you haven't finished looking at all the evidence yourself. Any of us are darn fools who simply listen to one or a few teach about all this and take their word for anything. Keep looking. Keep thinking. First hand, for yourself as much as possible. There is so much evidence to consider that we just aren't even trying if we can look at a book or two and listen to a few college lectures and draw a fair conclusion.

 

[18rabbit]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Have any idea how many chemicals would have to accidentally come together in precise order in an overtly hostile environment to just get the first DNA never mind a cell? Mathmatically quite impossible.

Improbable…but, not impossible. That’s why I said the more that is learned, the less likely it is that anything evolved. The mathematical probably for anything to evolve: 10 pwr 50 elements have to “randomly” align.<br /><br />I read a very graphic example of how this would work:<br /><br />Take 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people and give each one a randomly scrambled Rubrics cube. Simultaneously, everyone starts flipping the puzzle to solve it. All puzzles must be solved, and the flipping stopped at the exact same instant in time. And by the way, all those people…they must be blind while trying to solve the puzzle.<br /><br />Could it happen? In theory, yes…it even has a name: evolution. But if it does happen, in the example given above, it would succeed in doing nothing more than turning the color of a single feather on a parakeet from green to yellow, and we need to get to a whole new species of animal…different chromosomes and everything… To change a group of feathers is ‘design’…and that leaves you at the door of creationism.<br />Btw, we could never try the above example, even if we had all the cubes. The estimated total human population, through all history up to this point: less than 17,000,000,000 people.

 

[oregonducker]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Both have their points of support. Neither has been absolutely proven. If one had then this wouldn't be a subject. Since they are both theories why exclude one or the other from anybody's education? If creationists are "forcing" their beliefs on others it's only because evolutionists forced them out in the first place. Prove one or the other so that it must be believed as, for instance, gravitiy is believed, then the other can be banned. At this point it isn't right to ban or censor either one. It's not right for creationists to say, "This is how it happened and you must believe it," nor is it right for evolutionists to say the same thing because neither has been difinitevely proven. You have to have faith(not religious faith) to believe either way.<br /><br />I think we (and everything else) were created with the ability to evolve.

 

[SCO]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Bearcat, you're taking it to the next level, that if evolution is true, then why believe in God. Answer: faith. <br /><br />Rabbit, I can imagine that the gene controlling the color of a parakete wing would have to specify the production of complex proteins. It would be a complex gene. A first life would be some chemical that had the ability to self replicate. No one has been able to create such a thing that I am aware of, and what it would be would be a speculation at best. I don't think you can prove it impossible by some scientific method any more than I can prove it possible. That things can evolve today is something that is more provable. Natural selection is in play with drug resistant bacteria, cockroaches to pesticides, cuddly poodles(if humans are a natural force), plague resistent humans in the middle ages. Mutations occur and we notice the bad ones, you'd expect that because they are random, but they occur and change the blueprint. If Humans can employ natural selection to create a greyhound, isnt it just us manipulating a natural process, and with a few hundred million years of that wouldn't you expect some new species?