Creationism vs. Evolution

general said:
SPG900 said:
Everything in the holy book is true, because it is the word of god. And god exists, because it says so in the holy book. The end.

perfectly said

The real debate is not whether God exists; The real question: Is Evolution correct? If it is not then there has to be another explantion. There are too many flaws with the theory of evolution. In addition to those I have already posted, here is another:

A severe problem for evolutionists is the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. By transitional forms, we mean intermediate forms of life appearing in the fossil record that are "in-between" existing types of organisms found today or in the past.

If slow, gradual evolution occurred, you would expect to observe a continuum of change in the fossil record. After all, if life took millions of years to arrive at its' present state of development, the earth should be filled with fossils that could be easily assembled into a number of series showing minor changes as species were evolving.

The opposite is true - no continuum! When fossils are examined they form records of existing and extinct organisms with clearly defined gaps, or missing transitional forms, consistent with a creationist's view of origins. Below are some of the gaps in the fossil record.

Consider...

The Cambrian explosion - At the bottom of the geological column in the so called Cambrian rocks are found highly complex creatures: trilobites, worms, sponges, jellyfish, etc., all without ancestors. It's as though you "turned the light on" in the fossil record. These are highly complex life forms appearing on the scene without forerunners. Trilobites for example, have compound lenses in their eyes that make use of Fermat's principle and Abbe's Sine Law. This is like entering the highway of life without an entrance ramp.

Insects - When found in the fossil record, they are already developed without ancestors. Dragonflies are dragonflies, cockroaches are cockroaches. Instead of an evolutionary tree, we have only the leaves without the trunk or branches. To compound this problem the question of flight arises... when did they develop the ability to fly? There are no fossil intermediates in the record.

Consider the enigma of flight - supposedly, insects, birds, mammals (bats), and reptiles, each evolved the ability to fly separately. In each of the four cases there are no series of transitional forms to support this assertion.

Invertebrates and vertebrates - Transitional forms leading to vertebrates are absent even though the transition supposedly took millions of years. It is theorized that life passed through a stage where a creature possessed a simple rod-like notochord. This has not been found.

Fish to Amphibian - Fin to feet... Evolutionist glibly cite a Fish --> Amphibian --> Reptile --> Mammal progression in their theory, however there is a large gap in the fossil record between fish and amphibians. Among other differences, fish have small pelvic bones that are embedded in muscle and not connected to the backbone unlike tetrapod amphibians which have large pelvises that are firmly connected to the vertebral column. Without this anatomy, the amphibian could not walk. The morphological differences in this gap are obvious and profound.

Amphibian to Reptile -The skeletons of amphibians and reptiles are closely related which makes this an ambiguous case.

Mammals - Mammals just appear in the fossil record, again without transitional forms (Gish notes 32 such orders of mammals).
Marine Mammals - whales, dolphins, and sea cows also appear abruptly. It has been suggested that the ancestors of the dolphins are cattle, pigs, or buffaloes.

The primates - lemurs, monkeys, apes and man appear fully formed in the fossil record. The proverbial "missing link" between man and ape remains elusive and periodically changes with the thinking of the day.

And finally, dinosaurs. Again there is the absence of transitional series leading to these giants.

Sometimes evolutionists suggest that the transitional forms haven't been found because there has not been enough fossils unearthed to accurately portray life as it existed long ago. However, since Darwin's time there has been a hundred-fold increase in the number of fossils found and a systematic problem still remains. There are fewer candidates for transitional forms between major divisions of life than for minor divisions, the exact reverse of what is expected by evolutionary theory.

In summary, instead of getting a phylogenetic "tree" in the fossil record, you get vertical patterns indicative of creation, conflicting with the notions of gradual evolution and supporting the creationist position.
 
Granted, the Darwinist view of evolution does have many holes in it. The thing that is also true is that out of all the theories of the origins of life, it is the one with the most evidence. Once again, I turn to the examples of Gregor Mendel and his theories of heredity. There, you have an example of an experiment you can repeat with extremely high accuracy that supports Darwin's concept, and ultimately the modern concept, of natural selection.

On the other hand, creationists have nothing else to base their claims on. That is the issue here. If we further wish to discuss the origins of life and how organisms became what they are today, we need to only consider explanations that are rooted in scientific facts and that are supported by empircal data. The fact that the arguement between creationism and evolution exists just shows how brain washed people are.

I'm no biologist, so I'm really in no position to refute another scientific claim about the origins of life. But when people start throwing in stories about a man and a woman in a garden and apples, I tend to laugh at them for taking a story about morals literally.

EDIT: Regarding your claim about Einstein, since when does the belief that a creator exists refutes evolution. Perhaps the concept of natural selection which enabled man to be the 'superior' species in terms of mental capacity was engineered by a higher being.
 
///M said:
The fact that the arguement between creationism and evolution exists just shows how brain washed people are.

Brainwashed, eh? I think some of the evolution scientists may fall into that close-mided category: "We (evolutionists) have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and, therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice." John T, Bonner

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." T.L. Moor, pro-evolution

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." Arthur Keith

Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

Darwin admitted that the number of transitional links "must have been conceivably great." The fact that there are none prompted him to conclude that this fact is "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

///M said:
EDIT: Regarding your claim about Einstein, since when does the belief that a creator exists refutes evolution. Perhaps the concept of natural selection which enabled man to be the 'superior' species in terms of mental capacity was engineered by a higher being.

This is what I said:
jeffy777 said:
For instance, Albert Eintstein did not accept the Bible, but he believed in, and I quote, " "the necessity for a beginning" and "the presence of a superior reasoning power". Yet if he were here today, I don't think you would call him a moron.

I didn't say that the belief in a creator refutes evolution. My point is that you can believe in a creator and not be a brain washed moron as some would think.
 
What I meant by brain washed is people who take stories like Adam and Eve and consider them to be the literal truth.

I think you'd agree in saying that a person who believes that story to be true has no evidence to back it up. On the other hand, a person who believes in evolution does have some evidence to back his explanation up. It may not be one of the strongest theories, but the whole issue here is that it is the strongest theory out of all the explanations for the origins of life.

Like I said, I'm really not a bioligist and I can't say I'm an expert at evolution. What I do know is that I've been taught about the origins of life from both sides of the fence, and based on science, and science alone, I belive that evolution is simply a better explanation. It would be understandable for a person to debate the beliefs of Gould vs. Smith/Dawkings, since all of those are rooted in scientific research, but trying to put science against a 5000 year old, man made story is silly.
 
What I meant by brain washed is people who take stories like Adam and Eve and consider them to be the literal truth.

That is called faith. Some believe some dont. Just because you dont believe it doesnt make it false or ridiculous.
 
///M said:
On the other hand, a person who believes in evolution does have some evidence to back his explanation up.

See, that's the part I'm not so sure about :)

Like I said, I'm really not a bioligist and I can't say I'm an expert at evolution. What I do know is that I've been taught about the origins of life from both sides of the fence, and based on science, and science alone, I belive that evolution is simply a better explanation. It would be understandable for a person to debate the beliefs of Gould vs. Smith/Dawkings, since all of those are rooted in scientific research, but trying to put science against a 5000 year old, man made story is silly.

We have some common ground. I'm no biologist either and I've been taught from both sides of the coin as well.

However, it seems to me that science and creation appear to be in harmony. You can see complicated design in everything: from the largest elephant down to the smallest atom. Even the simplest cell is so extremely complex. And not only science, but common sense as well tells us that life can't come from nothing. Something that is intricate and complicated just cannot form by random chance. In other words, the complexity of the universe is one of the greatest evidences of creation.
 
justin syder said:
What I meant by brain washed is people who take stories like Adam and Eve and consider them to be the literal truth.

That is called faith. Some believe some dont. Just because you dont believe it doesnt make it false or ridiculous.

Or it could be called false interpretation.

You're prepared to tell me you consider everything in the Bible to be 100% true and that you're willing to apply them in your life?
 
You're prepared to tell me you consider everything in the Bible to be 100% true and that you're willing to apply them in your life?

I try as best as I can. I am not perfect but it is something that is a learning process for my soul.

I do believe the Bible but I do understand it can be hypocritical in some terms and misinterpreted sometimes. All in all I believe it to be true and helpful to my life.
 
general said:
canadians are very polite I see.Why are you pissed??
Makes me laugh.I would love to debate with a pissed person.Coz you can't think straight when you are pissed.hehehehehehehe

Are all canadians like you???
Viper has been ok so far.

I guess it's you who lacks courtsey.

Calm down. For one, don't diss Canadians just because you can't stand someone arguing with you. Second, Viper's not a Canadian. Third, how do you expect to debate with someone when you call everybody "dear" and all your posts are hard to read? You obviously have a decent command of English - you'd do yourself a huge favour if you try to put it to use around here.

About this issue, I think we all (I know some already do) need to accept the fact that neither creation nor evolution can be proven 100% by science. Like Justin says, believing creation to be true is a matter of faith, as is accepting the Bible as being the complete work of God. Evolution, while it can be backed IN AREAS by science, is still a theory.

Personally, I believe in creation. I, however, can completely understand how someone who does not believe in God or the Bible or the Qu'ran (is that the proper spelling?) does not accept creation - from that point of view, it seems like a fantastic fairy tale.

Please, people, keep it clean. This is a discussion that could go on forever. I have seen some level-headed comments here - particularly by Hokie and Jeffy. If you want to discuss this, use common sense, and even if you don't agree with the other person, RESPECT HIS/HER opinion. That is a rule.
 
No offence SiR I was only referring to ///M.THe spellingQura'n since you asked.
I agree with Justin and jeffy here about evolution.Even if we take religion out of context then argument IMO is still weak on the side of evolutionists.
Like Justin said if you don't believe it it doesn't make it false or ridiculous.

And no human can be perfect and because of these imperfections today there are creations that were merely mistakes.
We have vulcanised rubber to make tires.

THe thing about evolution is that not enough evidences can be put out to make it a law.Since Darwin himself his theory had weaknesses so I don't see why you are defending it.

Man ///M you need a lesson in the supernatural.

How did the ameba evolve???
Why aren't there any intermediate Species on earth no answer from any evolutionist since the past week.
And in case you people didn't know Einstein was a Jew.HE had a religion.
 
A severe problem for evolutionists is the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. By transitional forms, we mean intermediate forms of life appearing in the fossil record that are "in-between" existing types of organisms found today or in the past.
well, the problem is that those fossils we find are only a fraction of all the species that existed in history, so the chance to find intermediate species is quite low.. however those species do exist... and i digged some out :]

for example fish Eusthenopteron has many characteristics similar to amphibian Ichthyostega:
eustenovsichthy.jpg


Seymouria has characters of both amhibians and reptiles
seymouria.gif


Archeopteryx clearly has features of both reptiles and birds
archaeopteryx.jpg


and Massetognathus is a cross between mammals and reptiles (whether it really had fur is not known)
chiheshou.gif


edit: oh, and a question for you creationists... if you believe that god created all species in one day, how come that there are no mamals discovered in fossils older than some 200milion years, while there are a lot of fish and reptile fossils from that time (which are mostly now extinct - which brings me to another question - why would god bother with creating species that would live only for a few millions of years and then dissapear?)
 
and don't you said it your self nitemare that the chance to find an intermediate species is low.Don't you think the skeletons you found could be of another animal totally different by no means same.The shape of organs in pigs and humas is very much similiar why don't you say that man came from pigs.At least humas use insulin from pigs for diabetic patients what medicine comes from apes or monkeys.
 
///M-
One of the better theories from creationists is that dinosaurs were wiped out by the great flood in the story of Noah.

You know ///M, now you are being an ass. You have no respect for religious ppl and their beliefs.

Spare us your insults and useless opinions, please. :roll: :thumbsdown:
 
And as an educated person, I believe you have no respect for science and scientific practices.

How was my statement insulting, btw? I'm just showing how crazy it is for creationists to try to claim religion can explain phenomena when science is the only answer.
 
Again, I'm not an atheist. Thinking scientifically does not cancel out your religious beliefs.

That's the problem with the way religious people think today.
 
Top