Creationism Vs. Evolution

[Farnhamia]

There's also someone here (Bottle) willing to pay her monthly paycheck to anyone who can make a provable hypothesis concerning gods and religion.

As long as one does not define the gods as something supernatural, that is in fact quite easily done
The God of Abraham sadly is harder

A god who isn't supernatural isn't much of a god, is he?

The problem with Yahweh is that "I'm holier than you are" attitude. None of the rest of us minded if our followers sacrificed to others. Share and share alike, but not Yahweh. With him it was always "Mine! Mine! Mine!" Just like a friggin' three-year-old.

[Belrussia]

Of all the arguments that i know, this one is the most pointless.
Why the hell do people have the urge to tell each other "We were fish frog evolutionary thingies!!" or "The Good Lord created us with a magical boom stick of pwn!!". Let people believe in their own things, and leave it at that!

[The Alma Mater]

Of all the arguments that i know, this one is the most pointless.
Why the hell do people have the urge to tell each other "We were fish frog evolutionary thingies!!" or "The Good Lord created us with a magical boom stick of pwn!!". Let people believe in their own things, and leave it at that!

We like medicine to work, for one. Contrary to what some people seem to think, these things does not exist in some weird vacuum of space without influencing anything. How life works and species came to be has consquences in real life that influence you, me and everyone else directly in very real and fysical ways - not just philosophical ones.

[Nationalist Empires]

Just take this into account, Who said God wasn't responsible for evolution , just because its not it the bible doesn't mean it is a bad or atheist idea

[Farnhamia]

Of all the arguments that i know, this one is the most pointless.
Why the hell do people have the urge to tell each other "We were fish frog evolutionary thingies!!" or "The Good Lord created us with a magical boom stick of pwn!!". Let people believe in their own things, and leave it at that!

You're entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts. Doing what you say would be throwing out a fundamental principle of biology.

[Cameroi]

the things of science are no more the business of religion then the things of religion are of science.

[Danmarckia]

IMO, out of these two, only Evolution should be taught in school. At the very worst, Creationism should be restricted to Philosophy or Religious classes and taught objectively. Also, ALL Creation myths should be taught, not just the current dominant myth.

[DaWoad]

Of all the arguments that i know, this one is the most pointless.
Why the hell do people have the urge to tell each other "We were fish frog evolutionary thingies!!" or "The Good Lord created us with a magical boom stick of pwn!!". Let people believe in their own things, and leave it at that!

because this is, possibly, the most important theory in biology. Specifically, evolution is important to genetics, to medicine, to ecology, to everything in biology. Attempting to undermine it with the ravings of a two thousand and some year old tribe of civilized but not particularly advanced italians is downright freaking harmful.

[DaWoad]

Just take this into account, Who said God wasn't responsible for evolution , just because its not it the bible doesn't mean it is a bad or atheist idea

kinda clearly not an atheist principle there given that it suggests the existence of a god of some sort

[The Alma Mater]

Of all the arguments that i know, this one is the most pointless.
Why the hell do people have the urge to tell each other "We were fish frog evolutionary thingies!!" or "The Good Lord created us with a magical boom stick of pwn!!". Let people believe in their own things, and leave it at that!

because this is, possibly, the most important theory in biology. Specifically, evolution is important to genetics, to medicine, to ecology, to everything in biology. Attempting to undermine it with the ravings of a two thousand and some year old tribe of civilized but not particularly advanced italians is downright freaking harmful.

The saddest thing is that even that will be spun differently.

Example : assume the overuse of antibiotics in cattle leads to an antibiotic resistant superbug, that then mutates and becomes able to infect humans.
This is not possible according to creationists. However, when it does happen, they will not say "guess we were wrong". Ohno.
They will instead probably say something like "GOD is punishing us for our wicked ways by sending us this disease we could not have prevented ! We must KILL ALL NONBELIEVERS TO PURGE OURSELVES OF SIN !"

[The Chaos Heart]

This debate amuses me, if only because most people here don't seem to understand how wrong they are. Creationism is a theory as to how the worlds and creatures that inhabit Earth came to be. Evolution is a theory as to how said creatures changed and, well, evolved throughout the ages. The two have little to nothing to do with one another, rendering this entire (currently) 37 page topic pointless. Could Creationism and Evolution co-exist? That's entirely plausible. Could one of them be dead wrong somehow? Again, entirely plausible. But there is no debate as to which one is right and which one is wrong, because there is nothng to debate. It's like trying to argue that a circle isn't round because a square is shaped like a box. Completely different subjects people. Neither arguement is "better".


As for what should be taught in school, well, it is difficult to understand what you mean. Are you trying to debate if they should both be taught? Because they don't "contradict" one another, so I see no reason why they wouldn't both be taught. In fact, it seems silly that they WOULDN'T both be taught. You have one class for sciences, and then your theology classes. Which religion should be taught? Well, all of them. This is how schools will do things now. You'll have Theology classes for various beliefs.

However, there is a greater question at hand. Of course, both theories should be taught in scchool. That's not a question. But, should these classes be FORCED? As we know, science classes, and therefore consequentially, Evolution and the Big Bang are ideas forced onto students. However, by that logic, should Theology classes also be forced?

Personally, I say no. Simply because, sciences are not all about Evolution and the Big Bang. Science is important for the advancement of society. However, religion is a personal belief. It is a way to advance not society, but yourself, and therefore, should be explored and learned on your own. Also, whereas in science there is one theory of Evolution and one Big Bang theory, there are multiple religious theories. It would be asinine to force ALL of them to be taught.

So, to conclude, Creationism and Evolution have nothing to do with one another, both should be taught in school in their respective classes, and sciences should be forced due to their wide benefit for society, whereas religious classes benefit the individual, and therefore, are up to the individual to take (and therefore shoudl not be forced).

[The Alma Mater]

[color=#BF0000][i]This debate amuses me, if only because most people here don't seem to understand how wrong they are. Creationism is a theory as to how the worlds and creatures that inhabit Earth came to be. Evolution is a theory as to how said creatures changed and, well, evolved throughout the ages. The two have little to nothing to do with one another, rendering this entire (currently) 37 page topic pointless. Could Creationism and Evolution co-exist? That's entirely plausible. Could one of them be dead wrong somehow? Again, entirely plausible. But there is no debate as to which one is right and which one is wrong, because there is nothng to debate. It's like trying to argue that a circle isn't round because a square is shaped like a box. Completely different subjects people. Neither arguement is "better".

Except they do, in fact, overlap. Main controversial example is where humanity is concerned - did that evolve, or was it created from scratch ?
But creationism also makes direct statements about other lifeforms. Statements that, indeed, matter for matters like medicine.

I personally do not like playing with the lives of billions of people. So I'd like to make an effort to discover which one is right.

[Lilistrea]

Neither arguement is "better".

If you care about evidence, one is certainly better than the other.

[Urwumpe]

I am myself a creationist. I support teaching evolution in schools as a theory, but portraying it as though it's the only explanation shouldn't be allowed.

Since a theory is the strongest form of scientific truth, no problem there to call it one, if you previously also explained what a theory is.

Also it isn't the only explanation - it is just the only explanation that works with currently available evidence. What ever will replace evolution in biology is primary driving force to adaption and formation of species, it will be a Evolution-like theory, because the core observations of evolution are confirmed to be correct.

Creationism instead, has been shown very often to be wrong when applied to all existing evidence (using only the evidence that supports your theory is OK in politics, but not in science), which makes it a purely metaphysical concept that can work only outside the known universe. And is just Christian theology hiding as pseudoscience. Creationists don't give a damn about Buddhist or Aboriginal creation myths, despite them being often much more interesting.

People should be permitted to believe whatever they choose, and forcing evolutionism onto children not yet able to understand both sides is something I take offense to. That said, creationism shouldn't be taught in schools- it's the job of churches and priests to do that, not teachers. All in all, leave it up to the individual.

That is like saying that you shouldn't be permitted to teach children that Jesus is the son of god, because they might not yet be able to understand that Muslims think that Jesus was just a very inspired human with human parents. You want to leave things up for the individual, but then actually mean, he is up to agree to your views or get at least not taught something that damages your credibility.

Which is not very consequent. If you would really take the freedom of people that serious, you would have to permit people to make up their own faith (which is a sin in Christianity and similar religions).

[The Chaos Heart]

This debate amuses me, if only because most people here don't seem to understand how wrong they are. Creationism is a theory as to how the worlds and creatures that inhabit Earth came to be. Evolution is a theory as to how said creatures changed and, well, evolved throughout the ages. The two have little to nothing to do with one another, rendering this entire (currently) 37 page topic pointless. Could Creationism and Evolution co-exist? That's entirely plausible. Could one of them be dead wrong somehow? Again, entirely plausible. But there is no debate as to which one is right and which one is wrong, because there is nothng to debate. It's like trying to argue that a circle isn't round because a square is shaped like a box. Completely different subjects people. Neither arguement is "better".

Except they do, in fact, overlap. If only where humanity is concerned - did that evolve, or was it created from scratch ?

Do various religions defy the possibility of humans evolving from other beings? Why couldn't humans have been created, but other creatures evolve? When does ANY religion rule out the possibility of humans evolving? Is something evolves from something else, is it not "created"?

There is no point at which Evolution controdicts Creationism. Again, all Creationism says is that we all came from a deity or deities. How that deity/deities created said creatures is never fully epxplained, and leaves room for evolution.

Thus, they overlap, in that they can both co-exist. But there is no reason to compare the two, as they are not about the same subject. To say it simpler, Creationism is saying why we exist. Evolution is HOW we came to exist. Completely different.

[The Alma Mater]

Except they do, in fact, overlap. If only where humanity is concerned - did that evolve, or was it created from scratch ?

[color=#BF0000]Do various religions defy the possibility of humans evolving from other beings? Why couldn't humans have been created, but other creatures evolve? When does ANY religion rule out the possibility of humans evolving? Is something evolves from something else, is it not "created"?

Because the Bible explicitly states humans were made from clay, shaped in gods image ? Which is not the same as evolving from other lifeforms.

What humours me most is that many creationists do not even have the faintest clue what exactly they believe, let alone what the textbooks they want their children to read actually say

[DaWoad]

This debate amuses me, if only because most people here don't seem to understand how wrong they are. Creationism is a theory as to how the worlds and creatures that inhabit Earth came to be. Evolution is a theory as to how said creatures changed and, well, evolved throughout the ages. The two have little to nothing to do with one another, rendering this entire (currently) 37 page topic pointless. Could Creationism and Evolution co-exist? That's entirely plausible. Could one of them be dead wrong somehow? Again, entirely plausible. But there is no debate as to which one is right and which one is wrong, because there is nothng to debate. It's like trying to argue that a circle isn't round because a square is shaped like a box. Completely different subjects people. Neither arguement is "better".

you're making an erroneous assumption that the version of creationism that makes sense to you applies to everyone. It does not. Certain, rather prevalent types of creationism, specifically those that ID proponants would like to see in schools directly contradict evolution, stating that everything was created as it is right now some time in the last 8 000 to a few billion years.

As for what should be taught in school, well, it is difficult to understand what you mean. Are you trying to debate if they should both be taught? Because they don't "contradict" one another, so I see no reason why they wouldn't both be taught. In fact, it seems silly that they WOULDN'T both be taught. You have one class for sciences, and then your theology classes. Which religion should be taught? Well, all of them. This is how schools will do things now. You'll have Theology classes for various beliefs.

which every person who is for evolution has stated previously in this thread.

However, there is a greater question at hand. Of course, both theories should be taught in scchool. That's not a question. But, should these classes be FORCED? As we know, science classes, and therefore consequentially, Evolution and the Big Bang are ideas forced onto students. However, by that logic, should Theology classes also be forced?

Personally, I say no. Simply because, sciences are not all about Evolution and the Big Bang. Science is important for the advancement of society. However, religion is a personal belief. It is a way to advance not society, but yourself, and therefore, should be explored and learned on your own. Also, whereas in science there is one theory of Evolution and one Big Bang theory, there are multiple religious theories. It would be asinine to force ALL of them to be taught.

So, to conclude, Creationism and Evolution have nothing to do with one another, both should be taught in school in their respective classes, and sciences should be forced due to their wide benefit for society, whereas religious classes benefit the individual, and therefore, are up to the individual to take (and therefore shoudl not be forced).

which is pretty much the position every secularist (be they atheist, theist or deist) takes.

[The Chaos Heart]

Neither arguement is "better".

If you care about evidence, one is certainly better than the other.

Again, you're trying to use evidence from a completely different subject as a means to defy another completely different subject. It would be like me saying "Well, I have evidence that when you drop a ball, it bounces. That must mean that all round things bounce!"

ball =/= all round things

Creationism =/= Evolution

Therefore, you can care about evidence, but still view as neither being the "superior" argument. They aren't arguing the same subject.

[The Chaos Heart]

Do various religions defy the possibility of humans evolving from other beings? Why couldn't humans have been created, but other creatures evolve? When does ANY religion rule out the possibility of humans evolving? Is something evolves from something else, is it not "created"?

Because the Bible explicitly states humans were made from clay, shaped in gods image ? Which is not the same as evolving from other lifeforms.

What humours me most is that many creationists do not even have the faintest clue what exactly they believe, let alone what the textbooks they want their children to read actually say

What amuses me is that you think I'm religious. I'm a nihilst. Silly assumptions.

Also, WRONG!

"Genisis 1,27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female he created them."

Where in that does it say HOW God created man? I think you're thinking of Eve, who was made from Adam's rib, in whcih case, that is ONE human being. One female =/= equal a race of people. It is never written how God created man, just that they were made in his image.


Also, I challenege you to find one instance in any religion where Evolution is explicitly revoked. Because in all my years of observing religions, I have NEVER heard of an instance where the specific process for creating a human is recorded.

[DaWoad]

Oh my Buddha, I should get a dollar for every time someone says "it's only a theory!" It's a provable theory, unlike the Christian god.

And you take offense to learning? Evolution is REQUIRED for learning basic biology. Without it, you'd know fuck all about why Europeans get tanned in the sun. Creationism doesn't explain that does it now?

*Ahem* Since you clearly didn't get my point, I'll say it again. You can't really prove evolution until it's physically shown and observed.

it has been observed. Also shown. In fact there's a really simple experiment you can do in class with a harmless bacterium of pretty much any species and a mild anti-biotic. Or another you can do with different feeding mediums. Both demonstrate evolution in a time frame workable for a high school class.

Yes, there's evidence, but evidence alone doesn't always cut the cake.

You're almost right. Evidence does cut the cake unless there is some contradictory piece of evidence.

And I believe quite strongly that God exists. Can I prove it for certain? No.

I'm not interested in whether or not you can prove it. I would give a months paycheck just to see you offer a piece of valid, correct, positive testable evidence.

Can I believe it nonetheless? Yes.

sure, you can also believe the moon is made of cheese or that physics isn't real or that the earth is flat. You can believe whatever you want to believe, of course you're going to be wrong if you ignore all the evidence but it's perfectly okay for you to be wrong. It's not perfectly okay for you to attempt to promote your wrong ideas, without proof, as being right in any way.

And as for biology, I don't take offense to learning. I take offense to teachers impressing their personal views onto children when they can't decide for themselves yet. I understand biology quite well, and I don't need evolution for it.

Really? interesting. Explain to me, then, how MRSA came about and what we should learn from this? This is a very basic medical concept, by the way, and an important one.
Further, explain to me why An appendectomy is sometimes required, and why an appendix transplant is not needed.
Moreover, explain to me how population ecology functions, and how one can determine problems in populations from, for example, variance in size or fertility.

please, I'm curious to see how you try to do this without once invocking evolution. Go ahead, I can wait a while while you try to work it out.

If anything, I think the unimaginable complexity- and yet, efficient functionality- of life itself is testament to God's work.

*sigh* the human eye is unimaginably complex and utterly flawed when compared to that of, say, an octopus. The appendix is a vestigial organ, no longer serving any real purpose in humans that can easily become inflamed and kill someone even with acess to modern medicine. Life it's self is hugely inefficient and, while complex, it's very inefficiencies and holdover/vestigial traits from earlier times suggest that it was not created

This is my own opinion, and shouting at me for it won't change it.

how about logic and evidence? will you change your mind based on that?

[DaWoad]

Also, I challenege you to find one instance in any religion where Evolution is explicitly revoked. Because in all my years of observing religions, I have NEVER heard of an instance where the specific process for creating a human is recorded. [/i][/color]

http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/IsisShrine/Norsemyth.html

a couple of gods changed the shape of two dead trees and made them people.

http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology ... myths.html

Molded from clay.



There are a bunch.

[The Chaos Heart]

From the Norse myth:

"Men were created from the vegetable world by the gods Odin, Hoenir and Lodur. One day the three gods were travelling across the barren earth and came across two trees with life-less twisted trunks. Odin shaped each of the trees into a man and a woman, and gave each of them breath. Hoenir gave them a soul and the ability to reason. Lodur gave them warmth and the fresh colours of life. The man was called Ask and his wife was Embla, and they proceeded to create the race of man."

This depends entirely on how you interpret something. Not everything authors write is literal, and are often abstract descriptors that are used to describe a greater event. It says they were created from trees. Now, are we all not made up of eachother? Conservation of Matter says the tree cannot be created nor destroyed. It simply reforms. So when these dead trees disolve into the ground, and eventually become part of other animals (which consequently, evolve), it is plausible to say that said evolved creatures (humans) came from the trees.The other concepts (reasoning, breathing) are not ruled out by an Evolutionary process either. By "giving" these abilities to people, it is the same as them recieveing them through Evolution. Thus, this myth does not contradict Evolution. There is no part of it that is impossible to have happened through Evolution.


From the Greek Myth:

"It is said in many myths that Prometheus had molded a race of people from clay, or that he had combined specks of every living creature, molded them together, and produced a new race, The Common Man. At the very least he was their champion before Zeus."

1. It says "A race of people". Not the "human race" or any likeness of it. This does not rule out the possiblitiy of evolution.

2. Check the above explanation, but replace trees with clay.


Nothing in these myths say Evolution cannot co-exist along side them. These descriptors are not detailed step by step explanations of how the "God(s)" created man. These are descriptions written by ancient human minds who did not have the same reasoning capability as we do today. Without any prior knowledge of Evolution, if you knew that man somehow came from apes, how would you describe it? We were "born of apes"? Does that mean one day an ape litterally just gave birth to a human? No, of course it doesn't. You cannot take ancient manuscripts so litterally.

So, once again, I state no (serious*) religion controdicts Evolution.

*I say serious to exclude beliefes such as the Churhc of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and other such joke religions.

[Farnhamia]

Because the Bible explicitly states humans were made from clay, shaped in gods image ? Which is not the same as evolving from other lifeforms.

What humours me most is that many creationists do not even have the faintest clue what exactly they believe, let alone what the textbooks they want their children to read actually say

What amuses me is that you think I'm religious. I'm a nihilst. Silly assumptions.

Also, WRONG!

"Genisis 1,27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female he created them."

Where in that does it say HOW God created man? I think you're thinking of Eve, who was made from Adam's rib, in whcih case, that is ONE human being. One female =/= equal a race of people. It is never written how God created man, just that they were made in his image.


Also, I challenege you to find one instance in any religion where Evolution is explicitly revoked. Because in all my years of observing religions, I have NEVER heard of an instance where the specific process for creating a human is recorded.

Genesis 2:7 says, "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Sounds like "how" to me.

[Grandtaria]

Personally I'm very tired of this debate. However, here is my opinion anyway:

Even though I think Evolution is far more reasonable to be taught, neither should be in public education. More over, have the subject mentioned, but not delved into in the normal curriculum. It pisses too many people off at this point so it should be left alone. I think private schools should teach whatever the bloody hell they want though, without state intervention.

[The Chaos Heart]

What amuses me is that you think I'm religious. I'm a nihilst. Silly assumptions.

Also, WRONG!

"Genisis 1,27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female he created them."

Where in that does it say HOW God created man? I think you're thinking of Eve, who was made from Adam's rib, in whcih case, that is ONE human being. One female =/= equal a race of people. It is never written how God created man, just that they were made in his image.


Also, I challenege you to find one instance in any religion where Evolution is explicitly revoked. Because in all my years of observing religions, I have NEVER heard of an instance where the specific process for creating a human is recorded.

Genesis 2:7 says, "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Sounds like "how" to me.

Genesis 2:7 says, "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

God formed a man

a man

Like with Eve, you people seem to be confusing one human for an entire race of people.