Creationism vs Evolution thread.

[Creestahlyia]

There is no actual debate! Evolution is a fact, it happened, that's what over 90% of all scientist across the whole scientific spectrum agree on, and that's because of the over-whelming amount of evidence supporting it in many many fields!

Evolution is a fact!

[Hallistar]

There is no actual debate! Evolution is a fact, it happened, that's what over 90% of all scientist across the whole scientific spectrum agree on, and that's because of the over-whelming amount of evidence supporting it in many many fields!

Evolution is a fact!

I think its because people get confused over the definition of scientific theory, one that has faced repeated testing and has yet to be disproven, like the theory of relativity.

[Yahkima]

There is no actual debate! Evolution is a fact, it happened, that's what over 90% of all scientist across the whole scientific spectrum agree on, and that's because of the over-whelming amount of evidence supporting it in many many fields!

Evolution is a fact!

I think its because people get confused over the definition of scientific theory, one that has faced repeated testing and has yet to be disproven, like the theory of relativity.

I think its because people are determined to cling to their already disproven beliefs and fallaciously think that attacking evolution somehow counts as evidence for creation.

But basically, yes.

[Mavorpen]

I think its because people get confused over the definition of scientific theory, one that has faced repeated testing and has yet to be disproven, like the theory of relativity.

I think its because people are determined to cling to their already disproven beliefs and fallaciously think that attacking evolution somehow counts as evidence for creation.

But basically, yes.

I think it's because of ignorance and denial. There, shortened.

[Yahkima]

I think its because people are determined to cling to their already disproven beliefs and fallaciously think that attacking evolution somehow counts as evidence for creation.

But basically, yes.

I think it's because of ignorance and denial. There, shortened.

Idiocy.

Brevity is indeed a virtue.

[Creestahlyia]

There is no actual debate! Evolution is a fact, it happened, that's what over 90% of all scientist across the whole scientific spectrum agree on, and that's because of the over-whelming amount of evidence supporting it in many many fields!

Evolution is a fact!

I think its because people get confused over the definition of scientific theory, one that has faced repeated testing and has yet to be disproven, like the theory of relativity.

I think the problem with this theory is that everyone thinks they understand it! they just make the most outrageous and gross simplification out of it and then dismiss it as some sort of lunatic theory. They'd say things like: ''I aint no monkey's great grandson!, this theory is ridiculous'', they make no effort to understand the mechanisms of natural selection.

this really worries me because it does have consequences, we're raising a generation of intellectually lazy and gullible people!

[Mavorpen]

I think it's because of ignorance and denial. There, shortened.

Idiocy.

Brevity is indeed a virtue.

I don't think it's idiocy.

[Moutere]

The point is the Archeopteryx was a bird that lacked a keel exactly like the Kiwi is a bird that lacks a keel. Lack of a keel is not evidence that the Archeopteryx is not a bird.
The evidence of the Archeopteryx is that it is a bird with some strange traits rare in other birds. The kiwi is the only bird with external nostrils at the end of its back, it remains a bird not something else...

and although Archy might have had a size and wings capable of flight we have no evidence that it actually could do more than glide.

The various forms of flightless birds diverged from the rest of the birds that could fly relatively shortly before the extinction of the dinosaurs; their ancestors evolved to fill terrestrial niches left vacant after the dinosaurs went extinct, and in many cases lost the bones associated with flight in the process. New Zealand, home of the kiwis and moa and whatnot, is an example of a Gondwanan ecosystem, a throwback to an era when large mammals hadn't yet evolved or spread to a significant degree to overtake older groups. Prehistoric South America, before the land bridge in Central America was formed, was another example of an area where birds remained dominant, and was in fact dominated by a group of giant predatory flightless birds known as the phorusrhacids, or 'terrorbirds'.

EDIT: Fixed something.

Yeah now lets take the ancestral Ratite, a bird with no keel, but with vestigial wings slightly bigger than usual, running away from a Deinonychus (also a bird -lol) it gets forced towards a cliff edge and tries to jump and successfully glides. Perhaps it was the ancestor of Archy. Perhaps Archy evolved from birds (lol)

[Yahkima]

Idiocy.

Brevity is indeed a virtue.

I don't think it's idiocy.

Well, perhaps not in the case of children or (as on NSG) teenagers, but when it comes to adults I have to disagree.

[Avenio]

Yeah now lets take the ancestral Ratite, a bird with no keel, but with vestigial wings slightly bigger than usual, running away from a Deinonychus (also a bird -lol) it gets forced towards a cliff edge and tries to jump and successfully glides. Perhaps it was the ancestor of Archy. Perhaps Archy evolved from birds (lol)

Archaeopteryx was a late Jurassic species, whilst the earliest known true ratite fossil was found in the Palaeocene, well over 90 million years after the correct time period. Archaeopteryx and its winged cousins came first, and their ancestors branched off into the flighted (?) and flightless varieties we see in the Palaeocene and later.

EDIT: Oh, and deinonychus wasn't a bird. It was a theropod dinosaur of a different branch than the ancestors of birds.

[Seangoli]

The various forms of flightless birds diverged from the rest of the birds that could fly relatively shortly before the extinction of the dinosaurs; their ancestors evolved to fill terrestrial niches left vacant after the dinosaurs went extinct, and in many cases lost the bones associated with flight in the process. New Zealand, home of the kiwis and moa and whatnot, is an example of a Gondwanan ecosystem, a throwback to an era when large mammals hadn't yet evolved or spread to a significant degree to overtake older groups. Prehistoric South America, before the land bridge in Central America was formed, was another example of an area where birds remained dominant, and was in fact dominated by a group of giant predatory flightless birds known as the phorusrhacids, or 'terrorbirds'.

EDIT: Fixed something.

Yeah now lets take the ancestral Ratite, a bird with no keel, but with vestigial wings slightly bigger than usual, running away from a Deinonychus (also a bird -lol) it gets forced towards a cliff edge and tries to jump and successfully glides. Perhaps it was the ancestor of Archy. Perhaps Archy evolved from birds (lol)

That is... just so very wrong on so many levels it is beyond stupid. It ignores the basic factual information and logic behind anything even remotely scientific and evolutionary in thought that it almost boggles the mind.

[Paradisiac Weltanschauung]

Since I have seen no lack of confusion on what actually Darwin stood for, I have chosen "other".

Personally I enjoy the idea's of evolution much more then the idea of being the play thing of a deity.

[Yahkima]

Since I have seen no lack of confusion on what actually Darwin stood for, I have chosen "other".

Personally I enjoy the idea's of evolution much more then the idea of being the play thing of a deity.

But of course, opinions don't really matter.

Not because your opinion is shit, mind, but because this thread pertains to a subject of demonstrable reality.

That said, I agree.

[Ski Apache Nation]

Well, it all boils down to:
Do you believe God created something somewhere down the line (which? where)?

Or do you believe in a creator-less universe from nowhere (where did it come from)?

Hard options for mere humans *snicker*

You forgot the third choice of "God didn't necessarily have to create the universe, and where it came from ultimately still has yet to be determined empirically".

Then that's a belief in a miracle cause. It currently has no explanation, and is contra-logical.

[Ski Apache Nation]

I think its because people get confused over the definition of scientific theory, one that has faced repeated testing and has yet to be disproven, like the theory of relativity.

I think its because people are determined to cling to their already disproven beliefs and fallaciously think that attacking evolution somehow counts as evidence for creation.

But basically, yes.

Well, most Christians wouldn't say "Things can't evolve"

They would either argue that evolution is a natural process created by God;

or that is is an inevitable process that occurs because it in some way reflected God's nature when he "Started" the universe. A.K.A. "The Language of God"

or that he is behind evolution constantly, choosing what happens.

Most educated Christians would belong to one of the first two.

[Ski Apache Nation]

I think its because people are determined to cling to their already disproven beliefs and fallaciously think that attacking evolution somehow counts as evidence for creation.

But basically, yes.

Well, most Christians wouldn't say "Things can't evolve"

They would either argue that evolution is a natural process created by God;

or that is is an inevitable process that occurs because it in some way reflected God's nature when he "Started" the universe. A.K.A. "The Language of God"

or that he is behind evolution constantly, choosing what happens.

Most educated Christians would belong to one of the first two.

This is what complicates the argument. Ultimately, it isn't about whether or not whales are (very) loosely related to field mice, but whether or not a God can exist. For the presence of a God doesn't have to do with the evolution of corporeal creatures, it has to do with "Ultimate creation", or creation of things such as the universe (which obeys certain laws, which can include evolution) and of interactions between potentially infinite entities (such as God) with potentially non-infinite objects (the universe).

[Ski Apache Nation]

I think its because people get confused over the definition of scientific theory, one that has faced repeated testing and has yet to be disproven, like the theory of relativity.

I think the problem with this theory is that everyone thinks they understand it! they just make the most outrageous and gross simplification out of it and then dismiss it as some sort of lunatic theory. They'd say things like: ''I aint no monkey's great grandson!, this theory is ridiculous'', they make no effort to understand the mechanisms of natural selection.

this really worries me because it does have consequences, we're raising a generation of intellectually lazy and gullible people!

BTW, the whole monkey thing is irrelevant. Biological Anthropology suggests Co-variant evolution (similar, not the same ancestors) .

[The Cummunist State]

Since I have seen no lack of confusion on what actually Darwin stood for, I have chosen "other".

Personally I enjoy the idea's of evolution much more then the idea of being the play thing of a deity.

It doesn't matter whether you enjoy them, it matters what's right. Evolution happens to be right.

[Genivaria]

Since I have seen no lack of confusion on what actually Darwin stood for, I have chosen "other".

Personally I enjoy the idea's of evolution much more then the idea of being the play thing of a deity.

It doesn't matter whether you enjoy them, it matters what's right. Evolution happens to be right.

Enjoying reality certainly doesn't hurt though.

[The Cummunist State]

It doesn't matter whether you enjoy them, it matters what's right. Evolution happens to be right.

Enjoying reality certainly doesn't hurt though.

Yes. I find Evolution wonderful. Even moreso that it's actually real. I find most real things amazing.

[Pyschotika]

Super sentient being known as God -> Creates -> Created All Life -> Created the possibility for life to evolve from initial creation -> Am I doing it right?

[Seperates]

I think it's because of ignorance and denial. There, shortened.

Idiocy.

Brevity is indeed a virtue.

Meh... read my sig.

[Faolinn]

First of all what is theistic evolution? I am a spiritual man, but I cannot deny the truth in Darwin's theories. It's actually crucial to my spirituality.

[Tlaceceyaya]

First of all what is theistic evolution? I am a spiritual man, but I cannot deny the truth in Darwin's theories. It's actually crucial to my spirituality.

That... definitely requires explanation.

[Seperates]

First of all what is theistic evolution? I am a spiritual man, but I cannot deny the truth in Darwin's theories. It's actually crucial to my spirituality.

Hmm... like as in, the fact that there is no intelligent creator, and that humans evolved pretty much by chance?