Evolution v Creationism

I'm totally in the evolution camp.

But what puzzles me, is the evolutionary step required to be the only organism on the the planet that cooks its food ?.......

How did that happen...? And, how many evolutionary steps were
required to get to the point where humans now struggle to digest raw meat,
without being at serious risk from the bacteria in it

(Apart from Steak Tartare that is.... )

with ya there gaz i don't believe in the we came from gods finger

I believe in the big bang theory and that we evolved from the particals and organisms that inhabited the earth

I believe in evolution.....but, assisted evolution!

I believe that we were either placed here by another race of life, or that we were found here (in some form of evolutionary stage) and helped along so to speak. Kinda given a little boost.

Evolution for me too.....don't believe in any bible bullshit

Julz wrote:

don't believe in any bible bullshit

I had u down as a sunday church goer oh well

hell knows how it all started Im a catholic and had all the comunion etc but I havent really given it much thought of how it all started.

so my answer is ?

I believe we came from organisms, but where did the organisms come from?

....and why ARE we the only species to cook our food?

I believe we were created, as we will be able to create universes of our own soon....read this
http://www.casavaria.com/sentido/science/2006/06-0802-new-universe.htm

The thought of that is scary!

What is it about one that invalidates the other?

Maybe the fact that we have far more evidence to support one theory over the other? Science has yet to prove one single fact to support creationism by God as far as I'm aware, I could be wrong however?

Quote :

Maybe the fact that we have far more evidence to
support one theory over the other? Science has yet to prove one single
fact to support creationism by God as far as I'm aware, I could be
wrong however?

Evolution, as far as I know, is the genetic change in a set of organisms from generation to generation.

I suppose creationism is often meant to mean the Christian creation story, but I can't see how creation itself is disproven.

Even the Christian creation story is often defended by the claim that 'day' refers to a period of time other than what we today call a day. Which, although it seems a bit weak, is entirely plausible and in fact would support the evolution theory (evolution being part of the creation)?

Evolution and the big bang theory are often linked together to remove the need for a God. However the big bang theory no more disproves God than evolution.

First of all, the big bang theory is just that a theory; a theoretical reversal of current observations. One that ceases to make sense the closer to the singularity (point from which it predicts the universe came) as Einstein's General Relativity 'breaks down'.
Since Science cannot (yet) 'prove' or predict beyond reasonable doubt, what happened at the very 'beginning' it cannot claim to disprove the existence of God.

At best a literal take on the first chapter of Genesis is discredited, but as the majority of us believe the Bible to be fabricated anyway, what difference does that make?

Since the theories don't necessarily contradict each other, the amount of evidence for one is irrelevant in a sense, isn't it?

The things i don't get about religion are things like Noah's Ark for instance. There isn't a single country that can hold 2 of every species of animal, yet Noah built an ark big enough to hold 2 of every animal. Plus where the hell did he get 2 penguins and polar bears in the middle east, how did he feed all these animals.......
And if Adam and Eve where the first man and woman, and they had kids.... who the hell did their kids marry to keep the race going???
Also if there is a God, why would he allow the suffering of innocent people to go on in the world........

I do believe Jesus was a real person, but he was either mentally ill (and had delusional beliefs) or was no different than what we today would call a cult leader.


It would be nice to think that when we die we go to heaven and everything is brilliant, but i don't buy it. I think once your gone thats it. Maybe if people thought more that way they would use what short time they have a lot more wisely.


But everyone is entitled to their opinions

According to Genesis, apparently Adam and Eve had Cain,Abel and Seth and also many other sons and daughters.
So they would have had incestuous relationships to keep the human race going.

Eve may have had as many as 50 children

Adam lived 930 years.


Did Adam and Eve have belly-buttons / navels?

A
belly-button is formed by the umbilical cord that connects a baby in
the womb to its mother. Adam and Eve were created directly by God, and
did not go through the normal birthing process. So, Adam and Eve would
probably not have had belly buttons.


Betcha never thought of that eh...

You might find this interesting too - Was Noah's Ark big enough?

Still don't buy it. It says that for instance for the canine family (i.e coyote, dog, wolf ect) Noah would have to have had just one breed of dog. This would also apply to every other species, therefore only needing i type of species from every group/family of animal.... Bollocks!!!

I belive in creationism, but I don't believe everything written in books either

and since we're on this topic, i wrote an essay on this last year, if anyone wants to read it, i'll post it here, although the essay not that good

Hb, I would like to read it. Post please.

Tk, what is it that you are objecting to?

Consider that every breed of domestic dog is thought to have come from the grey wolf, just one member of the Canidae family.

heres the essay, its mostly about archeological evidence

Quote :

The probability of evolution and creation
has been debated over the years, even before Charles Darwin suggested his
theory of natural selection, which stated that members of species pass on
characteristic onto offspring. Since then, compelling evidence has been found
through archaeology which provides some answers to the creation versus
evolution debate. Many theories of evolution have been stated and aspects of
these theories have been proven wrong or have been challenged through the
discovery of archeological evidence. This means that the theory of evolution,
regarding all organisms and not just humans, is less probable than the idea of creationism
because of the archaeological evidence.


To begin with, archaeological evidence has
been discovered concerning the views of the evolutionary theory on the
coexistence of different species, such as humans and dinosaurs. First of all, an archeologist Clifford
Wilson, who has acquired a Ph. D from University of South Carolina in
archaeology and has done field work as an archaeologist, has handled fossils
and claimed that the fossils challenge parts of the evolutionary theory that
deals with the coexistence of dinosaurs and other species.


I’ve
handled the trilobite, yes. It’s in about four inches of limestone. But it was
undoubtedly a trilobite—nobody argues about that. And it was found in the same
stratum as dinosaur footprints, which according to evolutionary theory is
impossible—they’re supposed to be separated by tens of millions of years.





Archaeologist Clifford Wilson has examined the fossil of a
trilobite, a creature that existed about 300 million years ago, but according
to evolutionists, went extinct before dinosaurs even existed. However, Clifford
Wilson uncovered the trilobite in a dinosaur footprint, signifying that
dinosaurs and trilobites existed at the same time. Since trilobites existed
along side the dinosaurs, it is also possible that evolutionists were wrong
about the exact time humans, also referred to as called Homo sapiens,
originated. Furthermore, evolutionists
believe that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist, but an object has been
discovered to challenge that part of the evolutionary theory. The object was
discovered by Dan Patton, a geologist who has acquired a PhD and other degrees
in the field geology from three different universities in United States of America and Australia. The object discovered by
Dan Patton was a hammer and it was found embedded into a rock which contained
fossils from the Cretaceous era. The rock, in which the hammer was embedded,
was part of a cliff which was a part of the Lower Cretaceous
Edwards Plateau.
A plateau that was formed 140 million years ago, about the same time dinosaurs
roamed the earth. The hammer discovered indicates that technologically
developed humans, however less advanced they were from modern humans, existed
at the same time dinosaurs did.
Otherwise, a human tool would not have been found in a rock that was
formed, at approximately, the same time dinosaurs were alive. This evidence
challenges the evolutionary theory because evolutionists have claimed that Homo
sapiens came into being through evolution after the dinosaurs had become
extinct. Archaeologists have also discovered a footprint in a limestone that
was formed during the Cretaceous Era.
The footprint discovered near Glen Rose, Texas, belonged to a human. Glen Rose is a place famous for dinosaur
tracks because many footprints belonging to dinosaurs have been found at Glen
Rose. The footprint, named the Burdick track after the man who discovered it,
was embedded in a Cretaceous limestone. Evolutionists have maintained the
belief that dinosaurs and humans lived 63.5 million years apart, but the
Burdick track was discovered in a rock that was formed during the period
dinosaurs existed on the Earth. This indicates that humans were alive at the
same time dinosaurs were alive, which signified that that Homo sapiens have existed
on the Earth since the time of the dinosaurs, which suggested, and supports,
the idea that humans did not evolve at the time many evolutionists claim that
humans evolved at. Hence, archaeological evidence has displayed parts of the
evolutionary theory, such as the existence of humans and dinosaurs and other
species, to be false.


Secondly, creation is supported by the
discovery, and the lack, of fossilized evidence by archeologists which negated
many ideas about evolutions. First of
all, a shoe was dug up which has helped estimate how long Homo sapiens have
been in existence. An archaeologist by
the name of John T. Road,
excavated a shoe in Nevada.
The shoe had excellent stitching, and was estimated to be six million years old,
at the least. Evolutionists believe that Homo sapiens
have been in existence for about 190,000 years, but the shoe excavated by John Road was about
six million years old. Hence, Man, as specie was developed enough to create
footwear long before the time evolutionists claim that humans ever evolved at. Also,
there have been no archaeological discoveries that support evolution and the
transition of humans from other species. Charles Darwin, who was an
evolutionary biologist, stated that evolution occurred through transition and
that it did not occur spontaneously. Almost
150 years have passed since Darwin
proposed his new ideas about evolution and yet no fossils have been discovered
of these transitional forms. This implied that evolution did not occur because,
as Darwin stated, evolution is not a spontaneous
event and it must have taken thousands of years to occur and many transitions
must have took place. Therefore, evolution is less likely due to the fact that no
evidence of these transitional fossils has been discovered. In addition to that,
no evidence has been discovered of evolutionary ancestors of the fossils that
have been excavated. “All the
different kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata
with no proof of macroevolutionary ancestors.” Archeologists have, so far,
failed to discover fossils of previous life forms that may have evolved into
the animals that exist in the modern world. Charles Darwin has stated that
evolution is not a spontaneous event; there would have existed transitional
forms of these animals and ancestors of these animals for evolution to have
happened. Yet, none of these transitional forms or evidence, which indicated
that one specie evolved to another, has been discovered. Until the “missing
link” or other fossils which indicate transitions from one species to another
is discovered, evolution appears to be less probable than the idea of creation.
In light of the missing evidence, evolution is less likely than creationism
because of the lack of transitional fossils and the discovery of artifacts
which indicated that humans existed long before the evolutionists claimed
humans ever evolved at.


Lastly, the carbon dating technique is flawed, which resulted in inaccurate dates
of the origin of excavated fossils. The use of the carbon dating required
the isotope carbon-14. Carbon dating is a method used to determine how old an
artifact or fossil actually is. The amount of carbon-14 produced depends on the
amount of cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere of Earth.There are many factors which affect the production of carbon-14,
such as the amount of cosmic rays reach the surface of the Earth and the
magnetic field of the Earth. Since, the magnetic field of the Earth is getting
weaker; fossils have looked older than they really are. Since the production of carbon-14 affected the
carbon dating system, this led to an inaccurate estimate of the ages of fossils
excavated by archaeologists. As the evolutionary theory heavily depends on
fossil evidence and the correct dates of the fossils, the incorrect dating of
these fossils led to incorrect estimates and did not support the theories and
ideas about evolution. Additionally, for an organism to be fossilized certain
conditions have to be met and even then the fossil and organism can further be
affected. Half of an amount will convert back to nitrogen-14 from carbon-14 in
approximately 5,730 years. This is called “half-life”. In two half-lives, which
equaled an approximate of 11,460 years, only a quarter of the amount would be
left. In the case of carbon dating, the amount left is the organism. Therefore,
in approximately 11,460 years, only a quarter of an organism would be
detectable. However, carbon dating claims to give dates ranging to millions of
years. Since only a quarter of the organism would be left after an approximate
of 11,000 years, it is impossible to have dated the organism properly using
carbon dating methods. Theoretically, any organism or object over 50,000 years
old should be impossible to detect using carbon dating techniques, but through
carbon dating fossils have been dated back millions of years. Furthermore, if
all methods of dating fossils were accurate, different methods of dating would
have given similar, if not exactly the same results. Eugenie Scott, who has
acquired a PhD in physical anthropology from the University of Missouri
and has written a book on the topic of creation versus evolution, stated that methods
of dating such as isotope and radiometric dating have given different results
and dates relative to the results acquired from the carbon dating of those same
fossils. If all methods of dating were accurate, then the acquired results from
each method would have been the same. This indicated that there is a flaw in
the dating systems, which suggested that there is a flaw in the dates of
fossils dated up until now. Since the evolutionary theory relies on the dates
of fossil being accurate, an inaccurate date would display an inaccurate
estimate of the emergence of modern humans. The inaccuracy discounted the theory of
evolution because evolutionists claimed that humans evolved 190,000 years ago;
the inaccuracy in the dating of all the fossils excavated, displayed the faults
of the evolution theory. To conclude, faulty methods of dating fossils have led
to inaccurate estimates of the ages of fossils discovered and this challenged the
theory of evolution because the theories rely on accurate dates.

Thank you. Interesting read.

Another demonstration that, as yet, our perception of the universe is far from perfect.
I have to say, it puzzles me that people can be so adamant with such huge gaps in our knowledge...

.tUrniP wrote:

Tk, what is it that you are objecting to?

Consider that every breed of domestic dog is thought to have come from the grey wolf, just one member of the Canidae family.

All of it to be honest!
But the idea of all canines coming from the one single species isn't a problem as such, after all everything on the planet came from the one same microbe. But the time scale in which this happened doesn't add up. I know that day in the bible doesn't always mean a day as we know it now, but even still all the various speciaes we have now wouldn't have developed in the time that has been since Noah was about.

Also why aren't Dinosaurs mentioned in the bible, the evidence of evolution in speciaes is there to see in fossils, the changes in species, the development of bones. Even today you can see in species parts that still have completely finished evolving. Snakes for example still actually have minature remains in their skeleton of legs they used to have.

I don't begrudge anyone having their own beliefs but for me personally nothing the bible adds up and there is no factual proof. The bible itself was written over many years, so i would imagine a kind of chinese whispers sort of thing has gone with that, so things get blown out of proportion.

I don't think science has it down perfect, but it is more reliable than religion IMO!