Evolution Vs Creationism

[The Sherman]

Ok Im no expert and it seems to be very topical and already has been started by people here so I was wondering if both sides could present there arguments, or point out flaws in each others arguments?

I'll start off with:
If creationism is correct then can someone explain how they know that every geologist is wrong and everthing they've ever geologist has worked towards is wrong?

[BillySugger]

It's simple really - evolution is scientifically proven & creationism is a fairy story

[WaldoMcFroog]

Yes, exactly. Anything else is merely an expansion of the same, with one side being able to back up their criticisms of the other and support for their own with evidence.

Personally, I don't mind correcting the odd misunderstanding (or outright lie in some cases), but this stuff is widely documented elsewhere and far better than it could possibly be put on here. I would point you at Talk Origins, and have a look at their numerous FAQs.

A Creotard will point you at something like 'Answers in Genesis' or similar.

[eltelioni]

I think the creationists argue that God arranged the rocks and fossils to make the Earth seem a lot older than its 4000 years. So the geologists and archaeologists have been tricked. God tests your faith in so many ways, he is such a devious bu99er.

[The Sherman]

hmmm Well there was a link on bbc yesterday on the news about how creationism is up to 48% belief in uk!!!

So i assume that there would be a lot more people on here arguing its merits.

There was a lot of people who had written comments on the bbc page and I was hoping that some of their arguments might appear here as well.

[chakka35]

Certainly, The Sherman, you'll get creationists on here, I'll bet. What you won' t get from them are the 'arguments' you asked for.
Creationists have no arguments, merely myth, superstition and belief.

[WaldoMcFroog]

You're right to say there's a lot of it about. I've just been reading the letters page in the Times and some of the idiotic letters about it in there and it's all quite depressing.

I just rehashed the Onion's brilliant 'Intelligent Falling' story to my engineer father-in-law (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512) who agreed the biology equivalent would destroy biology as a productive discipline.

However, the fact that it's been thrust into the spotlight doesn't change the fact that creationism is not supported by any evidence or that evolution is supported by vast amounts.

[Prangy]

I honestly believe the Evolution was better than the Impreza..


Oh! we arent talking about Top Gear are we?! :D

[naomi24]

Couldn't open your link with the brackets around it, Waldo, so I'm pasting it here, minus the brackets. Hope you don't mind (and hope it works!). :o)

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

I'll read it now.

[naomi24]

Yes, it works.

[jake-the-peg]

I've offered to become a creationalist

My offer still stands

Show me a fossil rabbit from the Permian and I'll switch sides

Strangely nobody has ever taken me up on this

[Gromit]

Both are theories.

One constantly scutinises, tests and fine tunes its theory, the other says an old book which is supposed to chronicle what the creator told some men 2000 (or 1300) years ago, is the definitive answer.

[keyplus90]

God created everything and yes it is right that he tests us all the different ways as this whole life is a test. We may not be able to prove or understand it. So yes in the end it is Faith. As I said before that if things are clear in front of every one without a fraction of doubt then almost all of the people will have no problem in accepting it. If for example whoever refuse to accept God will fall and die there and then, who would refuse then? Same is the case with evolution or darwanism. But the fact is Faith is blind and that is the beauty of it. And evolution is still a theory and has been rejected by many scientists. But evolutionists do go out of limits to prove their point. They even join Human Skull with Orangutan jaw.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeology/excav ations_techniques/piltdown_man_01.shtml

http://www.askdarwinists.com/

[eltelioni]

So, God gives us minds capable of logical thought and then plants misleading evidence of our origins. He gives us free will, but then puts temptation in our way. If I have faith, ignore the evidence and reject the temptations, I will pass the test and presumably gain some reward. So, what is the reward?

[tigerlily11]

It depends on what your view of God is.
In my mind God is an everlasting being and to him no doubt 7 billion years may well be just 7 days, after all man hasn't really been here that long in the grand scheme of things.
It must also be remembered that science is most of the time just therory as much as religion is.
Niether one can prove for certain and with out doubt that they are right and the other is wrong. I think it is about time that both sides were taught and the benefit of any doubt be given so that a personal decision can be made.
Belief to me is a personal and private choice and while I believe that God made is vast universe and all thats in it I also believe that he/she/it is one hell of a physicist.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Love your first link, Keyplus!

http://www.askdarwinists.com/

"Is there a single intermediate form fossil among all the 100 million or so that have been unearthed to date?

- No, there is not. Nobody can say there is, because every fossil evolutionists have to date proposed as a "missing link" either turned out to be a hoax or else was removed from the literature because it had been distortedly interpreted."

Ha ha ha! What utter rubbish. This is just an assertation that even a Google would quickly show is utterly untrue. There's LOADS. Here's a link to a picture detailing the transition of whales from land animals, includng the names. May I suggest you Google those names too?

http://skywalker.cochise.edu/wellerr/students/ whales/whales_files/image001.gif

Your website even gives a link to one of the most unintentionally hillarious anti-evolution books ever, by a guy called Harun Yahya. Such is the level of professionalism in his book that he includes a photo of what he says is a caddisfly, but which is actually blatantly a fishing lure with a dirty great hook sticking out of it. The whole thing is a model by a guy called Graham Owen.

http://forbiddenmusic.files.wordpress.com/2008 /01/yahya_lure.jpg

That's the level of accademic expertise you're throwing up!

Oh, and quick quiz... Who discovered Piltdown man was a fake?

a) Creationists?
b) Scientists?

(Clue - it's b), obviously, because Creationists have never provided anything of scientific worth.

[The Sherman]

Waldo thank you for debunking what i thought must be rubbish but you see how much of an issue there is?

Where do people like me start to learn(in a way that will not bamboozle me with scientific knowledge) all about the most important piece of science in the 21st century?

I think this does need to be taught in school on a much bigger basis really!!!

[chakka35]

You cannot do better, The Sherman than the books of Richard Dawkins.
Browse through The Ancestor's Tale for a start, with all its superb illustrations, and then get absorbed in The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable.

[The Sherman]

I have read the God delusion and enjoyed it a lot so yes I might try one of his other books

thank you

[Clanad]

Offered only as a balance, it's important to understand that ********* is reconstucted from two small portions of a skull and a a handful of teeth. No other fossils associated with this specimen have been located. Granted, that may still happen. Additionally, Ambulocetus is equally as sparse in it's evidence. The ********* fossils are consistent with land mammals, and was found, in its entierty with other fossilized land animals.
Lest i be pounced upon the evidence is located in Science magazine, page 263 in an article titled What is a whale? (1994) by evolutionary scientists (paleontologists, I believe) J.G.M) Thewissen, et al.
We also find that B.J. Stahl writes in Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution that another well known and complete fossil of Basilosaurus a supposed ancestor of modern whales, that "could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales".
None of this proves anything, of course, except that there are serious disagreements on this subject as well as most others.
The evolutionary crowd would state something to the affect that this disagreement is how science is advanced... but to construct, out of whole cloth, major missing parts of crucial ancestoral specimens is conjecture at it most blatant, or so seems to me. The disagreements are, somehow, never resolved in many cases. Years and years after the experiments with the famous Peppered Moth standard, there is still no settled pronunciation as to the results, in fact there is still rather violent disagreements, none of which involve other than scientists. You'd have to say that's at least interesting, if nothing more...