Evolution and Creationism (Page 8)

Unless you're an experimentalist, then you do and know both!

I prefer scientific principles because the theories believed to be true at one point can be revisited  to confirm whether the theory still holds.  Pluto is a great example.  Creationism in my view is a rigid, unwavering claim of how life came to be.. I have a problem with that.  Science is constantly improving  based on the technology of the time. 

This user's post has been ignored.

I'm a scientist and I know why AND how make it happen AND then I make it happen  

I now have lots of new nerd crushes...sigh... 

That's not how I took it. 

However if that's what Aces meant (and I see he has replied above and said as much) then I'm OK with that as well.  However the schools also need to point out that we are not 100% sure how the universe was created and there are alternate explanations.  No need to go any deeper than that.

Edited by TriRSquared 2010-10-13 3:03 PM

This user's post has been ignored.

Wow, what a great discussion, thanks.

I've always believed in a Creator, but have had problems with the biblical account of creation. Mainly the ancient earth which I believe we can pretty easily demonstrate.

But I'm also aware of some of the problems with evolution. I look at the evolutionary gap between humans and non-human primates and it's difficult for me to believe that the Creator didn't give us a little help with our evolutionary journey--or created us in His own image outright. I mean we've been to the moon, built 747's, etc. Primatologists and anthropologists get all excited when an ape sticks a reed of grass into an anthill to pull out an ant.

But to answer the OP, I don't believe that Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive.

Edited by zed707 2010-10-13 3:10 PM

naw, just give teachers a raise.  that seems to be everyones solution.

Like I said, the basic elements of the planets came from the atoms created in the furnaces of the various stars.  The stars themselves were formed in the processes of the big bang (and not being a cosmologist, and not having studied those things since I was in college, I have only a hazy knowledge that I would not try to win any arguments with). All that we are comes from the elements of the planet we exist on, which came from the stars.

You can certainly go back to the moments before the big bang to question why the singularity existed at all, and if you so choose, call it god.  But everything after that follows rules that cannot be violated.  To modify the watchmaker argument for the existence of god, once the watch is wound up, no one needs to adjust or touch anything.  It will operate according to its principles, until it winds down.  And that is how science views the universe - a complex system of rules that can be ultimately defined.  Quantum mechanics is the only "out" for free will to have even the chance of existing. Otherwise, it looks like the Calvinists were right- everything has been predetermined. Including this discussion.  We just don't know all the variables at play to define the outcome.

This makes me happy.   

But  why lead us on a wild goose chase with the whole 747 argument?   That's not creating "something out of nothing."

What are you arguing with here?  The human body (and all other life) is made from the same basic elements that make up the rest of the universe just rearranged differently.  That is fact and not subject to debate.

In some way, all that material came from the initial singularity at the heart of the "big bang".  Now clearly, no one knows where that singularity came from or what caused the initial expansion.  The laws of physics no longer applied so it's a pretty moot discussion anyway.  

It may be fun to talk about, but we can only have an intelligent meaningful discussion about what happened at the moment that time began. 

After eating Fiber One bars for a week, I have a theory.

I'm not sure how these thigns are problems with evolution.  I'm also unsure if you're suggesting that humans evolved from primates.  That's a horrible misunderstanding of the basics of evolution. 

There is no evolutionary gap.  The current species' on earth are very well adapted to for survival in their specific environment.  Evolution takes place in very incremental steps(with sometimes bigger jumps) over a long period of time, and each change is a direct reaction to the environment that gives a species a better chance at survival.  There doesn't need to be any help or guidance in this process for things to end up exactly as they are now.

Well, since we ARE primates, yeah I guess we've had to have evolved from primates. Now who has the terrible misunderstanding?

Edited by zed707 2010-10-13 3:30 PM

It seems to be quite the opposite. It is always some lame idea from people who have to clue how to educate.

a paycut???

I was trying to get an understanding of what you wrote.  It could be semantics, but the way I read your initial post made it sound like you thought humans had evolved from another non-human primate species that we see in the world today, such as monkeys.  Had this been the case, it would have been a huge misunderstanding, but thanks for clarifying.

Too bad more kids can't be educated in the higher acheiving schools, like Catholic schools, private Christians schools, and other such schools .. oh wait

Why not just make it private schools altogether?  Are you suggesting that by teaching kids religion that they will do better in other academic areas? 

If I'm going to tell my kids to believe in a fantastical story to teach them morals, I think I'll choose Star Wars...

This user's post has been ignored.

Oh, but this isn't an argument, this is just contradiction!

Which one of you is making diner?