Evolution vs Creationism

relevant

 

I would also like to append that, usually with evolution, one might reaches big bang theory.

but, evolution isn't it more concern about how organisms are here today and how they might change in the future.

of course, when you start to group organisms by ages, you can go more and more backward.

i always question if the goal of evolution is asking about future or past

 

Oh, and I would just like to point out that simply because someone finds a better philosophical understanding in Creationism rather than Evolution does not mean that they reject all ideas of Evolution and Biological or Physical Sciences. My Biology teacher and head of the department of sciences in high school was an active pastor alongside his years of teaching. Many people simply believe that there are questions that can be answered from both sides.

Not fully siding with evolution to does not automatically make them ignorant and, in consideration of at least a level of minimal respect, they could do without having their beliefs critically satirized as has been done by a few of the posts in this thread.

We are all big boys and girls. We are all aware of the various knowledge out there and have each come to establish our own understandings of what we each, personally, believe to be true. Their beliefs are none of your concern. If you don't agree, good for you. You don't have to.

 

There are several fallacies with the aforementioned, even if you take away my initial argument:

1. The light that Earth receives comes from the sun itself. Without the sun, there would be no light, except maybe from Alpha Centauri. And the amount of light we'd get from that would never be sufficient for plants or any other lifeforms.

2. It takes 8 days for the sun's light to reach Earth, and it takes about a week for a plant to die without light or water. Some Christians want to put the math to what scientists say as to when the Earth was created, when life started, when animals first roamed, etc. If you DO put the math to that, you still have plants without the sun for billions of years, which would be impossible.

3. Without the sun, the Earth would freeze, rendering any chance of life impossible.


I wasn't saying Creationism IN GENERAL was what I was against. It was Judeo-Christian Creationism. As I said, if Creationism is true, the sun would come before any aspect of Earth whatsoever.

 

creationism..i'm still a Christian..

 

I'm not a Christian and I don't believe in creationism, but I think they obviously don't mean "day" literally. The seven days are clearly the seven stages of creation in that myth.

EDIT:

In biblical creationism, I believe light comes before life. Also, it takes sunlight 8 minutes, not days to reach earth.

 

How would you define a day before the sun had been created, anyway . (I suppose an all knowing god would know when the earth had rotated without it)

 

I think it's not a scientific theory, so trying to poke scientific holes in it is like saying a 747 is poorly engineered because it sinks when it lands in water. Nobody is saying that it holds any scientific value.

 

*8 minutes. Even Neptune is only 5.5 light-hours away from the Sun (its orbit is rather eccentric, but you get the idea).

As you say, the main problem with plants before the Sun would be the cold. When plants get extremely cold, the water in them freezes. (Yes, it's safe to do that experiment without gloves!) This means that (a) the plants expand and (b) they become very brittle, since they're made of ice crystals now. Touching them will result in them shattering.

I don't know if anyone has or has not recovered a flower after dunking it in liquid nitrogen. That'd be interesting to try, and if it's possible then the problem about heat will mostly, as it were, dissipate.

But anyway, the surest place where the Genesis 1 account is in the wrong order is that land plants were created on the third day and sea creatures were on the fifth. We now know that this is incorrect, because life formed at the bottom of the ocean and evolved to be on land (and there are many transitional forms (although really, every creature ever is a transitional form) which help us learn how).

 

I believe in Evolution. Creationism is a nice story but it's untrue.

"It's not so much that I don't believe in it it's just, I don't know, lately I get the feeling I'm not so much being pulled down as I'm being pushed." -- Phoebe

Friends - Ross and Phoebe argue about Evolution - YouTube

 

There are still people who believe in this Flat Earth-esque shite? (although if we're talking only about the actual origin of life, I'm willing to give other theories more currency simply because the science isn't settled)

I'd love to start a poll on the attribution of climate change (whether it's natural or man-made). Jesus, any votes for the former would rile me up. Never has public opinion been so out of kilter with scientists' consensus. Alarmingly, it seems to have fallen right off both the political and public radar.

 

Hi, everyone!

I am a Christian, believe in God, believe He created Heaven and earth and all that jazz, but one of the two things I can't stand about "normal" Christians is how all these things have been proven by science, facts, yet they still deny it:tantrum:. I mean, come on, is it really so hard to even fathom that God might have caused evolution and the Big Bang and whatnot?:dry: I mean seriously, if they hear anything that wasn't shoved down there throats by wrongful preachers, they reject it:eusa_naug. Thank God not all of us are like that.:icon_wink

P.S. I really exaggerated, but hey, forgive and forget, right?

 

I don't 'believe' in evolution. I've read the facts, seen the proof and know that it's existance is as likely as something like gravity. The exact details may be different than what we know now, but the basics are likely to be true. I believe that believe plays no part in determining if something is true in science.

I know there is no scientific proof whatsoever for creationism. People are free to believe that it's true, like they're free to believe whatever they wish, as long as they don't pose creationism as science, which it is not. (Unless they can provide me with a good scientific study of course)

 

I don't even have the energy to get involved in this debate. Suffice to say that I'm a scientist and I support the observations and empirical evidence that have been picked up over the last couple of hundred years over the words of a self-contradictory translated book that was written a couple of millennia ago.

 

Oh, yeah.. :eusa_doh:

Actually, there's something more ridiculous than that, which is that the Bible says the Earth was first water and the land appeared on the water afterwards. While I'm not entirely against the idea of a planet that's completely made of water, according to this logic, we'd be able to swim through the Earth to China and back, given enough scuba gear. This also doesn't explain the core of the Earth.

Reverse the order, and you have the Earth as we know it.

 

Just putting this out there - the bible does have some scientifically correct facts that have been in there for longer than scientists have known the facts.
In genesis it says how if you touch a mans open wound from battle then you're polluted and you'll pollute others for the next x days.
And that was written long before people knew about germs and such.

There's a lot of stuff like that in the bible.
I know there's some stuff proved wrong, but I feel like a lot of the bible is more metaphorical than people see it.

Oh well. We all have our opinions.

 

You don't have to understand the science behind things to be able to make empirical observations - science would never have gotten started if that was the case. Prehistoric people ate tree bark to cure their headaches - now we realise that that tree bark contains a compound similar to aspirin. That doesn't mean that those tribes had a detailed understanding of biochemistry, it just means they could see that the consequence of them eating that tree bark was that their headache disappeared. Same for your example - you don't have to understand about germs to be able to see people getting infections. In fact, there've been several different theories behind infection throughout the ages, such as miasma. You could argue that they magically preceded our current understanding, but they didn't. They were based on observation but they were just plain wrong.

 

Evolution

 

Which is why I never argue with religious people. It gets you nowhere, and you become dumbfounded by such stupidity.