You won’t get anywhere anyway. They’re still debating about this at the next nearest message board nearby. 
As I said, no human can prove anything.
so what is your stance WBoon?
Prove it.
Er, why should I? Won’t make any point anyway. Anyone bother to debate won’t make any point unless he’s able to provide a flawless evidence.
But really… are you talking just evolution or science as a whole? 
Neither, but both of those aspects are related to my statement. I am talking about discovery, provision of information and the such.
just the evolutionist scientists. Other scientists do good by following guidelines.
The evolutionist scientists just drive me nuts sometimes.
I haven’t come across that before. Neat. Rather hypocritical, but neat.
Then go find it. What may or may not be is for philosophy. Science is what is and isn’t.
Nah. Same standards. Same scientific method. Peer review. Etc.
Science is philosophy; scientists just think it is the truth because they found what they believed to support their theories. Of course, this is a very gray statement as I cannot support my theory myself, so it depends on how you see it.
Ok then. You should distance yourself from everything science has created then if that’s what you truly believe.
Sometimes i do…certain things i renouce as scietific such as evolution while medical scietists (doctors) have come up with advancements that won’t hurt or have cultural influence.
Its not the scientists…its the influence they have on our culture.
“Culture is religion externalized”
Just because my toaster could be a portal to hell, it hasn’t affected me for a while, so I am willing to live in what might possibly be lies if it means convenience for me. 
Natural selection is evident. heck, they did a test to prove it.
WAIT I PROVED THEY DID A TEST BY GIVING EVIDENCE!!!
Honestly I think it’s both.
I grew up Episcopalian and I was taught that the 7 Days was a metaphor for the evolution of the world. I think God had the world evolve the way He wanted it.
I knew this discussion was going to come up sooner or later… Please don’t take anything I say personally. I consider some of you my friends, and the rest I wouldn’t want to hurt, regardless. Anything I say is not a personal attack, so please don’t see it as such. Also, feel free to respond to anything a write, even if I am responding to someone else.
For the record, I consider myself agnostic at this stage of this life right now. I believe in the afterlife, I’m not sure if I believe in God, but am open to the idea. I was brought up in a Church-going household, and attended a private/Catholic primary school, as well as my Grandma was a born-again Christian, but other than that I wouldn’t call our family Christian, back then. My sister and Mum are born again, too. I inherited my Dad’s logicalness and wit, so I don’t think I’d ever be able to talk myself into believing that evolution isn’t true, and the 7 days thing is.
One of things that turns be off Christianity is the contradictory nature of passages in the Bible, as well as the fact that people can interpret it to justify practically any behaviour (or God’s actions) under this religion. It’s wrong for us to kill people, but when God instructs his men to kill innocent women and children, well, then that’s ok because it’s all part of “his plan.” Also, with Adam and Eve (or EVE, heheh): incest is wrong in the Bible, but how would their children have procreated without having to do so with either their parents or each other (ew!)?
Also, Christianity conflicts with who I am as a person and the way I was born. For privacy reasons, I don’t want to go into too many details, but I’m sure if you use your imagination you could guess what my gripe is.
Maybe the reason why Christianity has been so successful is because people can get what they want out of it - I also came across this quote a while ago, and it’s quite a neutral one that I think (hope) most people here could agree with: “Religion does not inherently make one a good person, but only enhances their true character.” To me that is so true! If you are a religious person that seeks out (or finds) religion because you want to work on yourself, make the world a better place, and grow as a person, then that’s what you will do. You will look to the Bible (or Q’uran or whatever) and try to apply passages to yourself so you can grow. But on the contrary, if you have the attitude of looking outwards and finding the wrong in other people, or telling other people how to live their lives, then religion will fit you perfectly, as well because rather than doing the above and trying improve yourself, you will use your energy to tell others how to live and what they are doing wrong by using that religion and the “thou shalt not…” stuff.
I don’t think Russell’s teapot has been brought up yet:
If you were to tell me that there was a teapot in space, but I could never see the teapot because even the most powerful telescope in the world wouldn’t be able to detect it, then this does NOT create the statistical average of the teapot being there, and not being there at 50/50. Also, because one can not observe that the teapot is there, the onus is on YOU to provide evidence that it is there before you can tell other people to provide evidence to the contrary.
The idea that a god could create this universe cannot be observed or backed up by science, or if it has, we have not found any evidence for it. Now it is up to you, the creationists, to provide links and references to evidence supporting your belief. Please don’t use the Bible, as that is circular logic. I look forward to reading your replies.
My personal opinion is that we are on the cusp of adjusting to the high chance of evolution being true, but this also contradicts with what is written in the Bible. This makes people feel uncomfortable, so they either say it isn’t true, or they rationalise with themselves and say “well, maybe evolution is true, and God made it happen.” As with similar discoveries in the past, we are still at the adjustment period, but I bet within 100 years it will be common fact with most people in the world (or the Western world, anyway) and anyone who still believes in Creationism will be perceived in much the same way that people are today who still think the Earth is flat.
Not one to ever let facts get in the way of a good discussion, ey, Al-bob? 
(I know Mitch isn’t going to be a part of this discussion any more, but I’d like to answer a few of her points, anyway.)
But to me, the fact that it was an accident (which I believe it was) makes me being alive even more extraordinary. I think, “aren’t I lucky that the living conditions on Earth happened to be that it could sustain life?” It makes me even more appreciative that it happened this way - so you’re argument can be used to support mine, too.
Well, no scientist is claiming to answer for if anything was behind it… That’s up to you to fill in the gaps. I don’t really understand why Creationists couldn’t find a happy medium and say “well, scientists pretty much all agree that Evolution is how we came to be so let’s just agree that it happened and we can say that God started evolution.”
But we are still evolving. Many children today are being born without any wisdom teeth, simply because we don’t use those teeth as much. It’s simple, really. It’s only because in the grand scheme of things, 2000 years is not a long time at all so it’s not like we can look back over a few generations and say “Just as I thought - no real difference between these generations, therefore evolution mustn’t be true.” Because it takes thousands of years for any major differences to occur.
It’s not the scientists’ job to simply study evolution for the sake of it, or just to prove people wrong, they do it because we, as a human race, are naturally curious, we want to learn about the world so we can understand it better and improve our living conditions. If we hadn’t wanted to explore, we’d still think the Earth was flat, in fact some people do. That’s fine. It’s a free country - they can believe whatever they want. But when it starts infringing on the development of science, and clouds the perception of the human races view of the giant steps in our knowledge of the world, that really annoys me.
You can’t be hypocritical and say that you will support scientists learning about the world and making advances in different fields, but when they discover something that you disagree with or makes you uncomfortable, you disregard their findings in one section, but take advantage of scientific advances within another field, Al-bob, I’m mostly talking to you here.
That’s a really interesting statement.
I was actually wondering whether it is more natural for humans to create religion (or seek it out - whatever you believe), or more natural to not have religion. I’d like to read some sort of study (or at least a summary) that focuses on people who haven’t been told of any religion and see which one they lean to, religion or no religion. Or what their thoughts are on the afterlife, or how this Earth came to be. There aren’t as many “preserved” tribes, these days, but it would be good for someone to interview one.
Let’s not deviate from the subject. I’m still very eager in hearing your points (with references) on why Creationism is true and Evolution isn’t. And also why Creationism should be taught alongside Evolution.
Could you please provide the data to back up this statement?
You mean both the Evolutionary theory and the “theory” of Creationism? Well, why not extend that idea and teach all of the other religious theories of the world, then? What makes Christianity so unique? Also, I think you are a bit confused about the regular word “theory” as found in the dictionary, and a “scientific theory” as applied to evolution, gravity, etc. The two are not the same thing, and are not of the same standing. I could have a theory that the Milky Way is actually made from milk, and that’s fine, it’s just my theory. But a “scientific theory” must be testable (of which Creationism is not) and my theory wouldn’t be either, and my theory would not be taught (why should it be?) and besides, it’s been proven that the Milky Way is made up of galaxies and not milk.
Look, if you want to teach Creationism in a Religious Studies class, that’s fine (along side religions of the past.) But Creationism has no place in SCIENTIFIC studies class as it is not a theory that can be held to the same observable evidence standards that evolution has stood up to time and time again. All the time more evidence is found that supports the theory of evolution. But if you would like to reply stating why you think Creationism should be taught within a Science context in schools, be my guest.
I’m going to ignore that last sentence, since it almost made my brain explode… So, let me get this straight, you believe in evolution, right (from what you just said)? And you can believe that there has been small changes within species over a small period of time… but you can’t believe that those small changes can build on top of one another over a long period of time? (Which is basically what macro evolution is, lots of small, beneficial changes.)
Does not compute.
Scientists have discovered that the salt in oceans and other bodies of saltwater have accumulated over time. Within millions-billions of years, the water would be way saltier than it really is today.
Rac_Rules: That’s better than saying that evolution happened by itself for no reason. God doesn’t describe every little detail of Creation, but the bottom line is that he was and still is in control of it.
Hey guys, I would like to first off say I’m sorry for the little rant I had 
It was stupid for me to join in on a thread like this in a weird mood.
I will get back on topic, even though this really ain’t my thang.
You know that’s a funny topic there Rachel, I have thought about this before. As you know I’m a Christian, but I also love science, so I can’t help but try to put two and two together. It’s hard to explain, but I was watching the discovery channel a show on the “big bang” and they could “explain” every thing up to the bang part 
I believe that if evolution is true than it was meant to be, but what was before that bang? Why did anything start? Also I took a micro-biology class, and it’s just amazing whats in an area of 100 microns ( I forgot a lot, but what ever )
I also saw some people saying things about going to hell and stuff, you know relax, give being a Christian a try someday, you may like it. I’ve heard (this is coming just off the top of my head) some where that if some one was not a Christian that they would be judged by what they did in life?
Any way, like Rachel I would like to say you guys are my friends and I’m NO PRO at this stuff, so take it very lightly 
Well, I said that I would refrain from participating in these discussions, but whenever someone replies to a post of mine I feel as if I need to respond. (heh)
I could just as easily state that the same could be said about evolution. Unlike the teapot theory, which is based on mere guesswork unsupported by facts, Christians do have proof to back up their statements. If one was to say that a teapot was drifting through space at this moment, but lacked any evidence whatsoever to back up that hypothesis, of course people will regard that individual (and his insane idea) as ludicrous. However, if one was to say that a god existed and created everything in the universe that you see today, with reliable facts to back him up, that person’s idea might be taken into consideration. People want proof, and, like you mentioned previously, they are naturally curious. Where did we come from? How did we get here? How old is this planet and this universe that we reside in? Of course theories are going to pop up, however perplex or insubstantial they may seem.
The difference between the Russell’s teapot and Christianity is that the former theory rests on unreliable, unprecedented opinion. The latter, on the other hand, while still opinionated, does harness theories that can be proven (or that are, at least, plausible). Since you would rather not hear any Biblical proof, then such proof can be demonstrated via, say, the aforementioned fact that seashells and other, sea-dwelling inhabitants/objects have been discovered embedded in the tops of high mountains, suggesting that a flood of some sort took place. Of course, no one can prove whether this flood was the Noahic Flood or a prehistoric flood, but the fact remains that a flood was present.
There are tons of other theories I could pull out, but since you don’t wish the Bible to come into play…
First of all, I apologize for not making myself clear in this instance, as I didn’t fully explain my viewpoints on the matter in question.
Secondly, I was referring to major evolutionary changes, not minor ones. I agree with the fact that both the human and animal race (as well as the Earth itself, as a whole) adjusts (and is still adjusting) over time. Minor deviations in the world system are accepted and are, perhaps, expected. I’m fine with that theory.
My point is this: How can one prove that one species of animal transformed into another without presenting an eye-witness to admit/conclude that that’s what happened?
All right. I know what you’re thinking. Yes, the same could be said about Christianity. Feel free to argue with me here, as I realize that my viewpoints could be disproved just as easily. Hear me out on this one…
Let’s say that a scientist – let’s call him “Bob” – attempts to prove to his colleagues that our modern day cow evolved from a dolphin (or vice versa). (I’m just using an example here now. Bear with me.) First of all, I’m going to want Bob to present proof and give testaments that this really happened. In response to this, Bob pulls out of his pocket a handful of theories, including such statements as: “The similarities in vocal tones between dolphins and cows, including their communication system, is uncanny, henceforth… it is plausible that these two species are interrelated”; “The thickness, material qualities, and structure of the organs of each animal’s body, when compared, mirror each other; therefore, it’s possible that one of these entities evolved from the other”; and/or, “Based on scientific evidence, each species evolved around the same time frame (ie., “4 million” years ago), so the chances of the cow evolving from the dolphin are high.” Taking all of this information into consideration, it’s possible that a few (or, perhaps, all) of Bob’s colleagues will buy the idea, expand upon it, and maybe even confer with other colleagues as to how this theory can further be proved. Nevertheless, there are some who might still be skeptical…
First off, how does one know that the cow emerged from the dolphin? No matter how much evidence there is to support the idea, no one was around to witness this event, so whether or not it happened remains a mystery. Naturally, this is probably why scientists are still at it to prove that an event such as this did occur, since they really don’t have the definitive answers themselves. Even if some guy went so far as to effectively prove that a certain mineral could last for so-and-so billion years, how do they know that that mineral came into play billions of years ago? I could be millions, or just thousands. How can they give a solid answer?
Going back to the cow and the dolphin, let’s say that a scientist (or scientists) stated that the only reason why giraffes aren’t producing hippos, or that bunnies aren’t evolving from crocodiles, is because that complex process took a significant amount of time to gestate (ie., “millions” of years), eventually slowing down over time, until finally “mother Earth” decided that the major aspects of the evolutionary process were complete, and that minor changes were to continue to proceed, resulting in the adjustments in life that we see today. All right. That’s buyable, although I still would like to know why scientists believe that all of this happened, specifically, millions to billions of years ago. I’ve got questions for them, too, ya’ know, such as, “Why did the evolutionary process of species evolving from species suddenly halt?” Personally, I just can’t see a cow coming from a dolphin. I just can’t. And as ludicrous as the thought of a god just being there from the beginning and inventing all of these creatures may sound to someone else, I find it to be more plausible than evolution, primarily because I grew up with the idea (again, this resorts back to opinionated ideas here) and also because the idea is just simpler and, for me, easier to fathom.
There’s also the ever-popular question of, “Where did the universe come from, and how did it originate?” I’m just going to be honest here and say that, to me, I can’t see how something as organized and complex as the universe came about by way of a “Big Bang”. You could argue against this statement of course, and proclaim that my idea of there being a god who created everything we see today is just as ludicrous. All right. So what if it is? Both ideas are ludicrous. If scientists can believe the ridiculous idea of birds evolving from reptiles or that men are related to primates, why can’t I believe the equally unfathomable idea that God exists? In the end, it all comes down to each individual person’s opinion, and what he or she conceives to be true.
My main subject of proof that God exists, and one that I choose to defer to, is faith. Yes, faith is nonsensical (because it deals with belief, and not relying on your senses for proof). Yes, you have to act upon faith in order for it to work. Point is question is that it works, and that’s all the proof I need. I’ve seen it work for family (including myself), witnessed it work for fellow Christians, and heard of it work for friends. I’m gonna keep resorting to this form of proof because it’s one of the only things that (for me, at least) seems to affect people on a personal level and get their attention, especially if they see the effects of faith themselves. It’s just something that can’t be proven by science, yet disproved by witnesses themselves. I’ve heard of many cases (both inside and outside of the church I attend) where a victim of cancer has prayed and believed for divine healing and/or for an upcoming surgery to proceed normally and be successful. Low and behold, the results always come back positive, that the cancer/tumor had vanished when the doctors performed surgery on the patient, or that the surgery itself was a success in that the tumor (or whatever the obstruction may have been) was removed without any problems. As long as that person believes that a good report will come to pass, faith works.
I’m not going to expand on this, since it would be a pointless argument on my part anyway. If I really wanted someone to back me up, I’d invite my dad to take part in these discussions. (You guys would have a field day bouncing theories off of each other, I’m sure.) However, I probably should refrain from doing that.
You can give my mom the credit for making that statement. I just applied it to this discussion. (heh)
– Mitch
Another way of saying this is that you believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution. =)
that’s exactly what i said…