Evolution Vs. Creationism

[McBell]

I would like to repeat the question, Is there any evidence against evolution?

Seems to me that some people are upset because even though the Bible completely agrees with science, they are still unable to present said science without using the Bible.

So it seems that the only evidence against evolution is the Bible and not the science that completely agrees with the Bible.

Now, since the OP has eliminated the Bible as evidence, It seems that Creationists have absolutely nothing to stand on.

Perhaps we could move this thread over a bottomless pit?

 

[outhouse]

I would like to repeat the question, Is there any evidence against evolution?

NO, there is not 1 shred of anything resembling REAL evidence against evolution.

to understand evolution is a direct level of ones education nothing more.

the ignorant uneducated people make imaginitive evidence fit their imaginations needs to rationalize what they simply do not know.

 

[fantome profane]

I get what you are saying, however...

if i was to accept the ToE to the point of believing that animals evolved on this earth rather then were created, and that humans are products of that evolution, then i would have to logically discard my belief in a creator

it would just logically flow from evolution to atheism for me. Im not going to worship something that has been proven to not exist... i dont fly that way

All I can say is to repeat what I have said and others have said. There is no logical contradiction between the theory of evolution and the belief in “God”. Logically there is no reason you would have to discard your belief in a Creator.

Of course I can’t speak to the question of whether the theory of evolution is compatible with your personal religious beliefs or to whether or not believing in evolution would lead you towards atheism. That is between you and your “God”.

But if you will allow me to point out the obvious, this does not address the OP. This is not evidence against evolution. Can you imagine a distinguished scientists approaching the podium at an international science conference and announcing that evolution has been proven false because it contradicts Pegg’s religious beliefs?

 

[Autodidact]

LOL

have you never considered that the reason why creationists are convinced in creation is because of what they find in the bible and how the bible marries up with known scientific facts?


telling creationist they cannot use the bible is like telling an evolutionist they cannot use science

:slap:

Exactly. There are two kinds of people, those who accept science, and those who reject it in favor of Biblical literalism. The former gets you the Theory of Evolution (ToE.) The latter gets you Young Earth Creationism.

I will point out to the latter group that historically, science has a pretty good track record, and they might want to consider changing their theology to one that accommodates it.

 

[Autodidact]

i'd like to, but the OP specifically says only 'evidence' can be used and 'the bible is not considered a valid source'

so hey, that kind of leaves creationists out of the debate.

:sarcastic

Yup. When all you can use is science, creationists are out of the debate.

 

[Autodidact]

how about the part that shows us how life began?

Not a part of ToE. I have a feeling this has been explained to you before.

 

[Autodidact]

yes i know its a different topic

but one that is not mutually exclusive from evolution because without one you cannot have the other

It doesn't matter. It makes no difference to ToE how the first living thing got here. We can all pretend that your God magically zapped it into existence. Now we look at the next question: how did we get the diversity of species on earth?

Why do creationists find this rather simple idea so difficult to grasp?

 

[Autodidact]

I can agree with you to a point. However, you should realize that this is what makes creationists so skeptical of evolution in the first place.

Well that's stupid. On the one hand you have a question that we've figured out. On the other hand you have one we haven't. And for some reason that makes you doubt the former? That makes no sense. If you use that approach, science can never figure anything out, unless it figures out everything at the same time, which is exactly not how science proceeds.

 

[Autodidact]

I can agree with you to a point. However, you should realize that this is what makes creationists so skeptical of evolution in the first place.

We see things from the point of view of 'where they started' ... evolutionists see things from the point of view of 'where they are right now' and dont seem to be concerned with how they got there, iow, evolution is purely materialistic.

Yeah, because it's science. All of science proceeds on the assumption of methodological naturalism.

 

[Autodidact]

organisms can adapt to their environments, adapt their eating habits and modify themselves as needed...this is all within the realms of possibility

How?

but genetics and dna will never allow the organism to become something its not... it cannot change so much that it becomes something entirely new.

You're right. There is nothing entirely new on the planet. Every organism is a modified previous organism. We're all made out of exactly the same chemicals. We all have the same reproductive mechanism. If there were something "entirely new," it would disprove ToE.

 

[Autodidact]

yes i agree with that. I believe in evolution up to a point...only to the point where evolution says that one animal slowly changes into something entirely different [/qutoe] It doesn't say that. It says that a population slowly changes into one that is slightly different.

[qutoe]The dna allows for great 'variety' within each type of animal... but it doesnt allow it to become a completely different type of animal.

Really? How does that work? How does the DNA allow for "variety" within a type of animal? For example, when nylon had never existed, and no animal on earth could eat it, how did the bacteria's DNA allow it to develop the ability to digest it?

 

[Autodidact]

genetics.

Could you be a little more vague?

 

[McBell]

Why do creationists find this rather simple idea so difficult to grasp?

I suspect that it is because said idea cuts their legs right out from under them.

 

[Autodidact]

because if the universe and living things originated by pure chance or undirected causes, then it removes the need for a creator all together.

Uh, that's interesting. Of course, it has nothing to do with evolution, so I'm not sure why you're sharing it here. Do you know what ToE actually is?

The God who is said to be the creator of all things (whoever the God may be to you) is no longer the creator at all... if he's not the creator, then why worship him, why adopt his views and why give him any acknowledgment at all? Religion, any religion, becomes the construct of man because there is no creator.

Because it's not possible for God to think up evolution as a way to create diversity?

 

[ellenjanuary]

Evidence for: I have two books - Evolution by Larsen and River out of Eden by Dawkins.

Evidence against: Ain't no. Evolution may or may not uncover evidence for panspermia or directed panspermia; which is to say, I have a fondness for the latter, but currently it is not quite science. Creationism is entertainment, nothing more

Oh, I guess I should put that in there - scientific evidence for and against.

 

[Autodidact]

because if the universe and living things originated by pure chance or undirected causes, then it removes the need for a creator all together. The God who is said to be the creator of all things (whoever the God may be to you) is no longer the creator at all... if he's not the creator, then why worship him, why adopt his views and why give him any acknowledgment at all? Religion, any religion, becomes the construct of man because there is no creator.

yep i dont have a problem with that at all, what i have a problem with is when those generations are said to slowly develop new features which its earlier parents didnt have... such as scales that became feathers or fins that became feet

Why? What does the evidence show?

thats what i meant by 'variety within a type' of animal. We've bred miniture horses from large horses through selective breeding and hairless cats from hairy cats and short nosed dogs from long nosed dogs

O.K. now imagine for a moment an island with nothing but chihuahuas on it, and another one with nothing but Great Danes. Now imagine 10,000 years go by, with the two populations separated. Might it be possible that at the end of that time the two populations would not be able to breed with each other?

but the thing with selective breeding is that the horse is still a horse, the cat is still a cat and the dog is still a dog

Until it isn't.

 

[Autodidact]

I get what you are saying, however...

if i was to accept the ToE to the point of believing that animals evolved on this earth rather then were created, and that humans are products of that evolution, then i would have to logically discard my belief in a creator

it would just logically flow from evolution to atheism for me. Im not going to worship something that has been proven to not exist... i dont fly that way

And this is why YEC is so destructive to Christianity and religious belief. Because ToE is clearly, obviously, correct. The only way to refuse to believe it is to reject science itself. Thus, when a YEC learns the truth, they become atheists.

 

[Pegg]

Really? How does that work? How does the DNA allow for "variety" within a type of animal? For example, when nylon had never existed, and no animal on earth could eat it, how did the bacteria's DNA allow it to develop the ability to digest it?

excuse my ignorance here, but whats so remarkable about bacteria that can eat nylon? How does it prove that one creature can be changed into another?

the bacteria was still bacteria, yes?

 

[Autodidact]

excuse my ignorance here, but whats so remarkable about bacteria that can eat nylon? How does it prove that one creature can be changed into another?

the bacteria was still bacteria, yes?

I'm not trying to insult you when I say this, Pegg, but you are ignorant. I'm glad you realize it. You know very little Biology. Which is fine, you don't need to. Unless you're trying to refute its foundational theory. To do that without even knowing the first thing is the height of arrogance, and doomed to failure, don't you agree?

"Bacteria" is a huge group of organisms, comprising at least an entire Domain. So it's as if you had said, "A moose is still a slime mold, isn't it, so what's the big deal?" The question doesn't even make sense.

Anyway, it's a new species of bacteria. It evolved in the outflow from a nylon factory. The new species had the ability to do something no previously existing species did, which was to digest and live on nylon. It's a simple demonstration of evolution in action, and it's pretty neat, if you like Biology.

 

[fantome profane]

excuse my ignorance here, but whats so remarkable about bacteria that can eat nylon? How does it prove that one creature can be changed into another?

the bacteria was still bacteria, yes?

The point is that the often made claim that evolution cannot create new functions is obviously untrue.