Why " evolution vs creationism"

[A REAL CHRISTIAN]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"? This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment. But creationists DO accept these things. Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

 

[Sapiens]

Trollin', trollin', trollin, keep them doggies trollin', keep them doggies trollin'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"? This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment. But creationists DO accept these things. Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

Since that would be a strawman of evolution it would be a fallacy.

Why not Reality (evolution) against myth (creationism). Only one side is supported by scientific evidence.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"? This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment. But creationists DO accept these things. Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

How did you know that was going to be the name we were going to run with before we discovered software character limits?

 

[David T]

STAR TREK!!! A comicon debate about the teleporter. On both sides coequally btw.

Out of nothing vs outside reality is an accurate framing of the debate.

 

[Valjean]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"? This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment. But creationists DO accept these things. Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

Misleading.
Creationists don't believe small changes can accumulate. They don't believe small changes over time can create new species.
And "evolutionists" do not believe that new things materialize out of nowhere.

The difference is: one side believes in familiar, natural, observable, testable processes.
The other side believes in magic.

 

[Skwim]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"?

Good question because, in main, those who accept biological evolution couldn't care less what creationists think, and wouldn't oppose a thing they had to say if they kept to themselves, whereas the creationist raison d'etre is to oppose evolution. So, a more accurate title would be "creationism vs evolution." Creationism is challenging evolution, not the other way around.

This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment. But creationists DO accept these things. Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

Nope. Evolution as it stands in opposition to creationism posits the evolution of species, whereas creationism denies such evolution.

.

.

 

[Estro Felino]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"? This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment. But creationists DO accept these things. Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

U mean...that a God somewhere wanted weird squirrels to develop wings and become blood-loving vampires?
no..

 

[Ellen Brown]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"? This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment. But creationists DO accept these things. Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

Just quickly looked at the replies. Hmmm. Could we define Creationism and Evolution? People are sometimes deliberately obtuse for their own snotty reasons. I've generally felt that Evolution is loosely correct with the caveat that an intelligence controlled it. It is likely that the Evolution process has gone on since the origin of the first living cell. And, it seems clear that Evolution is no accident, though perhaps not manipulated as much as some think?

All this must be more difficult than it seems. It is nothing like breeding Dogs is it? I just don't think that humans are even close to being done cooking in the cauldron.

It makes me sad that even putting the two terms in the same paper seems to be an open invitation for a drunken donnybrook, and a right good bashing at that.

 

[Misunderstood]

I do agree with most of what you say, but I do not feel that we will get to far in this forum other than to be called names or have our intelligence questioned. It seems the argument is evolution vs creation, and no matter how hard you try to get away from that label it will get moved back to that argument, and as long as it does Creationist's lose. Because parts of evolution can be classed as facts, the argument goes in the direction that there is evidence for parts of evolution, so all of evolution is true.

I feel creation is a separate thing from evolution. Creation says how life started, evolution says how life evolved. As far as I know evolution has no testable observations that prove how life started.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do agree with most of what you say, but I do not feel that we will get to far in this forum other than to be called names or have our intelligence questioned. It seems the argument is evolution vs creation, and no matter how hard you try to get away from that label it will get moved back to that argument, and as long as it does Creationist's lose. Because parts of evolution can be classed as facts, the argument goes in the direction that there is evidence for parts of evolution, so all of evolution is true.

I feel creation is a separate thing from evolution. Creation says how life started, evolution says how life evolved. As far as I know evolution has no testable observations that prove how life started.

Let me clarify a bit. There is massive evidence for almost every part of evolution and none for creationism, so evolution is taken to be true.

As to the origin of life that is a different subject than evolution so of course evolution has nothing to say about abiogenesis. And though there is no single overarching test for it the concept has been broken down into separate problems. Many of the different parts have answers that have been shown to be possible. Some of the different parts have more than one way it could have happened so we are unlikely to ever know the exact path from nonlife to life. But Once again there is evidence for a natural path and none for the creation path.

 

[Altfish]

I do agree with most of what you say, but I do not feel that we will get to far in this forum other than to be called names or have our intelligence questioned. It seems the argument is evolution vs creation, and no matter how hard you try to get away from that label it will get moved back to that argument, and as long as it does Creationist's lose. Because parts of evolution can be classed as facts, the argument goes in the direction that there is evidence for parts of evolution, so all of evolution is true.

I feel creation is a separate thing from evolution. Creation says how life started, evolution says how life evolved. As far as I know evolution has no testable observations that prove how life started.

Evolution says nothing about how life started; that is Abiogenesis.. So why would evolution say anything about how life started, it is a separate topic.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"? This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment. But creationists DO accept these things. Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

No, because that would not have a connection to reality.

 

[Misunderstood]

Let me clarify a bit. There is massive evidence for almost every part of evolution and none for creationism, so evolution is taken to be true.

As to the origin of life that is a different subject than evolution so of course evolution has nothing to say about abiogenesis. And though there is no single overarching test for it the concept has been broken down into separate problems. Many of the different parts have answers that have been shown to be possible. Some of the different parts have more than one way it could have happened so we are unlikely to ever know the exact path from nonlife to life. But Once again there is evidence for a natural path and none for the creation path.

Evolution says nothing about how life started; that is Abiogenesis.. So why would evolution say anything about how life started, it is a separate topic.

Thank you, I think you both have helped make my point. Life from what I understand of it, even Creationists feel life is not the same as it was in the beginning; it has changed. So I feel both Creationists and Non Creationists believe in evolution, maybe to different degrees, but all do. So I feel it is futile to argue evolution vs creation. Creation is about how life started, and as Artfish says non creationists would go with Abiogenesis or some other beginning of life theory.

 

[Altfish]

Thank you, I think you both have helped make my point. Life from what I understand of it, even Creationists feel life is not the same as it was in the beginning; it has changed. So I feel both Creationists and Non Creationists believe in evolution, maybe to different degrees, but all do. So I feel it is futile to argue evolution vs creation. Creation is about how life started, and as Artfish says non creationists would go with Abiogenesis or some other beginning of life theory.

But how many Creationists believe that humans and monkeys are related?
That humans and fish are related?

 

[FearGod]

Misleading.
Creationists don't believe small changes can accumulate. They don't believe small changes over time can create new species.
And "evolutionists" do not believe that new things materialize out of nowhere.

The difference is: one side believes in familiar, natural, observable, testable processes.
The other side believes in magic.

How nature came to existence out of nowhere?of course not magic, so
explain how nature came to existence from no material of any kind compared
to what we're observing now?

 

[FearGod]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"? This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment. But creationists DO accept these things. Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

I believe it should be named Creator vs magic.

 

[HonestJoe]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"?

Because they needed somewhere to put all the posts by “creationists” attacking evolution (as they perceive it) under the false impression that disproving evolution somehow supported their specific creationist beliefs. It’s stupid title because they’re stupid arguments.

This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment. But creationists DO accept these things.

Some do, some don’t. Some refuse to address that question at all. Some don’t even seem to understand it. Quite a lot are just trolling.

Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

No, not least because “believing things materialise out of nowhere” is more likely to be in support of creationism as it is against it. Ultimately it shouldn’t matter what the exact wording of the sub-forum title is though, it doesn’t prevent anyone from posting serious, well-thought out, honest opinions on this general area of discussion. There may be other factors preventing you from doing that, but the sub-forum title isn’t one of them.

 

[Misunderstood]

But how many Creationists believe that humans and monkeys are related?
That humans and fish are related?

To tell you the truth I really don't know. I guess we could set up a poll. But even that would depend on the question. Are man, monkeys and fish related because they were all created by God? I imagine the response would show a high amount of Christians answering yes. Or could God have used similar DNA in all life forms. I would assume again a lot would answer yes to the possibility.

But a couple of questions for you. Do you feel all life on earth here evolved from one organism? Couldn't more than one organism started life off here on earth with different DNA, making the plants, mammals, fishes, and other life forms?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe it should be named Creator vs magic.

No, you believe in magic. That is what creationism is. Trying to understand how life arose is the opposite of magic.