Evolution VS. Creationism

[anarchyadvance]

I am Slightly Confused Right now. I was an Atheist. I thought Evolution was scientificly sound. but recently I realized that evolution is about as risky as believing in god. There is a seriuous lack of transitional fossils that would help the evolution case. But there is the matter of logic for the existince of a god. I just want some opinion.

[Recidivist]

Right now evolution is the most logical way to describe the way that life on earth works. Microevolution has been observed in many different settings by many different scientists. There are very few people (even religious people) who would deny the existence of microevolution. It would be a bit like denying the existence of gravity.

The problem with transitional forms between different fossil species is a difficult one. On the one hand, you've got the idea that only a tiny percentage of all fossils that exist must have been found, coupled with the fact that there just isn't that much money going into fossil research (as compared to say, genetic research. On the other hand, you have the people who, whenever a transitional form is found between two already known fossil forms look at it and exclaim "Look! Now there's two gaps you have to explain instead of one!"

As for Christianity (I'm assuming you're talking about christianity, since you mentioned god), there's no reason why you should think that evolution and christianity contradict each other. The bible can be seen as a very metaphorical book of ancient culture and mythology as well as religion, and if you can reconcile that view, there's no conflict.

The problem with denying evolution and assuming that everything just popped out of nowhere due to the whims of some deity is that by doing so you have really explained nothing at all. There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this is the case (besides blind faith). I prefer to stick with the explanation that makes the most sense, and right now that is evolution.

[Galen]

quote:Originally posted by anarchyadvance:

I am Slightly Confused Right now. I was an Atheist. I thought Evolution was scientificly sound. but recently I realized that evolution is about as risky as believing in god. There is a seriuous lack of transitional fossils that would help the evolution case. But there is the matter of logic for the existince of a god. I just want some opinion.

I believe that evolution makes the most sense out of any of the current theories available. Just the simple fact that you can argue for adaptation gives me more faith in evolution than saying <joke> that everything was compiled in God's version of Microsoft Visual C++. </joke> Adaptation gives me the impression that in the grand scheme of things we have evolved to adapt to changes that the world has endured through its existence.

[crunked]

I prefer to think there is a God. I am not too scientific minded, though I do have a penchant for archeology. I guess the most important reason I hold to christian theology is for afterlife. I hate to think we are only an unimportant mass that will die and that is all there is to it. Life is surely more than that, or why live?

I found a great arrowhead that seems to date to the middle archaic timeline of northeast texas.

[Kikey_Kikeowitz]

Apples and organges, but they're both fruit.

Both evolution and creationism require big leaps of faith to believe in them.

The truth is, we'll never know the real source of everything.

Personally, I think God did that. Another of his bullshit jokes.

I don't think creation and evolution need be seperate concepts, however. Perhaps God created evolution.

[Tyrant]

The pastor at my local church said he believed in micro-evolution, and that it was conceivable that we were much different before the Ice Age. However, he didn't believe in Macro-evolution - that one species turned into a completely different species, regardless of genetic similarity.

I remember piecing together the connection between the Bible and Evolution - the "fall from grace."

When Satan tempted Eve with the apple, he tempted her by saying the words "Eritis sicut Deus, scientes bonum et malum," which is Latin for "You will be as God, knowing good and evil." The knowledge of the difference between good and evil is the budding ground for conscious thought - we attribute a super-natural value to certain actions, concepts, and physical things. Other animals can't do that.

Once Adam and Eve bit into the apple (thanks to Spirit of '22 for pointing this out a long time ago), the first thing they did was realize they were naked and hide. Animals don't care that they're naked; however, every Homo sapien sapiens civilization has a way to mask sexual signals.

Then, of course, there's the alternative perspective that Adam and Eve procreated, for which "biting into the Fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" was a metaphor - which they afterwards saw shame in and covered themselves.

Just some viewpoints that popped up into my head thinking about the evolution/creationism thing.

Ed: typo

[This message has been edited by Tyrant (edited 10-08-2003).]

[My-Excuse]

heres some word for thought:

everything is made from matter but where did matter come from.

the creation of anything is both spiritual and scientific.

also if a god DID create matter then who created the god?? hmm interesting, no?

[Dark_Magneto]

Actually, evolution has been proven beyond any level of reasonable doubt and takes no amount of faith whatsoever.

Endogenous retroviruses (ERV's) are a slam dunk case. All related organisms have them in the exact same locus in the genetic sequence.

It also has the potential to falsify evolution. If one could show an ERV in completely unrelated organisms that were from different spectrums on the phylogenic tree (for instance, a cow-shark) it would prove evolution false immediately.

The fact that ERV's do nothing but corroborate the fossil record speaks volumes. The chance of 2 ERV's being the same by random chance alone in two organisms in the same exact spot is 1 in 3 billion. If you take into account that only related species have the same ERV's in the same spots, then it is infinitely more likely that evolution is true and these organisms were the result of common descent with modification than the astronomical chance of all ERV's being products of random chance alone, and only affecting related organisms the same way and giving an appearance that they are all related.

Probability isn't even an issue here. To say ERV's are the result of chance and just happens to coincide with the evolutionary tree would be like saying that gravity is actually invisible undetectable angels manipulating everything (pushing the planets, pulling things in, black holes, etc) and that it gives the illusion of gravity.

[teddybear]

There is nothing really contradicting in scientific and biblical explanations of creation.

The Big Bang, evolution and other (well proven) theories tell us _how_ we ended up here. On the other hand the Bible tells us _why_ we are here and what we are supposed to do. (at least if you are a Christian)

Creationists are one branch of stupid and insecure people who are afraid of thinking with their own brains or taking responsibility from their choices. They seem to need exact manual for their lives.

The problem with that is that the Bible is extremely metaphorical and was written long time ago (the New Testament 2000 years ago and the Old Testament is even older) when world situation, customs and cultures were totally different from ours today. So it makes very bad exact manual.

-teddybear

[zorro420]

quote:Originally posted by crunked:

I hate to think we are only an unimportant mass that will die and that is all there is to it.

Unfortunately, your preference doesn't change what is reality. Things may not be the way you'd hoped, but you have to deal with it, rather than "believe" something just because you don't like reality.