Do you Believe in evolution or creationism?

I'm a Christian, don't get me wrong, but I think Evolution did happen, but something has got to put the things in motion first. I mean you can prove all you want about when we evolved from little goo, but how did the goo get there? And then how did the thing that started the goo get there?

Also, a question I have always had, if Adam and Eve were the only humans and they had two sons, where did their son's wives come from? lol

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the Big Bang, pal.Bio_Spark

It does in a sort of roundabout way.

If the big Bang happened...that means evolution did as well...

If you don't believe a big explosion suddenly created worlds...well, then you probably won't side with evolution either.

I think it is absurd to say that the big bang(?!) happened it just does not make any sense at allishoturface

the big bang and evolution do have something to do with each other if the big bang supposedly happened then the theory of evolution would have neveer come upishoturface

Duh, evolution was thought up before the Big Bang. . .

the big bang and evolution do have something to do with each other if the big bang supposedly happened then the theory of evolution would have neveer come upishoturface

This is going to go to 20 pages plus. If you don't believe in evolution you either don't want to or are ignorant (it's alright to be ignorant, nobody knows everything) I could easily present a wall of text but no one would read it and I'm lazy. Read The Blind Watchmaker, don't be put off by Dawkins, he might not be that much of a philosopher but he's a damn good biologist.

Evolution does not conflict with Christianity in any way, shape or form; and to me there is more beauty in a blind process spanning 3 billion years than some omnipotent deity making everything in 6 days. Evolution does not teach people that they are dirt, Genesis does.

Trying to knock holes in Darwinian evolution does not equal evidence for intelligent design or creationism. I wish more people would understand that simple fact.

I don't see the problem with the big bang theory. surely it would be pretty easy for theists to hijack it into their beliefs?

I think it is absurd to say that the big bang happened it just does not make any sense at allishoturface

I honestly wish I understood why people who believe in Creation can't accept Evolution.

Evolution can be observed. However, you can't observe the effects instantaneously. Since when did that remove something from being a science?

Evolution is a combination of subjects tossed into one, melding in natural selection, along with genetic mutation, along with heredity. (See Wiki for a more eloquent description than I can offer right now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)
There is absolutely no good reason why someone can't believe in both.

God created the Universe.
Things evolve from this point forth. Is that really so hard to believe? We're already assuming some theoretical being that is greater than all things, and refuses to show His or Her face to masses, created all that we know, defying all laws of nature and creation as we know it. How hard could it really be to believe that things evolve?

We can measure all sorts of things in this world. You cannot always measure the effects of evolution, because many times the effects are qualitative opposed to quantitative. (Longer beaks, shorter legs, and larger eyes are quantifiable, but skin color is a bit more difficult to quantify [Not that you can't, it's just an example as to how sticky things eventually become.] ) Another reason that it's difficult to measure the effects of evolution, is because you need to actually be looking for the changes, and measuring them over periods of generations. Sometimes, hundreds of them, in order to see the changes. Statistics say that things tend to congregate at the average, so you'll have to watch the average drift over periods of centuries.

Easy to point out on humans? Not really, since natural selection and other such theories are 20th century advents (For the most part. Especially in the lands of genetics.) and we've not exactly been documenting the heights of particular groups of individuals, and tracking their growth and breeding patterns for decades in order for us to effectively predict the effects, and thus, prove their correctness.

Another hole: All these things are ultimately chance based, much like Quantum mechanics. You run probabilities of certain traits showing up in offspring, not ensuring them. Empirically proving these sorts of things are notoriously difficult.

Edit: Not Enough bang for your buck there?
Try this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

Ok...

the big bang and evolution do have something to do with each other if the big bang supposedly happened then the theory of evolution would have neveer come upishoturface

What are you talking about?

Evolution talks about what happens with life that is already existing. It has nothing to do with the big bang, nor anything to do with the origin of life. Believing that God created the universe in some form is not necessarily incompatible with belief that evolution is factual.

There is no reason not to believe in Evolution.MattUD1

forget all the other post i did im just saying i dont believe in evolution in a very confusing wayishoturface

[QUOTE="MattUD1"]There is no reason not to believe in Evolution.fanofazrienoch

[QUOTE="MattUD1"]There is no reason not to believe in Evolution.fanofazrienoch

I'd imagine he was implying that there is more than enough evidence for it to be the accepted explanation, and no new evidence has challenged it. It would be a pretty stupid thing to say otherwise, but I expect there to be another interpretation as I've known MattUD1 to post very eloquently on this topic

I'm glad this poll is going the way it is, at least.

Bio_Spark

4 votes for creationism is 4 too many people who didn't pay enough attention in biology.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="MattUD1"]There is no reason not to believe in Evolution.Junkie_man

I'd imagine he was implying that there is more than enough evidence for it to be the accepted explanation, and no new evidence has challenged it. It would be a pretty stupid thing to say otherwise, but I expect there to be another interpretation as I've known MattUD1 to post very eloquently on this topic

[QUOTE="ishoturface"]forget all the other post i did I'm just saying i dont believe in evolution in a very confusing wayfanofazrienoch

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="MattUD1"]There is no reason not to believe in Evolution.MattUD1

Such as...

Observed instances of speciation.
Neanderthal genome sequencing
Humans and Neanderthals shared Earth
Transitional fossil FAQ
Transitional fossils of hominid skulls
The Origin of Whales
List of transitional fossils
Hundreds of human genes still evolving
Human and ape chromosomes
Ken Miller talks about the evolution of blood clotting
Ken Miller on Whale Evolution
Ken Miller on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Early Man Couldn't "Stomach" Milk
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Miller-Urey Experiment
The Flagellum Unspun
NASA: Nitrogen, lightning key to early life on Earth
NASA: Scientists Propose New Theory of Early Life on Earth
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Purpose of Appendix Believed Found
Germs Get 'Badder' in Space
Common Ancestor of All Apes Walked Upright
Something Fishy About Human Fingers
Neanderthals Had Language Gene Identical to Ours
Early Humans used Makeup, Ate Seafood
Chimps as Irrationally Possessive as Humans
Earth's Oxygen-Rich Atmosphere Older Than Thought
Climate Change Didn't Kill Neanderthals
Early Humans Could Walk, Not Run
'Baby Talk' Universally Understood
Men With 'Caveman' Faces More Attractive to Women Skull Suggests Two Early Human Species Existed at the Same TimeIntelligent Design on Trial
Are Mutations Harmful?
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
Missing Link Between Fish and Land Animals
Precambrian Fossils
Permian-Triassic Extinction Event
Oldest Homo Sapiens Found, Experts Say
Neanderthals Not our Ancestors, DNA Study Suggests
Cannibalism Normal For Early Humans?
Neanderthals Had Highly Capable Hands, Study Suggests
Did Neanderthals Lack Smarts to Survive?
Java Skull Raises Questions about Human Origins
First Humans in Australia Dated to 50,000 Years Ago
1.8 Million Year-Old Hominid Jaw Found
When Did "Modern Behavior" in Humans Arise?
Fossil Implies Our Early Kin Lived in Trees
Skull Fossil Opens Window Into Early Period of Human Origins
Study Supports Idea That Primates, Dinosaurs Co-Existed
Evolution of the Horse
BBC: Evolution of Man
Darwin's Finches Evolving Fast
Velociraptor Had Feathers
Speciation
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Here's some pics to liven things up (all from the links above except maybe the one about the bat):

Transitional fossils of some of the homo genus skulls:

Onychonycteris finneyi, the earliest known ancestor to the bat and widely considered to be the "link" between terrestial mammals and bats:

"The clawed bat part refers to one of the many intermediate features that make Onychonycteris the most primitive bat species ever described. In all current and prior fossil species of bats, most of the digits in the wing lack the claws typical of mammalian digits. That's not the case here: all Onychonycteris digits end in claws. The hind limbs are also unusually long, as is the tail, but the limb contains a feature that suggests the presence of a skin flap between the hind limbs and the body.

The relatively short wings and long hindlimbs place Onychonycteris outside of all previous bat species in terms of the ratio between its limbs. In fact, a plot of this ratio puts the fossil species neatly between bats and long-armed creatures like sloths—exactly what would be expected from a species at the base of the bat lineage. The authors argue that the configuration of its limbs, combined with the claws, suggests that it would be powerful climber, able to easily scramble around trees when not flying."

Evolution of the horse:

And a general explanation on why the search for the perfect transitional fossil that creationists keep asking for is foolish, misguided, and just overall plain stupid:

Let's compare the evolution of an organism to the aging of a human being. They're comparable since they're both gradual changes over long periods of time. Let's take a random person in their present day form:

And here's another picture of that same person at an earlier point in time:

Now, we can find various intermediate steps between this picture and the first one:

But we're never going to find the precise moment where the baby turns into the current, present day form. Same thing with anatomical features. Its absurd to say that we can find the exact moment at which a paw turned into a flipper.

Anyway, I think that should cover any creationist "arguments" that get tossed around from here on out.

/thread

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="ishoturface"]forget all the other post i did I'm just saying i dont believe in evolution in a very confusing wayishoturface

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="ishoturface"]forget all the other post i did I'm just saying i dont believe in evolution in a very confusing wayishoturface

But being poofed into existence from a speck of dirt is a compliment?

[QUOTE="ishoturface"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="ishoturface"]forget all the other post i did I'm just saying i dont believe in evolution in a very confusing wayDracargen

But being poofed into existence from a speck of dirt is a compliment?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="ishoturface"]forget all the other post i did I'm just saying i dont believe in evolution in a very confusing wayishoturface

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="ishoturface"]forget all the other post i did I'm just saying i dont believe in evolution in a very confusing wayishoturface

Really any more insulting than being a lump of dirt with God's breath in it?

[QUOTE="ishoturface"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="ishoturface"]forget all the other post i did I'm just saying i dont believe in evolution in a very confusing wayJunkie_man

Really any more insulting than being a lump of dirt with God's breath in it?

Having God's breath in something is a very high compliment to that something. . . .the "I find it insulting" argument hinges on the belief that evolution is random and mindless.

Evolution for me. For a God to have created humans in a day then there would have to be no dinosaurs. I think.ColdRush88

[QUOTE="ColdRush88"]Evolution for me. For a God to have created humans in a day then there would have to be no dinosaurs. I think.MattUD1

Are the quotation marks really necessary? I mean, when I'm talking about other deities, I don't say "Vishnu" or "Thor".

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="ColdRush88"]Evolution for me. For a God to have created humans in a day then there would have to be no dinosaurs. I think.ElZilcho90

Are the quotation marks really necessary? I mean, when I'm talking about other deities, I don't say "Vishnu" or "Thor".

[QUOTE="ColdRush88"]Evolution for me. For a God to have created humans in a day then there would have to be no dinosaurs. I think.MattUD1

I'm confused. lol. I've just always argued that if God created the world and humans, then humans came before dinosaurs. Which we know isn't true.

Confusing myself... :?

I think it is absurd to say that the big bang happened it just does not make any sense at allishoturface

It's important to remember that just because something doesn't appear to make sense, doesn't mean that doesn't.

It's also important to understand that all humans know only one thing about life and themselves. And that is they know absolutely nothing at all. SO, since none of us actualy knows enough to come to any kind of logical conclusion about anything why do we bother? Of course logic itself isn't really logical. In other words, does it really matter?