Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope. Evolution is FACT. Darwinism may have a hole here and there, but we know for a fact that we evolved out of earlier species, as did everything else around us. This is not in question.
Our DNA is 99.9% the same as apes, meaning that our ancestors shared similar DNA to that of apes. If you don't believe in Evolution then you may aswell believe that the Earth is flat.
Dude, you're arguing with the wrong guy. I agree with you. I believe in evolution. I just don't think the fact of evolution negates the existence of a creator. Hammers and chisels do not negate the sculptor. They are the means by which the sculptor sculpts.
I believe evolution is a fact. The evidence found in the fossil record, modern scientific observation, and even DNA is just overwhelming.
The theory of natural selection...? Now that one is still open to debate as far as I'm concerned.
Irishmom's original question for the thread was if evolution and creationism might both be true in the sense that God is the cause of evolution. I don't believe that to be the case but I stated earlier that it's at least a reasonable point of view for a religious person to take. It seems to me that scientific discoveries over the past few hundred years have caused a major rift between science and religion because science has explained things that had been thought to be the work of God. This creates a dilema because it gives God less and less to do until you reach a point where he doesn't even fit into the picture. That is what I feel is troubling religious people. If the current state of our universe can be completely explained by natural phenomenon then what is the purpose of a God? To be honest it has convinced me that he simply doesn't exist. I don't expect deeply religious people to agree with that statement and I think many of them who are logical and use reason to make decisions must find it troubling that there doesn't seem to be a clear cut explanation for what God is and what he actually does.
How can it be that we have evolved from wearing fig leafs to wearing business suits acceptable
but being created as cromagnum (sp) man and evolving to Homo sapien isn't
I agree with you. I believe in evolution. I just don't think the fact of evolution negates the existence of a creator. Hammers and chisels do not negate the sculptor. They are the means by which the sculptor sculpts.
I believe evolution is a fact. The evidence found in the fossil record, modern scientific observation, and even DNA is just overwhelming.
The theory of natural selection...? Now that one is still open to debate as far as I'm concerned.
I think that evolution is a possibility, (though I'm not convinced of it, ), but like yourself, I don't think it negates a Creator. I liked your analogy of the sculpter. Makes sense to me, if you figure that some sculpters may whip out a piece of art in a short matter of time, yet another one may take years to do so. But, in either case, they are creating.
Dude, you're arguing with the wrong guy. I agree with you. I believe in evolution. I just don't think the fact of evolution negates the existence of a creator. Hammers and chisels do not negate the sculptor. They are the means by which the sculptor sculpts.
I believe evolution is a fact. The evidence found in the fossil record, modern scientific observation, and even DNA is just overwhelming.
The theory of natural selection...? Now that one is still open to debate as far as I'm concerned.
Ummm..natural selection IS the tool here, not evolution. Evolution is only the name of the process of change. To argue against natural selection, you are arguing against the existence of one of two "chisels that made the statue," so to speak. Natural selection, along with random mutation, are as much facts as the idea of evolution itself. There are no viable scientific arguments out there that have even remotely challenged natural selection and random mutation as the primary (if not only) tools behind the evolutionary process itself.
HipOnHop is correct with his description of natural selection. It is the active force that allows evolution to proceed. Natural selection is simply the accumulation of many tiny changes in an organism that give it an advantage to survive while other members of the same species might not have those specific traits and are gradually weeded out because they can't compete for resources. This can be something as insignificant as the size of the beak of a bird or the coloring of an insect. If a physical trait is helpful in survival it's more likely to be passed along to future generations until all of the species have acquired the desireable trait. This is an ongoing process and as the habitats of organisms change over time the organisms who happen to possess any small ability that will aid it's survival it's going to become more prevelent in the genetic makeup of future generations.
Evolution has been the widely accepted scientific theory of how we got here. It is backed up by science.
Creationism has been the religious explanation as to how we got here. Not just in the Christian religion but many others have relied on the use of Gods and Godesses to explain why things are.
Evolution is undoubtedly the most plausible way to explain the question: How did we get here?
My question for debate: Why can't it be both? Why can't evolution have been God's way of creation? In my mind there was no clock measuring how long a day was, so why can't evolution be accepted by religion as to how we got here?
My personal belief of why it can't be both:
The Bible states Adam and then Eve were special creations, apart from animals. (This is even leaving out the "age" question of when this occurred.) They were part of a "very good", i.e. perfect, creation with no pain, suffereing or death. Death was a curse placed on mankind because of his disobedience of God. The shedding of blood (death by sacrafice) was necssary in the OT for the forgiveness of sin and to reconcile us to God. Jesus came to earth, shed his blood and died (sacrafice on the cross) to be the ultimate sacrafice for mankind so that if we believe in him we will be reconciled to God once and for all. His resurrection from the grave gave believers victory over death and the promise of eternal life and the world/creation being restored once again to the "very good" creation as it was before sin entered the world through Adam; no more pain, suffering or death.
Evolution says we evolved from a single cell into apes then into humans. This evolution from goo to ape to man, according to evolutionists, means millions of years of death and suffering before the appearance of man and man's fall into sin. Death was commonplace and not a punishment. This millons of years of death before sin negates the reason for salvation through Christ. Evolution is used to explain the origin of life without a creator (God). If there was death before sin, what was the purpose of Christ's death on the cross? According to evolutionists there isn't. When He returns, we'll all be restored to what, a period of death and struggle and survival of the fittest again? This is what it would be if evolution were the means of our origin.
It is inconsistent to try to merge the two together as they are exclusive of each other. If you interpret Genesis' creation account to include evolution, then you have to "re-interpret" many, many other parts of the Bible to "fit" this idea. It distorts the Word of God.
Evolution is not science, but a belief, a framework of thought, to interpret evidence (fossils, etc.) and what we see now and tries to use scientific methods to explain the past starting from the viewpoint of no God.
Biblical creationism uses the same evidence and the same science, but springs from the belief, the framework of the Bible, that there is a creator God.
ok your opinion said he was homosapien
but were in the Bible did it say he was homosapien
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), but like yourself, I don't think it negates a Creator. I liked your analogy of the sculpter. Makes sense to me, if you figure that some sculpters may whip out a piece of art in a short matter of time, yet another one may take years to do so. But, in either case, they are creating.
