Evolution or Creationism

[The_Dude 1,142]

Evo, Evo, No

I really dislike the whole jesus pony storyline. No, dinosaurs weren't in the garden of eden, and Jesus didn't ride a T-Rex.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Rob & Mel

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

ET did it.

[Zero Sum 305]

I really dislike the whole jesus pony storyline. No, dinosaurs weren't in the garden of eden, and Jesus didn't ride a T-Rex.

I have sources that tell me it wasn't a T-Rex, but a Dragon.

[EvilEmmy 1]

I believe in evolution over creationism,

They should both be taught so that people can understand both aspects not just one or the other.

No it's a belief.

My personal view yes I understond both evolution and creationism, I was origionally raised as a child to be religious in my early years until I went through several life changing events me and my family decided we no longer wish to continue following religion or any kind and deem ourselves athiests.

So I was taught the barebasics of creationism though not devoutely as my parents were religious but not overly so. But I feel that evolution is more apt for explaining life and animals. My fiance is not religious either though I think his parents have somewhat raised his children in the religious faith (complicated story they lived with his parents for a short time) thus not teaching the children both aspects. I spent time talking to his son and daughter (9-10) 1 year age gap between them and the son believes god is the creator of all and will not accept any other viewpoint and was almost in horror that I disagreed . However his daughter is open to other ideas. I know they are young but it saddens me when I see such inbuilt conviction that only one thing is acceptable without exploring alternative ideas. Whenever religion is now mentioned I just say leave the matter at the door I'm not religious. This usually stops any but but oh but. I may be youngish but i've done that talk too many times. I respect that everyone has their own choice and which one the believe in but I'd rather if I had children that they came to their own conclusion on which one they deem suitable to them not to be taught only one idea.

Apologies if I offend anyone it's not my intention just stating how I feel

[Xinh_Will 1]

Evolution, evolution, belief.

[Mare-n-Tram 1]

Why is evolution and creation 2 apposing theories? I really think that the only way you can clearly make them apposed is if you believe big bang vs. intelligent design. Otherwise they can together answer all questions about life. I think its closed minded to shut off that which science cant explain. I mean big bang theory is on its way out as red shift has been disproved over and over again in the last 5 years. Because of the consistency of our physical laws i would say that even occums razor is on the side of intelligent design as they both equally explain cosmology however intelligent design doesn't ask the universe to act outside its own nature, where as big bang does. Thus intelligent design is a superior theory philosophically. Neither are scientific because neither can be tested or have the scientific method performed.

All that being said there are alot of things that evolution cant explain, however when you combine creation theory to evolution suddenly the world makes alot of sense. This doesnt mean you have to join a religion or anything, in fact most people i know are agnostic purely because they realize that there are gaps in science that can be filled only by something greater.

[The Dude 206]

Why is evolution and creation 2 apposing theories? I really think that the only way you can clearly make them apposed is if you believe big bang vs. intelligent design. Otherwise they can together answer all questions about life. I think its closed minded to shut off that which science cant explain. I mean big bang theory is on its way out as red shift has been disproved over and over again in the last 5 years. Because of the consistency of our physical laws i would say that even occums razor is on the side of intelligent design as they both equally explain cosmology however intelligent design doesn't ask the universe to act outside its own nature, where as big bang does. Thus intelligent design is a superior theory philosophically. Neither are scientific because neither can be tested or have the scientific method performed.

All that being said there are alot of things that evolution cant explain, however when you combine creation theory to evolution suddenly the world makes alot of sense. This doesnt mean you have to join a religion or anything, in fact most people i know are agnostic purely because they realize that there are gaps in science that can be filled only by something greater.

Sorry, but creationism does not compliment evolution or vice versa. It's scary that 20% of the respondents in this poll feel that creationism is remotely scientific.

[Mare-n-Tram 1]

Sorry, but creationism does not compliment evolution or vice versa. It's scary that 20% of the respondents in this poll feel that creationism is remotely scientific.

You obviously didnt read what i wrote. Evolution does not address cosmology nor does it conflict with creationist views.

[The Dude 206]

You obviously didnt read what i wrote. Evolution does not address cosmology nor does it conflict with creationist views.

Evolution doens't conflict with creationist views? Seriously? You might want to take a look at what the two are again.

[Mare-n-Tram 1]

Evolution doens't conflict with creationist views? Seriously? You might want to take a look at what the two are again.

Creation is a term used for the belief that there is a great creator. This can refer to monotheistic or polytheistic religions. Creation is an answer for cosmology, the origin of the universe. Evolution does not deal with cosmology unless you are specifically referring to the big bang theory, which i have already stated. If you have done your research you would see that big bang is increasingly seaming more unrealistic. Red Shift theory has been proven wrong because of the fact that there has been Quasars found in-between galaxies, which would be impossible if red shift was correct. There have been many other examples of this that have proven essentially that big bang is not possible. There for we must look at alternative philosophies, and the only world view that doesn't ask the universe to act outside of the laws and rules that it seems to act by is intelligent design.

I would appreciate if you would give me any example of how creationism and evolution cant coexist? Especially on terms of small cell evolution that we see every day, for example bacteria adapting to combat anti-biotics. Macro evolution however I believe ONLY makes sense if you throw a creator in the mix, otherwise its impossible. It would require too many cases of simultaneous evolutions happening not just at the same time but in the same place. The odds are against the supposed age of life.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Mare-n-Tram

[The Dude 206]

Creation is a term used for the belief that there is a great creator. This can refer to monotheistic or polytheistic religions. Creation is an answer for cosmology, the origin of the universe. Evolution does not deal with cosmology unless you are specifically referring to the big bang theory, which i have already stated. If you have done your research you would see that big bang is increasingly seaming more unrealistic. Red Shift theory has been proven wrong because of the fact that there has been Quasars found in-between galaxies, which would be impossible if red shift was correct. There have been many other examples of this that have proven essentially that big bang is not possible. There for we must look at alternative philosophies, and the only world view that doesn't ask the universe to act outside of the laws and rules that it seems to act by is intelligent design.

I would appreciate if you would give me any example of how creationism and evolution cant coexist? Especially on terms of small cell evolution that we see every day, for example bacteria adapting to combat anti-biotics. Macro evolution however I believe ONLY makes sense if you throw a creator in the mix, otherwise its impossible. It would require too many cases of simultaneous evolutions happening not just at the same time but in the same place. The odds are against the supposed age of life.

Creationism itself is a fallacy. There is no scientific method to it and is entirely predicated on your personal faith in an unverifiable science fiction story. Creationism does not attempt to seriously answer any questions that lie outside of the framework of the religious notions.

Where can evolution and creationism not coexist? Lets start at the beginning then.

[isleta521 5]

I believe that everyone should believe in something.

I believe that I will have an Ice Cold Beer tonight after work / after working out.