Creationism vs. Evolution

I give up trying to explain evolution to people, those who want to understand do understand, those that don't want to understand and want to just blindly "believe" already have their minds made up. I think it's really unfortunate that so many people are either willing to just believe what somebody else tells them or they are so inflexible that they aren't willing to accept that they are wrong. For the recent post about "flapping your wings", no insult but you are never going to "get it" about evolution if that's how you think it happens.

Lets put it another way: if evolution doesn't actually exist, please explain to me how there are new forms of tuberculosis that are now resistant to most antibiotics? It's still the same bacteria if there's no evolution, so what changed?

 

x2

 

give it time hodgey, there are many discoveries every year that prove evolution and then later are disproven.

your first paragraph is my words exactly, except from me it would be in reference to evolution instead of creation.

in reference to you final question....that is not evolution, that is ADAPTATION. you even said yourself, "it's still the same bacteria".

 

Can you really blame them? I'm mean come on, just 60 years ago scientists thought there were highways on Mars. Really. Science doesn't even know what causes the colors in the bands of Jupiter. There are huge gaps in chaining all creatures through their evolutionary process, and the radiometric methods they use are flawed. Yet science often passes the big bang theory, dark matter, phylogenetics theory and other hypotheses as fact. Just like creationists, evolutionists are too stubborn to say, "We just don't know."

I believe God (or whatever you want to call it) created all that we know with the ability to evolve on its own.

 

Evolution is simply adaptation/natural selection over time. Oh and the Big Bang THEORY should not be taken as fact...hence the word theory.

 

First off, im suprised that this thread isnt more out of hand, which is always good for discussion. Second, heres my two cents. Hopefully they dont end up on the train tracks

are you identical to your parents? were they identical to their parents?

are you children identical to you? my guess is no.

this subtle genetic variation over extended periods of time is what causes evolution. quite simple really. when your environment changes, some of these genetic variations will help you survive, some will help you die. over time, those of us with the more useful variations begin to replace those with detrimental variations.

take an easy example- humans of different races. why are Irish pale and Kenyans dark? again this is simple- Ireland is cold and cloudy, Kenya is hot and sunny. ancestral Irish who had paler skin could absorb more vitamin D, ensuring a greater chance of survival. ancestral Kenyans who had darker skin could better withstand the intense sun, ensuring a greater chance of survival. The environmental conditions had a MUCH larger impact on our lives back in the days before bottled orange juice, suntan lotion, and Priuses- and this is why inhabitants of these regions are still around today: They adapted to their environment.

This same concept can be applied accross the board to all living creatures, lending clear cut credibility to the theory of evolution.

How else do you explain different races of people? If all of us are descendants of ONLY Adam and Eve, why are people on earth all different colors, shapes and sizes? Was there 2nd or even 3rd set of "first people" that the Bible fails to mention? Why do I have a red beard, and the man sitting next to me has a black beard, and the man sitting next to him cant grow a beard?

These are all questions Creationism cant answer.

This argument also raises another thought provoking question- have our technological advancements hindered our ability to adapt to our environment? Will we as humans cease to evolve due to our ability to control our environment with climate controlling HVAC, vaccines, nuclear power, etc. It has taken hundreds of thousands of years to get to where we are today, how will the last 100 years of technology affect us going forward? This is the question that science seeks to answer- whats next?


disclaimer: it is not my goal to open up a racial can of worms, or offend any Kenyans/Irish/people without red beards, but this is a solid example which can be easily observed. And I am interested to read a coherent rebuttal.

edit: disclaimer #2- i havent read the whole thread yet, so im not sure if im duplicating anyones argument. also not my intention to be redundant. carry on

 

THIS POST IS EPIC. That is all

 

I think the point here is it's NOT the same bacteria. If it were the *same* it would have the same symptoms, strengths, weaknesses, etc. It does not. It's SIMILAR. Which means TB and other drug-resistant things are evolving into similar, but more complex, things. TB, the flu, whatever. Bacteria evolving into a similar strain with drug resistant characteristics is NOT the same as the non-drug resistant variant. Body chemistry, and who knows what else needs to be different so that the antibiotics don't kill the resistant strains.

So, really, how different is it to say monkeys evolved into something similar (ie. humans)? Look around, some guys have just as much hair. lol Slow, barely noticeable changes over a long period of time. What would the bacteria of today look like in 100 or 1,000 years if it keeps "adapting" as you say? Would it look the same? Would it still be "the same" as today's strain to you? How many "adaptations" does it take for something to constitute a different entity to you?

 

See, I guess there's the biggest difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying, I'm willing to listen to the "creation" argument, and I never said I don't believe it at all, vs. people who refuse to listen to the evolution argument whatsoever. Nobody has a clue how life started, or the universe for that matter, so I'm perfectly willing to listen to somebody tell me how this all started with God. I'm pretty sure there's not many creationists who are willing to listen, with an open mind, to how evolution works.

 

wtf, who is trying to keep you from stating your opinion? his post had nothing to do with trying to convince anyone of anything.

 

sounds like we're on the same page. i believe in adaptation and evolution within a species but a single cell becoming a fish, which becomes a monkey, which becomes a human is not something i'm willing to believe at the moment. i haven't seen enough concrete evidence of that happening

i'm not saying evolution on a whole is wrong, it just jumps to alot of unprovable conclusions. i agree that we are not the same as out ancient ancestors.

to answer teh question in your second paragraph, adaptation. tuberculosis is still tuberculosis, its just adapted. but it hasn't morphed into another different orgainism. saying that life adapts is a scientific fact, saying that a single cell is responsible for all life on this planet, is still just a theory, no matter how many ways you cut it.

and you're irritated because people believe what they are told, but then you turn around and get irritated that people dont believe in evolution. creationism is not provable, but at the same time, neither is evolution. for a theory to become scientific fact it must be able to be recreated time and time again with the same results. if you drop a rock, it falls. it does this every time without fail. so gravity is a fact. if hte rock didn't fall, even just one time, it would disprove gravity as a scientific law. as of yet, nobody can recreate the conditions that lead to evolution, and just like creationism, chances are, nobody ever will. i dont believe something "just cause some tells me to" which is why i dont believe the world was created in 7 days, and i dont believe we all evolved from a single cell. but you are just as closed minded as the people you claim are ignorant, you refuse to believe anything but evolution, based on WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TOLD YOU (whether from school, research articles, whatever, its still waht other people have told you)

 

It's not unexplained by creationists. It's just genetic variation. If you assume Adam and Eve had both dominant and recessive genes, you could generate the variations we see today. It's similar to what you would see with a Mulatto couple. Depending on how the genes came together, they could have black or white offspring. Some decendants could have straight hair or kinky hair.

If their offspring tended to cluster and inbreed with individuals who looked similar, you'd have entire peoples with similar characteristics.

 

It takes a lot of brainwashin to get an entire society to believe in something sigh unseen.

 

The ban against intermarrying wasn't codified until the law came into existance (Moses).


Genisis 5:4: After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters