Evolution Vs Creationism How this is a flawed debate.
By dark_joev
@dark_joev (3034)
United States
May 26, 2011 9:09pm CST
Okay I feel that it is time to point out that this argument is flawed at best or should I say this as a Discussion or Debate it doesn't work. You may be thinking yeah it does as Evolution is the alternate to Creation or vise versa well this simply isn't true and here is the why it isn't.
The Theory of Evolution is in Biology which is the study of Living things so this means that evolution really only deals with living things or viruses which aren't actually living. So this would mean that if you go far enough back in the tree of life you would get to the first living thing and everything before that wouldn't be covered under Evolution so that soup that is often used against evolution isn't an argument that is needed for Evolution to be proven true. Evolution doesn't even have to state how the world or universe came to be as evolution doesn't deal with space as Evolution is a theory in Biology that would be like expecting M-Theory (A theory in Physics to explain how living things came to be) it wouldn't work as well M-Theory is in Physics and not Biology. They don't seek to explain the same things. So really if you are going to debate Evolution in a debate covering the parts that are the same between what Evolution Covers and what a part of Creation both cover together then it would be the creation after god created living things and Adam and Eve. So then you could have a debate on whether or not the Human race started from two or that things where created from the dirt and things of that nature but even then neither side is going to be able to prove 100% that there is or isn't a God that did it all as Evolution nor Creationist can prove. Sorry the Bible was created by Man.
Okay now Creationism. This is the one that has some serious issues when being compared or put in a debate against Evolution as generally because Evolution is a theory in Science people generally argue points that Creation just by its nature of coming into existence can't over come like that it was written in a book created by man. Also in Science it is all based on observations so when Creation is pitted against Evolution as an equal theory it has to show that there is observable evidence of a God that Evolution doesn't have an answer for which it does. As if it didn't a new theory would of been formed by now. Creation relies on a belief in a higher power where Evolution relies on being tested and proven until either moved up to a law or discarded to a new theory that was born form its ashes.
To clarify some points this is Modern Evolution as is currently supported not Darwin Evolution which didn't include things like DNA and recent discoveries that was made after Darwin's passing. Also another point arguing points agains Darwin's Evolutionary theory is nothing short of showing that you haven't looked at the current theory and that most of your points aren't valid when brought against Evolution in its current form. Which explains things that Darwin didn't know how they where formed.
Creationism is done a injustice when being compared to this as it can't stand to Sciences requirements as well you can't observe god. You can't prove and have tested that God exist in a way that is repeatable also. You need to realize that Creation Deals with the whole thing from the Creation of the Universe to life on Earth where Evolution just deals with living things so you can't go bringing in parts of Science that isn't even a part of the Theory of Evolution and say things like Evolution doesn't explain how the Universe was Created. You will get an answer when you are debating but it isn't a part of Evolution.
I wrote this because I felt that it is something that needed to be posted and as it seems from the discussions here that both people interested in Science and Religion view this interest.
Oh and what do you think of my points am I right or am I completely out of my mind?
I will comment back on any points you have.
Have a great Day!
12 responses
@6precious102 (4043)
• United States
27 May 11
Evolution is an invention of man, a fairytale contrived to excuse the behavior of man and to release him from judgment. If there's no god, there's no moral law and, therefore, no judgment.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
28 May 11
This isn't so as well look at the past examples of religions or of spiritualities. Like Buddhism they don't believe in a God or an all powerful being but they have a moral sense. Morals don't come have to come from a belief in some spaghetti monster that was written down in a book some 3000 years ago. I mean the Earth is several Billion years old.
Also if their is no moral law then how do we have a legal system? or how is it that China has a Legal System they are Atheist and why is it that Atheists don't break the law or kill people?
A fairytale has no proof to back up its claims Evolution does have proof to back its claims that have been tested for hundreds of years and so far there isn't a better Scientific Theory out their Evolution so far has been proven to be true since it is still a theory. The Bible on the other hand has more issues than anything else I mean the Story of creation depends on which form of christianity you follow. How big the flood is depends on which church you follow. So yeah I think if your a Christian who wants to prove that the bible has a chance at being real. Build a Wooden Boat the size of the Arc and load every land animal that can't survive in water. And have them in said boat for a period of what was it 40 days.
@6precious102 (4043)
• United States
31 May 11
You're right, people don't have to believe in God to have a moral sense. However, there would be no morality if there was no moral law or a moral law giver. That law giver is God.
Look at the beast. They're not bound by an moral law. For them it's survival of the fittest. So why is it different for man? What makes us different from the beast? Aren't we all animals linked and begun by the same amoeba? Why does man have a conscience? Man is different from the beast because God created us to be different. Not only does man have a moral sense, but we operate by reason, inspiration, and creativity, while the beast's behavior is based on instinct with some cases of training. Also, where did our speech come from? Why can man form words with meaning while the beast just make noises or mimic sounds?
Perhaps science has an explanation for the origin of life, but their explanation is nothing more than speculation, not proof. A better theory is that God is behind all creation.
The only story of creation I know about from Christianity is, "In the beginning God created..." What Christian denomination has a different story of the creation and exactly what is that different story?
So I think if an evolutionist wants to prove that his theory is correct, he should duplicate the evolutionary process and come up with something other than a mutant.
1 person likes this
@andy77e (5156)
• United States
29 May 11
Um... The raise of relativism, and the incarceration rate in America is pretty closely matched. Atheists routinely break the law and kill people. In fact, some of the worst horrors in human history were done by people who rejected divine authority.
Evolution does not have proof to back its claims. If it does, where is it? Can you absolutely prove that there was no flood? There was no Arc? There was no people in it?
Think carefully about that. Can you absolutely prove to me, without any doubt, that this could not have happened? If you have this proof, give it.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
31 May 11
It is written in Hebrew. It is on Scrolls the Scrolls have different Handwriting. It includes letters from Petter and some of the other followers. It also was edited by King James which is the basis for all the current Bibles in existence to this very day.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
31 May 11
Things how ever are lost in translation it is something that isn't able to be avoided. Also you have books that aren't in the Bible but may or may not of been included as a holy work. Like the Book of Thomas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas not included but still believed to be an important part now that we are opening things up and the Churches have to answer questions something they aren't use to personally I think that it is because of statements like this
"the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty, and it is you who are that poverty."
@6precious102 (4043)
• United States
31 May 11
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. The New Testament was mostly written in Greek which was the common language of that day. The Bible was written over a period of approximately 1500 years by nearly 40 different writers. Because it was written on parchment, from time to time scribes had to write the Scriptures afresh, but they were meticulous in their efforts, making sure there were no mistakes. Yes, the Bible does contain writings from Peter and other followers of Jesus. Some of these writings were letters to the churches. Some were histories or detailed accounts of the life of Jesus Christ. Since the entire Bible was not canonized until into the 300s A.D., we can be sure none of the New Testament writers knew their work would be included in what was to become the Bible. What these men wrote is what they were inspired to write based on their time with Jesus, probably their time in prayer to God, the needs they saw in the lives of people, and the urging of God's Holy Spirit, just like you have probably been inspired to write your post based on your education, a particular teacher or scientist, or what you believe and feel you need to share. Everyone who writes is inspired by someone or something. King James commissioned a translation of the Bible into the language of the common people. He didn't edit the Bible. Paraphrases might be done from a translation, but translations of the Bible are done from the oldest transcripts of the different books of the Bible. The Bible wouldn't do anyone much good if it was never translated into the various languages of the world.
2 people like this
@gjabaigar (2200)
• Philippines
27 May 11
Howdy yo! dark_joev. Thank you for opening up this sweet and juicy topic.
On my opinion. They are both dealing the science of the invincible. Because of our presently imperfect faulty state of realities we can not prove them both. It will be all accordingly to every of our own self individual personal faith of what believe are true - "Opinions". As for with analytical and critical mind thinking, the self-realizations will always have different opinions to open-up different kind views or perspectives.
My own analysis. What before the "Evolution"? "Creation" . Then, what after "Creation"? "Evolution" . Evolution and Creation are the same pathways to life.
For those who always saying the Bible is flawed because it was done by humans. Then science is flawed too also, because science also made by humans also.
Then who knows everything? The this whole universe or realm? Now.
1 person likes this
@gjabaigar (2200)
• Philippines
27 May 11
Well I don't mind of whose flawed or not flawed or the wrong or the right. I always analyze and with always have the question of "why"? Why? Why? why? Beside its all about humankind intellectual capacities to think and of course the emotional impacts. These are what makes all my awareness and consciousness. These where I begin to observe, study and learn. This world or the universe is a very, very big large university. And this is me. This is how will I evolve.
I do believe on both creation and evolution, on a multi-dimensional level. Because we human beings are naturally in duality of realities. We are both in physical and spiritual realities. Our physical embodiments are the representations of our spiritual here in this kind of realm we living in as our reality now. It is all about quantum physics, metaphysics, hyper-dimenision and torsions.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
27 May 11
You are right Science is flawed but I guess the big difference is that Science has a Trail and Error and because the first few Scientist who came up with the Scientific Method most of realized that people are Flawed and we have Flawed Theories that surface just look at Newton's laws of Physics then take a look at M-Theory which breaks or states that some of Newtons laws aren't actually laws that can't be broken which means Newton's laws might go away if some parts of M-theory hold up to the massive number of test that will be done. So yes Science is flawed in that Human aspect but Science isn't 2000 years of Flawed thinking that is still do this day thinking it is relevant.
So I think while they are both Flawed I think the Bible shows that is is more outdated like diseases come from Demons that have taken over the Body. During the dark ages they believe draining blood was the way to get rid of the demons which ended up making things worse in a lot of cases because of both the sanitation and what makes up human blood one of the cells in our blood called T-cells and/or White Blood cells would be lost and often times a new infection would start.
Yeah I knew this topic would be Juicy as juicy as when a user tried to argue the flaws of Evolution and had about 5 pages of here is how Evolution has evidence to support it that has been tested by 100s of people. Each coming with answers for which Modern Evolution Theory predicts would happen or be able to happen.
@aerous (13434)
• Philippines
4 Jun 11
I Don't believed in evolution because if this is true. All the monkey out there will became human...or like any other person on earth.
Look at those monkey in the park they are still a monkey even if they are stay there longer. So I strongly disagree about the theory of evolution...
1 person likes this
@anjiel052707 (410)
• Philippines
27 May 11
i didn't see your point clearly. but it seems to me that you are more inclined to evolution theory..i feel that you doubt the credibility of the bible. just like what i've said in my response in another discussion, bible was written by people guided by the holy spirit. about the evolution, do you really believe that you are a descendant of the apes..? if evolution is true, then why do we still have apes today...? and why are there people who looks more like a horse if human really came from apes..?
@Chiang_Mai_boy (3882)
• Thailand
27 May 11
No one is descended from apes. Todays modern apes and the modern human species both share a common ancestor but both have continued to evolve after the split occurred. Apes today are the representatives of the end of the branch of the evolutionary path of their species just as anatomically modern humans are the representatives of the current state of our evolution.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
27 May 11
My point is that they aren't completely opposites in that Evolution doesn't cover the Creation of the Universe and not even the creation of life but deal solely in the Living (Including Viruses as they aren't living)
And yes I am more of an Evolution person because I am going into the field of Biology and feel that Science are really two different ways of telling the same story.
No I don't believe we are descended from apes and no one who follows Evolution believes that Humans at one point did have a common ancestor with the modern apes which I believe was several million years ago if I am not mistaken which I could be. This is proven through DNA and ERVs. As for the whole ape thing I think the real question is why do we have more than one ape I mean we have monkeys, Chimpanzees (our closest Relative over in the ape side of things) Gorillas.
And to answer your last point what you are seeing is just what your mind is comparing them to and well that is something evolution isn't to answer for but if you really want to know at some point Humans do share actually all mammals have a common ancestor just like all plants and then all living things have the one thing that began the whole jury of life one super common ancestor which most likely was a single cell organism and most likely no DNA maybe just RNA and Asexual reproduction.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
27 May 11
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg - This is a chart that you can use to see how I made this conclusion but it is a Thing that is shown in Biology Classes to prove that we can go back all the way to a single start. But Evolution doesn't seek to explain how that single start happened. So basically that is where Creationist falsely expect partly because the mainstream leaders of Creationist Ideology tell people that Evolution has these huge holes in it then they go on to talk of these Huge holes in the Theory of Evolution that have nothing to do with what Evolution is the Theory for like for example according to some Creationist. Evolution is to cover the creation of the Universe (which is wrong) or they like to say so you believe we all came from a soup which a person who supports Evolution will say yes but see Evolution doesn't actually say this as evolution only covers living things so as soon as things started to live on the planet Earth as soon as the first Eukaryot was formed and started to swim in this soup well Evolution if it is 100% accurate started. Not at the Creation of the Universe or the Start of the Universe but at the very second Living matter was formed. So Evolution only coveres a small portion of everything Creationism has to cover and then explain.
@Chiang_Mai_boy (3882)
• Thailand
27 May 11
I must take issue with one of your points. Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is an ongoing physical process that is observable.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
27 May 11
True. Yeah it is currently going on with each new generation born.
@urbandekay (18278)
•
27 May 11
Chiang... if by evolution you mean evolution by the process of natural selection then you are wrong it is a theory, as the theory of gravity is a theory. What can be observed is not evolution but natural selection.
all the best urban
@Chiang_Mai_boy (3882)
• Thailand
27 May 11
Urban you are correct in so far as evolution by natural selection being the theory postulated by Darwen but what he was theorizing was that natural selection was one of the primary forces driving the process of evolution. Evolution, the process, was well-known when he was writing and was even then regarded as an established fact.
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
31 May 11
The reason why the evolution/creationism debate doesn't work well is because both concepts are inherently different. One deals with observations based on the physical world and can't offer any answers that aren't derived from those observations. It explains the how, but it can't explain the why. Those who cling to creationism put more value on why we're here rather than how. They want to believe they were created intentionally, and they want answers to fill in gaps of knowledge regardless of whether or not those answers are backed by evidence. Creationism doesn't require physical evidence and is easier to believe when you focus more on faith rather than facts. Creationists and evolution supporters have different standards for evidence, so arguments tend to go no where quickly because there's little to no common ground.
Creation and evolution debates won't stop, and neither will the flawed arguments, regardless of the difference of standards and evidence between the two. People are too stubborn to give up.
@spiderlizard22 (3444)
• United States
1 Jun 11
Evolution is just a change in each generation. That is what is known. The theory is which organisms evolved into which organisms. Creation violates the laws of physics. Matter can not be created or destroyed only transformed. That is right Matter can not be created. Something can not come from nothing. Everything that can be done in the past can be done in the present even if its by a different method.
@Adoniah (7513)
• United States
27 May 11
The Jewish Bible; The TANAKH or old testament and christians rudely call it, is a story of a people struggling with the concept of monotheism. It is both a spiritual and humanistic story. It is a story that is told in the raw. It does not hide the failings of it's people.
They had no concept of evolution or the 'Big Bang theory'. Even if their God told them, how would they have put it into words? What was DNA and RNA to them. They did not even understand conception. A women's conception and bearing of a child was miraculous and fearful to men. That is why they dominated women. This is why creationism was the sole concept for thousands of years and unfortunately still is in some areas.
However, Evolution has many flaws too. We did not descend from apes. Animals are special and I do believe that Dolphins are sentient, but I do not think that apes are. How could we descend from non~sentient beings?
Darwin's theories are flawed because he based them on a closed society. Granted it was an awesome situation, but he needed more variables to get a better result. I do believe in evolution, but in a real society, it would take much longer for change to happen because of the reality of nature. The Islands were too closed a society with no outside influences. Change was not influence enough. The animals were protected and could adapt without interference from predators.
He said once said that Humans would stop growing little toes before the next millennium...oops my granddaughter has little toes? Do yours?
@urbandekay (18278)
•
29 May 11
If dolphins are so smart why don't they leap over the tuna nets?
all the best urban
1 person likes this
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
27 May 11
I don't have grandkids and well Darwin's Theory didn't under stand DNA or RNA so he didn't really know how things changed or what caused them to change. We has evidence and proof that it is at least partly right. As for the Descended from Apes well you are correct we didn't descend from apes and Evolution agrees that us and apes share a common ancestor but we are selves are not descended from Apes they are a completely different branch of Mammals. Apes are Sentient in the same way Dolphins are they may not be able to do all the things we are but Mammals for the most part are fairly smart across the board. I mean you can teach and Ape and you can Teach the Dolphin to do things the interesting thing about the water Mammals is that they communicate in completely different ways and you also have the fact that Dolphins will help a diver who is stuck get to the surface in a slow enough speed so that he doesn't die once reaching the surface.
Also Evolution by Natural Selection remember like 98% of all mutations are bad or won't be Biologically successful meaning offspring so it can take many years for a new species to form.
Oh and the Evidence for Humans and Apes having a Common Ancestor is the Chromosome fused together in Humans which would be Chromosome number 2 is actually at one point was two separate chromosomes but in humans they are the one.
What do you define as sentient?
@Adoniah (7513)
• United States
30 May 11
I forget that modern definitions have changed to the point that the older ones are no longer recognized. You probably have heard of artificial intelligence referred to as 'sentient'. That is not the definition I learned. To be sentient one must be able to Feel, Reason, Suffer, Be Aware of one's Surroundings, and Talk or communicate with a multiple 'bit' language. Dolphins do all of these things. Apes do communicate, but they do not have an extensive language like Dolphins.
Computers cannot suffer...they are not sentient.
@BalthasarTheRat (656)
• United States
28 May 11
Wow, that's alot of reading.
I see alot of debate about the nature of science, of evolution specifically and of levels of creationism, but no good discussion on your central point which was that evolution and creation can coexist.
You certainly don't have to tell me how they can coexist, but your point crashes when literal interprettation of the Bible origin story is placed against evolution and the discovery sciences.
Adamant creationists swear the world is a maximum of 10,000 years old and that every creature that exists has been as it is since that day it was created. This theory cannot coexist with evolution, let alone geology or paleontology.
@TiaSierra (28)
• New Zealand
27 May 11
Creationism is theory pitched by religious folks who wants to preach their christianity to the world. If not Christianity then their respective religion. Creationism attacks evolution, even after knowing that it deals with evolution of life on this planet and claims against evolution as if it means abiogenesis. So cretionist folks are the ones who wants to have their religion domination. That's the real truth. I don't bother with creationists because they offer no challenging theory or thoughts on table, only preaching.
