Creationism V Evolution

[ladsin]

I've been conversing with a few fellows on here about evolution and in conjunction with my old beliefs I figured I should write about some frequent questions on the subject. I am not a biologist and highly recommend that you look into the research and science on it yourself, as well as, correct me on any errors you see that I make.

Evolution is an explanation of biodiversity on earth that is supported by evidence from every field of life science and disproven by none. There are a few ways this works, but in essence evolution can be summed up as "descent with inherent modification." Evolution has to deal with population mechanics and changes in allele frequency that allow for adaptation. It has nothing to do with the formation of life or the cosmos.

Creationism on the other hand is a hypothesis that some designer is necessary to explain biodiversity, and does not have any evidence to support it.

Evidence For Evolution

-Fossil Record

The fossil record is significant evidence for evolution showing progression and transition over time.

-Genetics

Francis Collins is a prominent Christian Geneticist and former head of the Human Genome Project which stated, "Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things." Suffice it to say that the same tests we use to determine who the baby daddy is, can also be used to show our relationship to all other primates, and further all other organisms on this planet.

-Morphology

Homologous and Analogous features are positively indicative of evolution by showing that not only do creatures adapt to their environment, but also receive shared features from prior ancestors. Vestigial structures also provide evidence here.

-Phylogeny & Taxonomy

Phylogeny and taxonomy are the process in which we identify and name organisms by their characteristic traits. In the same way that we can tell dogs and wolves are related by following this pattern of kingdom, phylum, class, family, order, genus, species (Eukarya, Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Carnivora, Canidae, Canis, lupus/familiaris). We can tell that humans are apes, (Eukarya, Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Hominoidea, Homininae... Erectus, Sapien). This only makes sense under an evolution and is not concordant with a special creator making life differently.

We've Seen It

We've already seen many speciation events both in the laboratory and in nature.

Evidence For Creationism

There has never been evidence proffered that is positively indicative of or exclusively concordant with Creationism. The only attempt creationists make is to disprove the findings of scientists, but never provide evidence to support their claim. As though destroying evolution would somehow be proof for their claim.

But It's Just A Theory!

-Defined

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

-Other Theories

Include but are not limited to the Theory of Gravity, Atomic Theory, Cell Theory, and the Germ Theory of Disease. Evolution is just as much a theory as those.

-Creation is not

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It makes no testable predictions, doesn't have any evidence that's positively indicative of or exclusively concordant with it, and has been "disproven" in courts of law and is not taken seriously by anyone who doesn't have ulterior motives driving this belief.

Why Are There Still Monkeys?

-This objection makes little sense. Humans didn't replace monkey's or apes, we are them and shared a common primate ancestor. We are still monkeys, just like we're still eukaryotic, bilateral, tetrapods. (etc)

Further though, I think a good way to explain this has been through the example of wolves and dogs. We know that our dogs came from wolves (similar ancestor) but there are still wolves.

Micro Vs Macro

-Some creationists have been forced to admit in fact evolution occurs, but then they try to distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution. This distinction is largely of their own making and really only has to deal with time. Creationists, however, posit that there is some sort of magical barrier that prevents macroevolution, but they refuse to define what these "kinds" are so that we can assess this, and of course they provide no evidence that this is in fact the case.

Mistruths

This is perhaps the most infuriating to me. People who knowingly spread misinformation to deceive others. This is inherent in many of the creationist movements, and I think that the people who believe them should feel jaded and question everything when they find out that others have been attempting to deceive them as I once did. There are a few ways they do this:

-Quote Mining

They will frequently take quotes out of context in order to change the meaning of other's words and continue to do so when this is pointed out to them. One of the greatest examples is one in which they take a quote from Darwin speaks about the evolution of the eye. “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” This is dishonest. Later in fact on the same page Darwin then goes on to explain exactly how it could have occurred. Similarly misquoting Richard Dawkins to say he believes in creationism by aliens. They twist and distort Dobzhansky in which he's asking a rhetorical question and states that positive mutations occur to say that in fact positive mutations don't occur. This is dishonest.

-Abiogenesis & Big Bang

Many creationists will fault evolution for not accounting for abiogenesis and big bang cosmology. I think that this is simply obfuscation. Not only do they not posit evidence for their answer, but evolution has absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis or the origins of the universe.

-Nebraska Man

There are multiple examples of this, but for ease of access I'll just talk about one. Many will point out that "evolutionists are so easily duped! They found a pig's tooth and everyone accepted it as fact and drew a picture about it." This is a lie. One scientist found the tooth and thought it may have been a possible human ancestor. In fact no scientific journal accepted his paper, and it was only ever published in a magazine with an artists rendition of the possible ancestor which was decried even by the person who found it. The entire scientific community rejected this, yet creationists will lie about this.

Anyway, hopefully this was helpful. Criticism appreciated. Also, I'd highly recommend watching this series:

I've been watching it and it's been very educational.

[surferfelix]

What a great MyTake!
I love how you mentioned Quote Mining, I rarely still see people mention that term.
I did want to point out that religious books do raise some good questions.
One that baffles me for example, is how the Quran was able to describe the process of a baby growing in the womb, in a time where no sufficient technology was available to observe such a thing.

I also wanted to point out, that creationists often see things to have a certain function and evolution does not. We don't have legs so that we can walk, but we have them because our ancestors with legs were more likely to reproduce. It is an ongoing logical process. This also goes to explain why humans don't necessarily need to compete with monkeys/replace them. Perhaps humans that did not feed on monkey resources were more likely to reproduce.

The difference between micro and macro is actually just how quickly generations go by. For us a generation is going to take about 25.5 years, when as for bacteria a generation might only take 12 minutes. That is why its observable in laboratories. (Microbiology is often discredited by creationists because many microorganisms often show a different way of sharing genetic material to combat things like antibiotics for example.)

Didn't see any mistakes though, just thought I would put a little more emphasis on these bits :D

[ladsin]

Thanks for the heads up! It's crazy how entrenched these ideas become just because of isolation. When I was in HS I was taught "all the flaws of evolution" intentional misquotes and all. That was perhaps one of the biggest factors in me eventually turning away from my religion.

Which surrah are you thinking of? (They're not called verses in Quran right?)

[surferfelix]

Surrahs are chapters in the Qur'an I believe. I'm not sure if there is another word for verses (But I could be wrong). In the 23rd surrah, from the 12th to 14th verse it describes how a child is conceived in the womb.

[ladsin]

Strange, which part of it do you think to well explain an infants growth in the womb? For example we don't start off with bones. Our bones don't develop until the second trimester.

[surferfelix]

Well it says it forms into an 'Alaqah' right?
I think this video describes how believers interpret this part of the Qur'an.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8dIe6JtLDU

Do note, the source is biased.

[ladsin]

I'll just give my impressions as I watch.
1.) It certainly isn't detailed. All of the intricate processes that happen in gestation can be whittled down to a few sentences and he thinks this is a detailed description?
2.) The "sperm drop into firm lodging" if you were to ask me this would appear to indicate that the author thinks the sperm attaches directly to the uterine wall, not meeting the egg first. This would be incorrect, although the vagueness of it leaves it open to interpretation.
3.) I still have the same issue with the bones being first.
4.) "It grew into a definitive human form" well that's hardly astounding insight XD
5.) It's true that blood forms very quickly, although not as quickly as parts of our nervous system.
6.) The arabic word for embryo is "jinin", if the word "alaqah" were a truly good word to describe the embryo why not just keep it?
7.) When you allow your words to be either metaphorical or literal then you can draw connections everywhere. --

[surferfelix]

I can agree on that.

Still think its remarkable how they knew about this so long ago.

[ladsin]

This happens in Christian apologetics all the time as well. He gave three words that "alaqah" can be translated to "blood clot" "suspended" and "leech". With the last I actually thought he was going to go metaphorical and talk about how the infant "leeches" off of it's mother, but you can see the idea. If you have a desire to believe most anything can be reconciled. I've seen people arguing before that the creation myth in Genesis is true even though it says that our planet and plants existed before the sun. The quran makes the same claim.

One thing I think it important for people to remember when reading these texts is that the people weren't stupid. They'd seen babies before. They'd seen fetuses before. Hell, they even knew how to perform abortions.

If a god was writing a holy book could you imagine how incredible it would be? We wouldn't be getting cursory details about how a fetus is suspended (when we clearly see the cord by which it is). We would hear about blastopores and--

[ladsin]

and how god had a sense of humor by forming us asshole first XD
That would be compelling.

[Under_Maps_OF_twigs]

@ladsin
The greatest problem with evolution is the fact that nearly every species has male and female sex and it evolution began the process, then they would have died before knowing how to populate the species. Also, the fact that something evolving would have had the same sex to evolve from. So did the male or the female evolve first and how could it know which sex to go to? Understand my drift?

[MlleCake]

It just never occurred to me to take any creation story as more than metaphorical, and in that way, there really is no conflict with me about evolution. For all we know, an intelligent designer could have precipitated the Big Bang and all that followed. We have no incontrovertible evidence to support or disprove that. Evolution is simply a way of describing how living things have changed in their times here on Earth. We know there are changes, we have proof of them. Denying evolution to me is like denying gravity.

[ladsin]

You'd be surprised. I was convinced of creationism for quite a while, and was taught it in my HS biology class.

[MlleCake]

That's a shame. I had a very enlightened education.

[ladsin]

That's good.

[Safa01]

Yes I remember in school in the small classes, we were read the bible but nobody actually believed that’s how the universe came to exsistance.

[syphalyticwarthog]

Whoever created this simulated world I hate his, her or it's guts, why did he make some people rich and some people poor? I hate this world, I hate the rich, they et to be happy while 99.99% of us are poor and miserable and my psychiatrist says if I don't story fantasizing about killing rich people he's going to section me under the mental health act. Am I embedded in the simulation, meaning I'll cease to exist when I die, or do I have a body in the real world? How can I find out so I can decide whether or not to kill myself?

[MlleCake]

@syphalyticwarthog You sound like Dave Mustaine.

[dancing_in_nebulas]

*Evolution and Creationism are the same in par to 'source of life'

EVOLUTION:

Descent from a common ancestor
(Maybe a form of ancient bacteria)

Speculated.

CREATIONISM:

Descent from a common ancestor (God)

Speculated.

Evolution does not explain the source of life which makes it secondary to creationism. Hypothetically.

1.) God would exist first

2.) God would establish the bacteria colonies to develop into humans and things later via evolution, which God already would have made. The life of the dinos shaped the current earth into an environment suitable for life on a smaller scale now and propelled much bio-diversty and ecological mechanisms today... making them a necessary creation.

Like a domino effect, except God made the dominos and flicks the first one.

The Bible explicitly says "Dust of the earth," which is the elements, carbon, oxygen etc our bodies are composed of and turn back into when we decompose. (ecc 12:7)

The Bible also does not omit dinosaurs or prehistoric civillizations, nor state all physical life came from Adam and Eve.

It just begins documenting history from the early mesopotamian civilization, time of Adam and Eve.

Exactly like how our world history text books only document a certain span of time. Though dinos are not mentioned in said textbook lol, we know they existed long before.

Why traditional theists keep insisting dinos never existed and the earth is only 6,000 years old, there is no evolution and somehow 2 people procreated billions, though the Bible says neither, proves theyve developed their own religion outside of the Bible and God.

*Whats cool is the observable documentation of natural selection documented in the Bible:

(Gen 30: 37-39)

"37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches.
38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink,
39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted."

Of course over a span of breeding seasons as it took a while for Joseph to build a large spotted flock.

Not to mention the constant documenting of spiritual evolution in which humans are developing from having a primitive mind goverened by instinct into reasoning god-like beings ourselves.

[ladsin]

The genesis account doesn't map at all to our current understanding of the universe thanks to science.
You can however try to say that some deity started life. There's no evidence for that, but at least it's progress of a kind. As long as you don't try to have that taught in the classroom so be it.

[dancing_in_nebulas]

Lol we just did the same experiment with fish last semester in my evolutionary biology class, but if you want to denounce it as to not realistically accept natural selection documented in the Bible then thats your call.

Lol like why do people do that? Its not like you are suddenly wrong about God if the Bible so happens to actually agree with science.

If its fallacious to teach a speculation that life can come from a being in a distant part of the universe for lack of proof, its also fallacious to teach a speculation that life is descended from bacteria for lack of proof.

Lol we even studied in Astronomy how its speculated lots of materials for life to exist on earth came from another source in the universe

😂

Is it God per say? Maybe, but can we falsify it wasn't? No.

"God" is another lifeform in the universe, that astronomy report just gives a scientific statement that life can come from other parts of the universe, which supports.

Cool, so its a science possibility lol

[dancing_in_nebulas]

"that doesn't map our current understanding thanks to science-"

Lol... the scroll of the Book of the Law containing genesis (and dead sea scrolls,) carbon dated back like 3500BC ish... so Moses wrote about natural selection almost 4000yrs before the scientific community even formed.

Evolution is not a new thing, we just have more technology to look into and comprehend it.

Ancient farmers used it all the time to encourage the best crops and flocks by observing how changes in an organisms situation can effect results.

Lol but you know, it can be documented on non-Bible sources (which have not been sourced,) and its acceptable, but because the Bible documents it, though a historically accurrate book (confirmed,) suddenly natural selection doesn't exist for the sake of argument?

Lol... okay?

[ladsin]

We don't know the answer to abiogenesis. There's a reason we don't teach that we know how life came to be... yet. You can't posit an answer without evidence. Especially not in a science class.

You didn't do an experiment in your class with fish that demonstrated the existence of a god.

The creation account in genesis cannot be remedied anymore. Each day of creation is wrong. One of the biggest ones that stick out to me would be the earth, plants, etc existing before the sun.

[ladsin]

Wait, are you pulling my leg? You're aware that there's a lot historically wrong with the bible right?

[dancing_in_nebulas]

Oh no no - the natural selection exp and that Bible verse had nothing to do with proving God, I used it to point out the conflict as to why theists are so against evolution though aspects of it are documented in the Bible.

I was agreeing with the evolutionary information of your mytake while wondering why its not universally accepted amongst believers.

Evolution doesn't disprove God, nor creationism. Even the first portion of our bio book makes it very clear "EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF LIFE -" lol because this popular pseudo-science claim, lacks in proof.

The claim does, actual evolution is proven.

Its just exploring the history and relationships of organisms to another which has helped us understand bio-diversity better.

Now God's existence or not is another discussion.

Sorry for the mix up, and no leg pulling.

The Bible is historically acurrate. We are talking dates and times.

The supernatural occurences are exp through physics

[dancing_in_nebulas]

Whats historically wrong with it?

[ladsin]

We agree that evolution happens and accounts for the diversity of life. We agree that we don't currently have the answer for how life came about on this planet. in saying you can't teach children that a god did it since there's no evidence for that.

As far as history goes? Lots. It's not even internally consistent. The genealogies don't match up etc.
the historical consensus is that most of the patriarchs didn't even exist. They appear to be amalgams of multiple characters. This is why none of the stories make sense.

[juliaanita]

you really did well in this take, ladsin. As a progressive type person who still is connected in some way to religion and who is thoroughly grounded in the scientific method, I wrestle with somehow reconciling faith and a strong belief in evolution. I am especially persuaded by the watch maker argument-the argument from design which also pursuaded Sir Isaac Newton.
And yet I am also convinced by the fossil and genetic record and all the other proofs above which you mentioned that evolution has and continues to occur.
In this context, I also wonder about the concept of morality-is this purely a product of evolution, or does a moral god actually exist?
Are we good (or bad) simply because of genetics, or is there a goodnes (or evil) that transcends us?
anyway-good take

[ladsin]

Hey there! My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I was just looking over some of my old MyTakes today and saw this and am a little bummed out by it, because I rarely get to talk with people that seem to be open to an honest conversation, and from what I can tell you seem to actually care about "what is true" as opposed to just trying to defend your belief no matter the cost. It seems this way to me because you've admitted that you're wrestling with the clear depiction of the formation of life/ animals given by Genesis, and our scientific understanding that it is incorrect.
I actually also wrote on the watchmaker argument here The Watchmaker Argument for the Existence of God ↗ if you'd like to check it out.
As for morality it seems quite clear that it evolved in humans in the same manner that it does in most all social species. We can talk about that a little more if you'd like as well.

[juliaanita]

I would love to, Ladsin... let me read your watchmaker argument take and I will get back to you :)

[ObscuredBeyond]

No one can find a virus turning into a parrot. It will always be a virus.

Sharks have always been sharks.

Natural selection doesn't build newer, better information. It destroys or rearranges preexisting data away from a configuration that is no longer beneficial.

The magnetic field of Earth is not compatible with millions of years either. Earth would be a pulsar, and that's physically impossible for its planetary mass!

All "vestigial" organs have known functions. They just aren't all essential to life; but enhance it. This is evidence of a creator that knew of the rebellion ahead of time, and planned ahead for fallout of the Curse.

The fossil record is littered with inconsistencies, many of which are indicative not of time periods, but of different animals reacting differently to their impending doom.

Anything that doesn't fit the popular narrative of Bill Nye is dismissed as "problematica."

[ObscuredBeyond]

And when you put the "-ism" before one and not the other, you betray a bias.

Neither can be re-created in a lab. Both require a degree of faith.

[ladsin]

Evolution doesn't say that one day you'll see a virus turn into a parrot. We have seen several speciation events both in the lab and in nature. Ring species are good examples of these.

Natural selection is not the only method of evolution, but creates new information and enhances a species survivability to it's environment. We see this all the time. Elephants are an interesting one that is currently happening in which a recessive gene that makes tusk-less elephants is being selected for as a result of ivory hunters.
The fossil record is not filled with inconsistencies. Who told you that?

There's also the obfuscation of trying to bring up some physics in regards to evolution.

Adding -ism to creation is not a bias. That's the name of it. Again, they've never posited any evidence in support of their hypothesis, they simply rely on trying to debunk evolution and have failed time and time again.

[ObscuredBeyond]

The micro steps to the macro result don't exist. Thanks for playing.

[ladsin]

Lol that came out of nowhere.

[andreasderjuengere]

So far, so good. I see your listing of several points. But - where is your 'TAKE' ?
Is it: 'Creationism is not a scientific theory' ? or
is it: '... evolution has … nothing to do with … the origins of the universe...'?
(I don't add my own thoughts on the topic here - it is YOUR take, at last)

[ladsin]

I just wrote a little article explaining the common misconceptions that I've seen about Evolution. It's meant to educate some people who are confused.

[Pamina]

This is like the myTake version of Richard Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show On Earth". And yes, that's a compliment.

[ladsin]

That's far too much credit for me. Thanks though.

[Pamina]

Haha but to be fair, "myTake version" implies that it is a much lower level. No but seriously, you adressed all major topics (main evidence, misconceptions, etc.) about evolution that people should know about. I think it's very useful synopsis that hopefully a lot of creationists and evolution-deniers will read.

[Under_Maps_OF_twigs]

id you know that Tom Jump is an 'atheist' and he does not believe in evolution but he doesn't believe in creation either.

Why must it be one or other?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_CH4dkKnnY

This is his channel:

www.youtube.com/channel/UCHXrvsK33VUEcpa4Ar0c0Sg

[ladsin]

Well it doesn’t have to be per se. The Catholic stance for example is that evolution occurs, but god created the first cell, and god steered evolution.

The debate being referenced here isn’t about divinely directed evolution, but evolution vs special creation per the Genesis account. Or as espoused by massive groups like the Discovery Institute which are trying to have the Bible taught in the science classroom.

[John_Doesnt]

So we're basically the spawn of 5 fish having butt secks with a frog-squirrel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL9S-TUikfg

[ladsin]

Oh geeze

[BoySittingOnTheMoon]

Very nice MyTake. Do you have any books to suggest about evolution? I can think of Charles Darwin books and Richard Dawkins's book called "the Selfish gene".

[ladsin]

There are lots of books. I personally don't read them. I watch educational videos like the one I linked at the end. Evolutionary science is interesting to me, but not enough for me to dedicate dozens or hundreds of hours of study to it.
The most I can handle at once is a few hours before I go mad. Psychology on the other hand I don't stop reading.

[MapleSummer]

The fact that people still think creationism is an option, on equal ground with evolution just saddens me.

We abundant have biological, anthropological, psychological and historical evidence for evolution, with zero contradictions.
The 'evidence' for creationism is an archaic book, with tons of contradictions.

[ladsin]

I agree.

[JonDoe1985]

I really enjoyed your thurough presentation. I'm a long-time supporter of evolution, even when I did believe in god. Unfortunately, this will do nothing to change the heavily devoted's minds. Here's hoping for a better future of enlightenment.

[ladsin]

It depends. I believed in the Creationist arguments for a little while. When I found out that people were intentionally deceiving me that stopped quickly.

[JonDoe1985]

Yea. My church was big into (not sure if you heard of the guy) Kent Hovind, a self-proclaimed scientist who supposedly went out looking to prove creation wrong, only to find evidence for Creation. I was young, and the guy did well enough to make me question what I thought was true, but the more I learned over the years, the more I saw his nonsense. I wish I could say the same for my family and all.

[ladsin]

Self-proclaimed teacher as well. A known con-man and fraud. I actually just saw a debate with him yesterday.

[JonDoe1985]

Wow. Didn't think he was able to debate anymore. Heard him and his son were in jail on tax-fraud. That was about 5 to 10 years ago, though. I guess he's back at it again.

[JonDoe1985]

Still, he's old news, and a bit of a has been. I think the biggest one right now is Ken Ham and his giant ark.

[ladsin]

Oy vey. Yeah, they're aren't many of them, but they have a big impact.

[Vesuvius87]

Thank you for sharing this and I agree. With the evoluationary theory, at least there are evidence to back it up.

Nothing to back up with creationism other than a being out of nowhere creating things.

[Harleyonfire]

Science is awesome! I want to be a cosmologist😊

Also that guy in the video is metal as fuck! He just needs a flying V and face paint lmfao

[ladsin]

Awesome! Good luck with that!
He's a pretty cool guy. He does a great job of making complex ideas easier.

[Chaoseverywhere]

1. What came first? the chicken or the egg?
Evolutionist = ?

2. Plants and bees have a symbiotic relationship. Flowering plants depend on an outside source to 'spread the love' through pollination, and bees are happy to fill that need, receiving nectar (which they convert into honey) for the service they provide.

How did bees survive without flowers and/or how did flowers survive without bees?
Evolutionist = ?

(not religious btw)

[ladsin]

1.) The egg would've technically come first because two parents would've given birth to an "egg" with a slight genetic mutation making it different from them. This is quite simple and really nonsensical. Evolution has to deal with the heritability of various traits within a population of reproducing organisms. There was never a chicken that gave birth to a porpoise.
2.) It's called co-evolution. They evolved a symbiotic relationship like our dogs evolved one with us. We can see this all the time.

Did you bother to read it or is this just your first thoughts based on the title?

[Chaoseverywhere]

@ladsin

Think i just missed it, or interpreted differently. Didn't mean to make it sound like an attack or anything. Thanks for the answer, been bothering me for years

[ladsin]

No worries. I didn't feel attacked, nor am I upset. Mood is often difficult to get across over text. If you have any questions I'd love to do my best to help.
I had been deceived by educators and other persons in positions of authority over me for years before I discovered it, and if possible I'd like to help others as well.

Did my responses make sense?

[Chaoseverywhere]

@ladsin

It's better than a blankface, a confusing answer that's sounds good but you realized later that it's unrelatable or "it's a natural coincindence".
or the other one "God made 2 chickens, god made flowers and bees at the same time"
etc

[ladsin]

Hmm? I didn't understand your point there.

[Chaoseverywhere]

@ladsin

lol those are the answers i get when i ask people these questions in the past. So yes, your respones make more sense than the answers i've been getting. :)

[ladsin]

Ah, gotcha.
The latter example is actually really easy to see. For example, allyouneedisbiology.files.wordpress.com/.../coral-scarlet-kingsnake-large.jpg

[ladsin]

Hmm. That may be a poor example. Bees and flowers would probably be better.

[Phanta]

Intelligent design is true beyond a reasonable doubt. My dissertation on this subject is chapter IV (4) on my website: www.thezap.net

[MidnightCowboy]

Everyone who thinks creationism is real should be locked up in a mental hospital.

That guy in that series is badass and smart

[BasSaarebas]

My parents taught me creationism in the Christian way, but evolution makes sense. Honestly, I believe a little of both. Odin created the world from Ymir and now nature takes its own course.

[ladsin]

Ymir isn't the christian god XD

[BasSaarebas]

I’m aware. Ymir was the first giant in Norse mythology.

[ladsin]

Mhmdala

[jacquesvol]

I have no problem with creationists... as long as they don't teach it to children.

[DamnMan]

How about creation through evolution.
TIL it was a church clergyman who came up with the idea of the big bang, so even the church believes in science.

It just the stupid people who think there is a disconnect.

[ladsin]

If you want to ascribe certain things to a god then I have no qualms with it. We just don't have any evidence to support that conclusion so it shouldn't be taught, particularly in a science classroom.
Theists can certainly do science. Hell, most scientists throughout history were scientists. I think the Catholic Church was just burned too many times for being wrong in the face of scientific findings that in the past few decades they've started to learn their lesson.

If you recall correctly though when Lemaitre came up with the idea the pope offered to make it doctrinal and Lemaitre responded that science and faith should be kept separateLike Gould's "Non-Overlapping Magesteria".

[Anonymous]

Both are possible in Islam. My religion eludes to God sliding two atoms together to create the bang that started it all. Also, there is discussion of human like forms before Adam. Only an ultimate creator can create evolution. People say what were the odds, there were no odds.

[TheUglyMan]

do you guys worship jesus right?

[Jackblue]

Islam still talks about "the edge of the earth and people living just beneath the sun"

[curiousnorway]

I also believes in God and the evolution at the same time. You don't have to be an atheist or none-religious to believe in the evolution.

[syphalyticwarthog]

Who created Allah and why did he choose a peadohile to be his prophet?

[ElissaDido]

@TheUglyMan No we don't worship Jesus and we don't worship Mohammed peace be upon them either. We don't worship humans.
But both of them have a very high rank.

I agree with you by the way I don't see any odds between the theory of evolution and my Islamic faith.

And no Aisha ra wasn't a kid , she was at the very least 15 when she married the prophet according to historical analysis.

[kawaiiguineapig]

Evolution has never been disproved but neither has creationism.

[ladsin]

Creationism doesn't have any testable hypotheses. I can't disprove fairies and the Nessie, but we don't try to subvert known facts with those.

[syphalyticwarthog]

This world was created, presumably it's based on the real world, so, presumably evolution happened in the real world, but, this world is a simulation, like in the movie The Matrix, you must've noticed little things going wrong with the simulation, continuity errors, like in a movie.

[dandee55]

Neither has been proven. Neither can be proven. It takes faith to believe either one.

[kawaiiguineapig]

@dandee55 I agree

[Nivinxus]

Welcome to the world where Devil's Proof or Hempel's Raven is a valid point of argument.