Do you believe in EVOLUTION and, if so, have you ever looked at both sides from an objective view point?

Question

I have viewed how both sides look at the evidence for evolution and the fact is Evolutionists make more assumptions than scientific Creationists. Micro-evolution is acknowledged as a scientific fact by creationists but, macro-evolution (a species evolving into another new species) has NEVER been observed and Requires making assumptions. Finally, most evolutionists never even look at the scientific creationists view, while the creationists have looked into and been educated about evolution.

One example of how the two interpret data pertains to anatomical similarities. The forelimb of a man can be compared bone for bone to the flipper of a whale or the wing of a bird. An Evolutionists looks at the evidence and interprets it as, "Common ancestor." A scientific Creationist looks at the same evidence and says, "Common design." Now, who is making the assumption? There is no assumption in saying "Common design" because it is a statement of fact. However, to say "Common ancestor" is a huge assumption that cannot be validated.

IT FIGURES, NO REASONABLY OPEN-MINDED PEOPLE WHO WILL BE HONEST AND SAY EVOLUTION HAS MANY HOLES. PATHETIC, WEAK MINDED ROBOTS!

INTELLECTUAL HONESTY IS A MUST IF YOU ARE TO PASS THIS GUY'S TEST. FORTUNATELY, THERE ARE SOME OPEN-MINDED PEOPLE WHO ARE OPEN TO THE FACT THAT EVOLUTION IS A THEORY AT BEST!

Answer 1

I think that evolutionists are going to have a hard time explaining the whole common ancestor idea to God. You see, He just isn't smart enough for your average atheist (really agnostics but shh, don't tell them, they get a little prickly) to be able to communicate with him all the way down on His level.

Answer 2

I believe evolution is a much more accurate theory than creationism, but still needs tweaks. I don't believe creationism should be completely thought of as invalid but I favor evolution.

I believe evolution is fairly accurate because various experiments that have been done using the breakdown of radioactive isotopes with different decay methods and come up with similiar dates of fossils, which can be grouped or graphed by date and if done visually you can actually see the evolution of a species from it's past form to it's present when ordered by the level of the soil. I also Believe natural selection must occur due to scientific facts about DNA and the fact that a living thing more likely to survive will pass on it's DNA which will really add up over billions of years.

Creationism evidence amounts to:

Believe that god, a being which no evidence exists for, created you...(doesn't really explain how...) or burn in hell. Believe it and go to heaven.

Of course no theory should be completely disregarded, but like I said, I favor Evolution.

Answer 3

Using your argument, it would seem that your Intelligent Designer is either not very intelligent or not very powerful.

If you drive through a suburb and every house looks the same you would say common design, you wouldn't say intelligent design.

There is no need for a flipper to match, bone for bone, a wing if you are designing both from scratch. Indeed, it makes no sense. It makes even less sense when you look at truly vestigial bones like the remaining toe bones of a horse.

If ID proponents would state that their designer was not a very good designer or could only make minor modifications between species then they might be closer to the truth. Indeed, many Christian evolutionists believe in directed evolution which would be similar to saying that the designer could only make limited changes.

Answer 4

I don't believe in evolution, I accept the theory of evolution based on the facts. The big assumption that separates the serious exploration of evolution through science from the belief in creationism is the belief in the designer. No empirical evidence of such a being exists.

“To believe in something is not the same as knowing something. Intrinsic to the concept of belief is (the) implication that there is an opposite to belief, disbelief. Not everyone will believe something is true, but all sane and rational people will acknowledge an observable fact.

The only way belief can be experienced is in the mind. Facts can be experienced both in the mind and by the senses...and what is more, unlike a mental hallucination, the sensory experience can be shared with others.

It is a common error of human beings to allow belief, to allow a mental construct accepted on faith, to become so important, so obsessive, that it is taken as the same thing as fact. Indeed, there are many emotional reasons why a person might be driven to do this, but it still remains that any belief is purely mental whatever it's origin, and the mind can be mistaken.

This means that all beliefs have as part of them an implied doubt. Facts cannot be doubted, they are observably real.

When belief is assumed to be fact, when this mistake is made by a mind clouded by a motivation to assume belief as fact, that belief is considered beyond doubt, just as is a fact.

Beliefs beyond doubt are inherently dangerous. They are dangerous because they are often acted upon as though they were facts, and the inherent weakness of this is that a belief is not a fact.

Beliefs can be, and often are, wrong.” (Jennifer Diane Reitz)

The theory of evolution is constantly undergoing revisions in its specifics as we progress in science. The religious belief in creationism has changed little in thousands of years.

Human beings have always been "meaning makers". Whether there is an intrinsic purpose or meaning to an event or not, we provide meaning. We seek to see meaning in things, whether or not that meaning exists. We must learn to separate belief from knowledge. Creationism is based on belief, the theory of evolution is based on facts.

Answer 5

So-called "scientific" creationism is not science at all, because there is no evidence, no matter how gathered or observed, which could ever disprove it. That makes it a matter of faith.

Evolution, on the other hand, could be disproven quite easily. Just find a mammalian fossil in a pre-Cambrian rock, and viola! Evolution demolished.

But try to imagine a similar test or evidential find that would disprove creationism. The more you think about it, the more you realize that it's impossible, because first you must specify something that God cannot do. "Scientific" creationism is just religion trying to disguise itself as science so that it can be taught in American classrooms.

Answer 6

There is no such thing as "scientific creationism." Putting science somewhere in the name hardly lends credibility, no matter how much you'd love for it to. Because creationism is predicated on an assumption that you'll never be able to prove: That their was/is a god thing. These things like the "forelimb" are just latched on to by Creationists as proof of God because the answer isn't apparent. Creationists also once latched on to "How does a Bumblebee fly? and "How does a Gecko stick to almost anything?" as proof of God. "See, see??? Science can't explain it so it's proof of God, I tells 'ya." Except that, within the past couple of years actually, science has determined the answer to both questions. Just because it's unknown today doesn't mean God did it. And, I know what some of you are thinking, namely, "Well, disprove God, then. Until you can I'll take my scientific (snicker) creationism." It's the job of the one MAKING the assertion to prove it. You can't prove a negative anyway Here's an example:. After creating the first 500 people on Earth to to bear witness, Irving the Magic Koala and his Koala disciples Arthur, Orville, and Murray took leaves from the Eucalyptus Tree of Life and chewed them into the shape of the contienents and all that would inhabit them. Disprove it.

Answer 7

What a load of drivel!
So Micro-evolution is acknowledged as a scientific fact by creationists but, macro-evolution (a species evolving into another new species) has NEVER been observed and Requires making assumptions.
OK smart ****, in a time period of 100 years how many times will a micro organism have offspring, therefore have a chance to evolve or mutate?
And how many generations of humans in the equal amount of time?
So it has never been observed, of course not, to equal the time period, you would have to go back to the origins of man, oh, that is when I evolved, obviously not you!

Answer 8

Uhh...except that "macro-evolution" (although a more accurate term is "speciation") HAS been observed. Ever heard of Darwin's finches?

And before you say "but they're still finches"...finch is not a species. These birds can no longer interbreed; hence, they are different species. Hence speciation. Hence macro-evolution.

Sorry, love, but your premise is flawed. THAT is an objective fact, taken from a perfectly objective point of view.

EDIT: Also, you seem to be confused as to what a scientific theory entails, exactly. A SCIENTIFIC theory is backed by many many experiments and found to hold up to scrutiny with ALL of them. It is entirely different from the "theory" of the popular vernacular; THAT definition of "theory" would be known as a "hypothesis" in the scientific community, and would require experimentation to prove it.

Please please PLEASE learn what evolution actually IS before trying to argue against it.

Answer 9

Was raised as a catholic, went to Agnosticism, now adjusted-Nihilist. I've seen alot of viewpoints, and well, I just don't care. It has nothing to do with the future. The past is a bit irrelevant concerning as to why we are here, and if anything the world is not ready to see one single truth... Even if there was a deffinitive truth to evolution/creationism.
Myself, I don't "Believe" in evolution, I -know- it has occured. But, I'm not over-zealous enough to tell people what to think, observe, or believe in.

Answer 10

Where does one start? By pointing out that speciation has in fact been observed in the lab and in the wild? By pointing out that no Creationist even seems to have a basic idea about how evolution works? By pointing out that scientists have in fact dissected and examined Creationist claims and debunked them years ago> By mentioning that claiming "design" is by itself an unsupported assumption?

Answer 11

Well, you're obviously biased. Look at what you wrote. I could tell right away. Secondly, you're making assumptions, too. Almost all of the best evolutionists have studied creationism and many have read the Bible more than once. You should educate yourself before you ask us to become more educated. Anyway, the argument is very controversial and neither side can completely prove it's hypothesis... yet.