English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

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

2007-04-30 13:17:34 · 16 answers · asked by cascio_ben 1 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

assumption that cannot be validated.

2007-04-30 13:17:55 · update #1

16 answers

As a Hindu, I can look at both sides objectiely; Hindus created neither evolution nor ID.

Evolution won 2 seconds into the comparison. I'm sorry, but from one theist to another creationism according to the Bible is BS, and creationism without evolution is just as bad. There is a tiny possibility we were created and then evolved...but at this point logic and science overpower my spiritual feelings.

EVOLUTION WINS


LOL I didn't see the term scientific creationism...and my question is what kind of drugs are you doing?

2007-04-30 13:21:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

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.

2007-04-30 13:36:20 · answer #2 · answered by Atavacron 5 · 0 0

I am tired of trotting out the web sites which have all the examples of observed examples of evolutions.
If you really have looked at both sides you definitely should know them. They exist and any internet search will show them to you.
A nice example for evolution is the human eye. Now the human eye is designed so that the photoreceptors point away from the light (not really the best design, but workable with neurological adaptations). The eye of an octopus is designed so that the photoreceptors point towards the light and thus facilitate vision. It is clearly a much better design. Does that mean that god likes an octopus better than humans. Or that god really practiced on humans before designing an octopus? If you look at evolution and developmental biology it's really clear why it is at is is. While they may appear to share a common design, the eyes are actually examples of convergent evolution. Please look that up on wikipedia (I am sure you are smart enough to do that without me providing an link). That will teach you that biologists do not think that a common design automatically indicates a common anchestor.

Please study more, you have not yet reached an understanding of evolutionary theory. But it is commendable that you are trying. Don't give up, it may be hard, but it will be worth it.

2007-05-01 16:46:53 · answer #3 · answered by convictedidiot 5 · 0 0

First off, Have you even heard of genetic testing?

Secondly, if creationists acknowledge that single-celled species evolve, then they have acknowledged that evolution exists. Simple as that.

PS: There is no such word as "evolutionist". It's not a belief, it's a scientific theory with supporters and detractors. Anyone who can conclusively disprove the theory would possibly be the most celebrated scientist of all time. Learn science, and try to disprove the theory. We would cheer you if you could!

2007-04-30 13:21:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Why have people spend centuries and decades seperating religion and evolution. So if you believe in religion then its impossible to believe in evolution? Or if you believe in evolution, then you cant possiblity believe in religion right? Why is it so hard to see the two morphed together? God is evolution, God created evolution, God was the big bang. Evolution has already been scientifically proven, its utter nonsense to even argue with that. Every living creature on this planet is connected in some way shape or form. Are people afraid of connecting the dots this way because then whatever religion has told us has turned out to be..untrue? Laying two naked people in a garden of paradise sounds like the easy way out to me. Dinosaurs billions of years before us. Billions of years to us sounds like a really long time but to a higher power, a blink of an eye?

2007-05-03 16:19:54 · answer #5 · answered by Sandy K 2 · 0 0

Creation Science is an oxymoron. Evolution isn't anything to believe or not, that is like believing in gravity. That doesn't make sense because both are true and have been proven on so many levels. What does it say about a person's intelligence when presented with the truth about something, they ignore it. Instead of believing in something that just feels right to them.

2007-04-30 13:22:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

No, I do not believe in evolution. I trust in it given the large amount of evidence in favor of it. Maco-evolution has been observed silly cuckoo head. It's simply micro-evolution at a greater degree. Both terms are pretty useless - evolution is evolution is evolution. Most creationists know little to knowing about evolution. So instead of educating themselves they spread lies and misconceptions to ignorant people like you who use oxymorons like scientific creationism.

2007-04-30 13:23:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Sorry, I can't answer until I stop laughing at the term "scientific Creationists"

2007-04-30 13:22:12 · answer #8 · answered by Sun: supporting gay rights 7 · 4 0

It is interesting that you make this post, considering that you obviously have no idea what the words you use mean. Why not look up the word objective in the dictionary. Oh, forget it, I realize how difficult this must be for you.

2007-04-30 13:45:28 · answer #9 · answered by Fred 7 · 0 0

Speciation has occurred and been observed. Which is why 'kind' (Creation "Science" 's favorite non-term) keeps expanding in definition from species to broader categories of life.

2007-04-30 13:26:34 · answer #10 · answered by Doc Occam 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers