My belief on the evolution/creationism debate: Neither works.?

Question

Read a book called "the Evolution cruncher." It proves to me that evolution isnt right. And theres no evidence for creationism. Thus, in my opinion, neither work. Perhaps a compromise between the two theories would work, but theres no evidence for such a compromise. My belief? Science will eventually figure out the truth. But only if they would drop evolution and realize that it doesnt work.

Your thoughts please? And dont just call me an idiot okay? Its my opinion.

evolution, or at least in the way its normally presented, doesnt work. And it is still a theory, not a fact.

I am an excessivly open minded person. I have the ability to look at things to find loopholes and such to know when there info can tbe trusted. The infromation this opinion is based on has all been judged worthwhile.
And still, evolution is just a theory. If it was a fact, then it wouldnt still be calle dhte theory of evolution, which it is.

Thank you to the people in here who actually respond respecting my opinion. I apprciate it.

No, ive read plenty of stuff on evolution and plenty on creationism written by both parties. This book is just really one f only two convincing ones ive read.

Answer 1

I accept creation, but not creationism. I see them as two different things.

Evolution doesn't work. It's full of holes. It uses micro evolution (which does occur), and then tries to leap the gap, and apply it to transitions leading one species to turn into another. It sounded nice when it was proposed. Unfortunately, that was decades before the discovery of DNA and genetic laws that have raised barriers to the theory.

Creationism doesn't work. It contradicts obvious known facts. The earth has been here for billions of years. As has the universe. Lord, the speed of light proves the age of the universe. At first it may have sounded reasonable. But then the facts came to light, and the time compression that creationsim calls for, is absolutely impossible.

Creation on the other hand - is a different matter. I believe in the Creation of the Bible. Which states that those 7 time periods or 'creative days' are eons in length. According to the Apostle Paul, we are still within that 7th rest day. Many details were left out, which a primitive man could never understand.

It's interesting that Moses got the overall structure correct however. The progression from water, to light, to land, to sea life, to vegetation, and so on.

The science of mathematical probability offers interesting insights on that route. The account lists the 10 major stages in order. Science agrees with that general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this **on your first try** are 1 in 3,628,800.

Scientists DO disagree with evolution. Notable scientists. Try Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka, who is a geologist presently employed by the U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona. For almost three decades, he has participated in scientific research in various fields of geology, including planetary geology. Dozens of his research articles and geologic maps of Mars have been published in accredited scientific journals. He agrees with the Biblical account of Creation.

Paula Kincheloe, a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology, employed by Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A

Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, employed by the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, in Cologne, Germany

Enrique Hernadez-Lemus, who stated: "I am ... a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. My current work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as the gravothermal catastrophe, which is a mechanism of star growth. I have also worked with complexity in DNA sequences. . . . Life is simply too complicated to have arisen by chance. For example, consider the vast amount of information contained in the DNA molecule. The mathematical probability of the random generation of a single chromosome is less than 1 in 9 trillion, an event so unlikely that it can be considered impossible. I think it is nonsense to believe that unintelligent forces could create not just a single chromosome but all the amazing complexity present in living beings."

Answer 2

That's a huge question that really asks nothing but seeks to incite hatred for Islam. You could have used less characters to tell others you hate Muslims. You are too smart to be asking questions of anyone and you are a dictator by attitude so why should any Muslim want to debate his/her personal belief with you. Islam is the Quran and the Quran answers all it's critics and there isn't any question that you can ask Quran that is not already answered by Quran. The Quran cites you as making mischief in the Earth while you claim that you only want to make peace. You have proved your insolence by your question or your example. Allah states in Quran that the non-Muslim has no understanding and you are leaning on your own misunderstanding and the Bible calls you a fool for this and the Bible agrees with the Quran. You are of those who cannot imagine how ignorant a dictator you are when you expect that Muslims are fools to fall under your ignorance. Muslims will be wasting time trying to debate with you when you have no belief and you do not understand the meaning of belief and you do not know the difference between belief and brain-wash. My advice to you is that you need to do some serious questioning of yourself and do some real research before you choose to tackle Muslims as if you are another man-God like Jesus. And you have no idea who Jesus is even if you are Christian and study the Bible for Jesus belongs to a Roman Crucifixion Hoax that started 2000 years of Religious Fraud that the Quran confirms, and the Bible agrees with the Quran 100%. Amen and Allahuakbarr! What's your question again?

Answer 3

I see where you are coming from, but please remember that evolution is a theory supported by a preponderance of evidence. No true scientist would say it was 100% fact, it just has a high probability of being correct.

The difference between the evolutionary theory and creationism is this: When you follow the idea of creationism or intelligent design to it's logical conclusion, you ultimately have to throw up your hands and say "I have faith."

When you follow the study of evolution as far as you can go, you (if you are a good scientist) get your hands busy and say "now what is the nest testable question I can ask to figure this out even further."

So it is not a matter of dropping evolution, it is a matter of continually questioning and testing. The basic principles of evolution are so well supported by evidence as to be extremely difficult to refute. I think the real question that (educated) people have is regarding the origin of life. This begs the question "what is life?" I'm not even sure, logically, that this a valid question. Just my thoughts.

Answer 4

If you have evidence that evolution doesn't work, you should go get that published in a scientific journal, because it would be the most important discovery in a long time. You would be able to prove that immunizations don't work, much genetic study is not valid, dogs are all the same breed, and many other things that humans have been apparently fooling themselves about. Oh, that's right, evolution does work.

Edit: "And it is still a theory, not a fact."
no offense, but this statement shows me that the book you read failed to even give you the basic understanding as to the science of evolution.

Answer 5

You're not an idiot at all.But,it does come down to worldviews.It's not science vs. religion.Evolution is as much a religious belief system as everything else.Reason being,you have to have more faith in evolution than you do to believe in God himself.Both parties start at a presupposition(also known as axiom).Both sides have the same evidence,the same earth to work with,the same everything.What worldview that best explains the evidence is what should be considered.If reading "the evolution cruncher" is as far as you've gotten so far,and you're not biased in your opinion.You've got droves of different opinions,theories,etc,etc.Keep looking you will get your answer.

Answer 6

There are over 200,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers on evolution. You have referenced the opinion of ONE BOOK. Which do you think might be correct? If you understand how DNA works, evolution becomes obvious. There are gaps in the complete understanding of how evolution works, but the process of science is designed to improve on the knowledge as more discoveries are made. Some things might never be known because the evidence for them has long ago been destroyed and will never be found, but once you understand how DNA works the basics of evolution become a "slam dunk".

Answer 7

I'm sorry that you've read the Evolution Cruncher (I found it on the internet). It's just so filled with distortions, fallacies and downright lies that it would be laughable it is wasn't so disturbing that they give it to children. It is just so unbelievably wrong. I suggest you find a proper biology and geology textbook if you actually want to find out about evolution and the development of the Earth.

If anyone else wants to know what kind of stuff is in the Evolution Cruncher here's an example of how it presents evolution

"The octopus has an eye that is very similar to the one that humans have. In contrast the eyes of fish are totally different than the eyes of an octopus.
Are we then descended from the octopus?"

Actually octopi's eyes are of an independent development to ours. The implication that scientists work out ancestry simply on some superficial similarities is simply absurd.

"One day an insect decided to grow wings and fly about. That
was supposed to have been the first invention of flying.
As we already learned in earlier chapters, that lowly insect
had to design the complete wing in one generation to
make it work"

Nothing suddenly decides to grow wings. It's the result of many small changes over a long time. It did not happen in one generation.

"Evolutionists could not figure out how eyes evolved or how creatures with one kind of eye could possibly have descended from creatures with another kind of eye. So, to solve the problem, they just came up with a new name. They called it convergent evolution, as though that would solve the problem of how it could possibly happen!"

Complete rubbish. http://youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4


"Basically, the Second Law states that all systems
The Laws of Nature will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized. To put it in the vernacular, apart from a
Higher Power, everything left to itself will ultimately go to pieces."

Now I'm sure Creationists have been corrected about this so many times that they must know that they are wrong and so deliberately lying. The Second Law of Thermodynamics holds for closed systems only. If energy is allowed into the system then the second law of thermodynamics is not applicable. In the case of the Earth we receive plenty of energy from the sun so we are obviously not part of a closed system. The book's attempt to refute the challenges to it's lie and misrepresentation is laughable It consists of stupid rhetorical questions that are simply trying to manipulate the scientific illiteracy of it's target audience. For example it says if receiving energy into the system invalidates the applicability of the 2nd LTD how did we discover the law in the first place? Or insinuating that as the rest of solar system receives energy from the sun, scientists must be implying evolution is occuring on the moon as well. It's pathetic. Actually read a physics book. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

It's section on vestigality is ridiculous and riddled with inaccuracies. It misses the point completely that it is not that organs such as the coccyx do not have a current purpose, but that they do not fulfill the original purpose that the developed for. Yet for all the space it fills with its distortions and falsehoods the book forgets to mention examples such as residual legs in whales, "junk" DNA, eyes in blind mole rats and so on.

The section trying to connect evolution to immorality, communism and Nazism is just pure propaganda and not worth a serious analysis.

I can't believe you (or anyone with any basic understanding of science or even logic) formed your judgement on evolution on such a flawed text. If you want us to take you seriously, read and make a serious effort to properly understand about evolution.

ADDENDUM:

No it's called a theory because it has been accepted as valid by the scientific community. Try reading http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

Answer 8

Although I do believe in the theory of evolution, I am of the opinion that we humans do not have the capacity to understand what happened 'at the beginning' - we can't see past this stumbling block.
I feel that our minds are too logical, and it will take a great leap before we can even begin to understand what really happened.

Answer 9

You wrote: "But only if they would drop evolution and realize that it doesnt work."

Evolution is not a matter of 'belief'. And there is certainly no 'evolution/creationism debate'... at least, not one that any scientists are involved in. All there is is a bunch of liars implementing the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Strategy"... "teach the controversy"... when, in fact, there IS NO controversy.

In science, a 'theory' is not just 'an idea', as the scientifically ignorant seem to think, in common parlance... it is an explanatory framework for a set of observed facts... a description, or model, of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same sort, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

In science, a 'theory' occupies a higher level of importance than mere 'facts'... theories EXPLAIN facts. In the case of the 'Theory of Evolution', the OBSERVED FACTS that it explains are the changes that occur in the genetic makeup of populations of organisms, over time. The explanation is genetic drift (statistical variations in the genetic within a population) and mutations (random), operated on by natural selection (NOT random). In other words, "The non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." ~ (Richard Dawkins)

NONE of this is in dispute among scientists. The FACTS are not in dispute. This represents a consistent body of scientific fact extending back almost 150 years, which is well supported by genetics and by the fossil record. There has NEVER been anything found to refute it. If there ARE any changes to the theory of evolution, they will involve the incorporation of ADDITIONAL mechanisms... in ADDITION to genetic drift and natural selection... which account for the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes, over time.

Evolution is strictly a biological science. It has nothing whatsoever to do with or to say about the origins of the universe or the world. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the origins of life. It has only to do with changes to the genetic makeup of populations of organisms, over time.

The people who vociferously dispute evolution are generally those whose livelihood depends on having large flocks of scientifically ignorant believers who do not question what they are told... they merely parrot it.

Answer 10

I myself have not read the book while you say that evolution does not work it has many interesting facts that suggest we are at least on the right path.