Creationism vs. Evolution?

Question

anybody else think it's kind of funny when a creationist debates an evolutionist because they have no scientific data at all to back up their claims?

actually evolution IS a scientific fact

For those who think evolution isn't a fact check:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches READ THE THIRD PARAGRAPH

search it, you'll find more

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Dude, read the history of how darwin came up with the theory in wiki. It's accurate. If you can actually understand scientific things. Scientists don't "come up" with evolution to bash creationists, they come up with evolution because it actually describes things that occur in nature. I wish creationists would quit being so ignorant sometimes.

Here's some articles for ya:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/EVO?cookieSet=1

I can keep 'em coming if you want

so you're telling me the evolving of one finch species into another is not evolution? The THEORY of evolution uses this principle to try and describe why we are here today. The fact that we even have this small species to species evolutionary fact is rediculously better than anything a creationist could give me

The Bible was written a couple thousand years ago and yet creationists seem to like to follow it word for word and assume it is absolute law and everything in it is true. Well I could write you a book tomorrow and who says your Bible is better than my book? It's absolutely bogus

You want a peer-reviewed "article"? Read The Origin Of Species by Charles Darwin idiot. And by the way, apparently you're not going into or from any kind of science field because a theory is not assumed incorrect until proven. Theories are formed from available FACTS (evolution of species) to best describe observables in nature and can only be supported by more incoming data. Theories hold until they are PROVEN incorrect. So apparently Mr. Darwin's theory describes the evolution of nature quite well. So, if you could give ME some scientific data telling me that creationism is real besides just explaining to me the complexities of the eye ball and refuting an extremely old peer-reviewed book, let me know.

Answer 1

There is no controversy. The Biblical creation is a myth from a really old book. It's no more valid than any other creation myth. While evolution is a scientific theory. It's been massively tested and corroborated and never refuted. It's regarded as a scientific fact in relevant fields. Creationists can claim that evolution is impossible or quote some creation website but that just proves they never put in the time to understand evolution and probably never will.

Here's a video about Darwin's Beagle trip and evolution if you're interested.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

Answer 2

Oh no. You brought out the big gun. Wikipedia!!!!!!!! HAHAHA.

What you're giving evidence of is more specifically micro evolution. Kinds of animals changing from 1 to another. A bird is still a bird! Now to fool people you stop referring to kinds of animals and start calling them species. That way you can say species are creating other species when, in fact they are not. They are still of the same kind. There is ZERO proof of kinds changing to different kinds. Obviously different kinds cannot mate due to different number of Chromosomes and different extremely complex DNA. Resulting offspring between different kinds would be a mutant not capable of survival.
Everything to do with Evolution in it's grand scale, referred to as macro evolution, is 100% assumption.

Why you evolutionist come up with theses Creationism vs Evolution threads is beyond me. Evolution can't even come close to explaining how the world and life was created without using totally absurd assumptions that defy the science of probability. Even many scientists, embarrassed by the theories of how it all began, will tell you a creator was necessary at some point.

Answer 3

If you would not mind providing a study I can read with evidence of Evolution?

Could you tell me how new species are created and point me to one?

Would you mind explaining the fact that Darwin himself stated in "Origin of the Species" that without transitional species the entire theory would fall. Now tell me about the latest proof of a transitional species.

Next, explain how a closed system becomes more organized without the constant inflow of energy to maintain (much less improve the organizational structure of that system) it? You know, what was require for species to become more specialized not less...

Here is an easy one for you "scientists". Explain the evolution of the eye. Explain how the millions of changes required in a single step required to go from normal nerve to optic nerve with zero margin for error. What are the odds?

Shall we face facts? While Christians understand and accept on faith that we don't have all the facts, Evolutionists are no different.

How about the null hypothesis? Do any of you "scientists" even know what it is? Here is a little light for your darkness.

All real scientists, when approaching real science enter the research with the assumption that the theory is false until proven otherwise by, "observable", "measurable" and repeatable data.

Guess what gang you have none. Yet you believe that it is fact. This is a clear violation of the scientific method.

No proof == faith. Give it your best you will fail.

edit-- don't give me wiki crap. I want a peer reviewed journal with data. Nothing else tells me anything. Come on "scientists". If it is a proven fact, this is easy.

edit-- You claim it is a proven fact the burden of proof is on you. Tell me where I can find PROOF of a transitional species (Darwin's theory Darwin's rules) or understand that you have failed. With out this link you believe utter foolishness. For any scientist to violate the null hypothesis and yet claim fact is simply shameful and intellectually dishonest.

I still want a PEER REVIEWED (do you know what this is?) journal with proof of new viable species creation and transitional species. Until said time, I will hold the null as a good scientist.

edit-- Not Epicurus, of course it has not been refuted, neither has creationism. This is exactly my point. Any real science will assume a theory is false until proven by statistically significant, observable, measurable and repeatable data. Nothing less will do. Evolution is not science as it does not abide by scientific method. Don't give me PBS either. What would you expect but propaganda from them?

edit-- Finch? Which one? What study? Hook me up with your proof that new species (not varieties) have come about. How many times do I have to ask for an academic journal before you provide one? You are the scientist, I am ok with statements of faith. By painting yourself into this corner, you have to provide what I ask or you are a failure. A scientist provides evidence or they are laughed at.

edit-- I guess you are giving up. You don't like people holding you to the academic standards you claim? Sorry, simply admit that your religion is based on faith like mine and everyone will be happy. I support your right to your beliefs, but make no mistake they are only that.

edit-- I can't believe I wasted all this time on a junior high student. I have read "Origin Of Species" and "The Expression of the Emotions In Man and Animals" both by Darwin. Maybe you will learn when you get to high school that a peer review journal is a scholarly journal which the data has been evaluated by competent peers. In the field of academics, if data (especially really important discoveries like proving evolution) is not in one of these it is pretty much considered anecdotal.

Your use of wiki is akin to citing the wall of a bathroom stall as a source. Trust me you don't stand a chance in this one so you may consider learning to laugh at yourself. It may help.

Answer 4

It's funnier how easily people can be brainwashed. You take a thing like adaptability and label it micro evolution. Then it makes weak minded people believe you when you try to sell them on macro evolution and a tiny dot exploding and creating the world. Then you can convince them life came from non living matter. I know it sounds dumb but it all happened over billions of years so that makes it sound smarter. LOL I can see why evolutionists believe they came from chimps. They share the same mentality.

Answer 5

What are you saying? When a Creationist debates an evolutionist because the Creationist has no scientific data to back it up? Or something else? I wouldn't use the word "funny" but "sad".

Answer 6

Evolution is no fact!!! Yall people is still living in the 90's It's 2007 evolution and the big bang has been proven never happened a lots changed since u was in the 6th grade! Duh!! Intelligent design has been proven that its more likely than the others! Short answer!! one more note I bet you believe that testing rocks is a reliable source to date the earth also!!

Answer 7

I always like to look at this debate by looking at the whole Big Bang theory. I'm a Christian but I do believe in the Big Bang theory (well, at least my version of it anyway) God spoke & BANG it happened. :) Bless ya

Answer 8

If what you said was true it would be sad, not funny. Any creationist that knows what they are talking about will have scientific evidence for creation. I gave seen and been in many debates. What is really odd is when the evolutionist gets more theological then the creationist...

Answer 9

Remember that Evolution is a theory and not proven fact...While the preponderance of evidence points to Evolution as fact...it simply is not proven either. Neither side has a legitimate arguement per se.

Answer 10

right!! Creation needs a Creator!! theres no debate in reality