evolution or creationism?

[juggalo420]

i hope we can agree national geographic is unbiased and onlly concerned with scientific facts.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...podfossil.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ominiddna.html

heres a good one, it shows how evolution and religion can co-exist, just not evolution and creationism:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._religion.html
^thats a good one even though i dont believe in god.

[meek mike]

Jugg-

Those are good. It doesn't prove that we all came from monkeys and what not all it shows in a new kind of fish (speaking of the fisrt link) that went from water to land. I believe I've seen on the Discovery channel that there are still fish that do that. They discovered a new fish not the missing link to humans. But that was a good link to look into. I will do some research myself and see what else I can find. Please keep looking into it as well and we can talk more about it next weekend when I'm done with mine. Thanks.

Rev. Michael T
Soldier for Christ

[FrenchInhale]

Did you guys know that the flood in the bible that noah's ark had in it has been scientifically proven? There is evidence on both sides of the park... its just that people believe what they want to believe... if one side had all the evidence to support it noone would believe the ladder... so there is no point in argueing about it because there isn't enough support on either side to say that it is the correct one... you just believe what you believe.

[juggalo420]

Did you guys know that the flood in the bible that noah's ark had in it has been scientifically proven? There is evidence on both sides of the park... its just that people believe what they want to believe... if one side had all the evidence to support it noone would believe the ladder... so there is no point in argueing about it because there isn't enough support on either side to say that it is the correct one... you just believe what you believe.

what proof? and just because people believe in the flood doesnt make it legitimate( people believe in ufos as well, and big foot, theirs also plenty who believe Elvis is alive), one argument for the flood which i find plauseable is that it was a localized event and later exagerated into a world wide calamity. There is in fact much evidence that proves it didnt happen. The most important question is where did all that water go, in the bible it says even the mountains were covered, so where did it go? So the fossil record shows no such event as happening, why are fossils layered from simple organizisms to more complex and not all mixed up as would happen if a world wide flood occured?

[IrkenInvader]

Yeah just because there was a massive flood at some point in history doesn't mean it was actually Noah's ark. In fact, most historians believe that this event may have served as inspiration for the story, but not as the actual historical event. Say there is a huge disaster that affects a certain area and a few decades later you want to write a religious text that people would believe. You might use that event in your story, so your readers would say "oh yeah, i have vaguely heard about that, so it must be true." And while everyone has the right to believe what they want, that doesn't make them right or justified. I have the right not to believe in the law of gravity, but if I jump off the roof of a tall building, gravity is still going to be there.
As far as evolution goes, however, perhaps some misunderstood what I was saying when I said that it's just a theory. I think that if you look at the entire history of science, scientific discovery has basically meant doing away with old ideas and replacing them with new, better ideas. Take physics for example: Galileo was eventually proven wrong, Newton was eventually proven wrong, Einstein will eventually be proven wrong because his theory doesn't take into account quantum mechanics. I think that, with this pattern evident, it's not the best idea to accept evolution wholeheartedly. While I think that evolution does exist, it's only an important piece of a larger puzzle. It will have to stand up to many years of scientific process before it can be accepted as a law.

[GHoSToKeR]

i dont think einstien will be "done away with", i just think that eisnteisn theiry of relativity and quantum mechanics will some day be unified and they will be seen as one/;... but i dunno, im drunk as hell

[IrkenInvader]

I'm not entirely sure but I think einstein's theory is wrong for the whole quantum mechanics thing but will be correct if a theory (such as string if you believe in it) comes along and tweaks it, so I think we're talking about the same thing. But I'm stoned as hell, so who knows, really.

[mr chinnery]

At the end of the day Creationism is such a weak theory, it's not even worth talking about. Evolution is the best we have.

[F L E S H]

I'm going to offend some people, but I don't really care.

Creationism was born in the Early Middle Ages when the Church had control over EVERYTHING. It is a form of control that the Church has established over people (mostly Americans today).

Throughout history, the Church, the popes and all those people constantly hid the truth from people from fear that they would one day wake up and realize the world as it is taught by the Church is a huge sham. You can draw a direct parallel between this and the way communist or otherwise totalitarian regimes hide or distort the truth from their own population so that they can keep control.

Creationism is a sham, and only people who are afraid to realize that the Bible was NEVER meant to be taken literally refuse to accept it.

[F L E S H]

(I'm sorry to double post, it took too long to add this on the edit screen )

P.S.: To say that evolution is 'just' a theory s the weakest counter-argument ever. As others have pointed out, relativity is 'just' a theory, sub-atomic particles are 'just' a theory, yet physics today bases itself on the existence of these particles. Everything that is not immediately concrete and tangible in science is a theory, yet that doesn't mean that they are useless.

You say that some scientists converted to creationism while trying to disprove it. How about the thousands of people who wake up with an open mind one day and realize that evolution is a beautiful theory, which puts us in harmony with each other and with nature? For that matter, why is it such an abhorrent thought for Christians to be so close to Nature and the Earth? Is it really so bad to think that we all descended from common ancestors if you go far back in time?

To me, evolution is beautiful, and it is so much more in tune with general spirituality than to simply say "3,885 years ago (or whatever) God created us, and we are better then everything else." Here's a lesson, guys: we are not better than anything else, and we do not have more of a right to this planet than anything else living here, be it a fly or a lion.