This is hilarious. Seriously. First of all, Darwin's theory of evolution does NOT deal with how life was created, but rather how one organism evolves from another. Secondly, evolution is observable. Thirdly, the only reason people think Creationism is real is because it's in the Bible (a book which relentlessly contradicts itself). If Creationism wasn't written in the bible, then no scientist would ever suggest it to be the cause for life as we know it.

These discussions are insulting to the intelligence of people in general. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It's never, ever correct about anything unknown to man at the time it was written (the Bronze age). It's about as legitimate as L. Ron Hubbard's own tall tale.

Don't insult my intelligence by calling evolution into question when there are mountains of evidence pointing towards it, and absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER pointing to the floaty-guy-in-the-sky-pulling-the-world-out-of-his-ass-in-a-few-days theory, apart from said flakey, inaccurate book. It makes you look foolish, and does nothing to discredit the scientific method, which is what got you the computer you're looking at right now, the power to power it, the food you just ate, the clothes you wear, and every single other thing in your life.

Leave discussing evolution to people who have more than a shred of knowledge about it, because as they say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". If that's the case, and I suspect it is, you are very dangerous indeed.

Originally posted by dave420
Don't insult my intelligence by calling evolution into question when there are mountains of evidence pointing towards it, and absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER pointing to the floaty-guy-in-the-sky-pulling-the-world-out-of-his-ass-in-a-few-days theory, apart from said flakey, inaccurate book.

OK, I'll play. What if the book in its original content was accurate before numerous "translations" of it took place?

It makes you look foolish, and does nothing to discredit the scientific method, which is what got you the computer you're looking at right now, the power to power it, the food you just ate, the clothes you wear, and every single other thing in your life.

Dude, we really could do without the insults.

Leave discussing evolution to people who have more than a shred of knowledge about it, because as they say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". If that's the case, and I suspect it is, you are very dangerous indeed.

Simply WOW. You are saying that members aren't allowed their opinion? I beg to differ. Again, please leave out the insults.

Originally posted by dave420
the scientific method, which is what got you the computer you're looking at right now, the power to power it, the food you just ate, the clothes you wear, and every single other thing in your life.

WOW! You mean my hair only grows because of the scientific method? Gosh, I'm glad that scientist discovered things like hair. And fingers. Man was that a great invention! I can't imagine holding my coffee cup without them.

You realize the the scentific method only explains what's already in existance. It doesn't "discover things" or create anything. It's just a method of observation.

i think evolution is proven by the simple fact that bacterias all over the world evolve


also the fact that the darker someones skin the less likely they are to get burned by the sun

or the fact that eskimos make glasses that are horizontal lines or slits because the sun gets so bright, well look at their eye shape...also look at the eye shape of the people who are native to other places where there is a lot of snow

if you want to talk about evolution please open your eyes to what's right on this planet right now and the differences in climate and which people come from which climates and how they have evolved to live in that climate

you're never gonna see an african with a sunburn

Originally posted by nikolat23
It is all about evidentiary standards. In a court of law we would have one side with piles of supporting documents based on actual physical observations while the other side has an old book with stories of magical giants, magical dragons, angels and magical talking animals.

But in a court of law, the prosecuting attorney should not be called ignorant for pointing out flaws in the defense's case. Or for questioning the methods to evaluate their evidence (which is often quite a founded source of contention when it comes to questioning evidence in support of evolution).

Also, there is some evidence to substantiate creationist claims. The thing is, it is often tossed out simply for the sake that it has been provided by a creationist or adherents of ID.

Originally posted by AshleyD
This thread isn't intended to engage in yet another creation vs. evolution debate inasmuch as it is to discuss the gullibility and hypocrisy of those who adhere to the theory of evolution and accept supporting evidence with virtually wholesale approval.

I agree wholeheartedly... I am on the fence as far as which I believe, some days Creationism seems more plausible, other times evolution, but most of the time I don't subscribed to either theory. Both theories suffer from the same problem, that life has no reason to exist, it either spawns into existence from the elements and evolves or is brought into existence by a God who's existence is then in question since God would undoubtedly be a form of life if He exists... I hate the fact that mainstream science and its followers treat any alternative theory, Creationism or not, with disdain, as though Darwin and the evolutionists have some monopoly on the truth... its the same with other alternative theories in other fields, main stream scientists need to be more open minded, how can you say something isn't correct if you refuse to research it or count it as a possibility?

I say we need a major paradigm shift, something mainstream science seems to be avoiding at all cost by studying the same old things and throwing out any chance of alternatives...

Originally posted by OSSkyWatcher
if you want to talk about evolution please open your eyes to what's right on this planet right now and the differences in climate and which people come from which climates and how they have evolved to live in that climate

I think you've described microevolution nicely. I don't think anyone would argue that.

Now please swim down to the deep end of the pool and talk about macroevolution.

I'm not surprised that a species will slowly develop darker skin, thicker fur, longer beaks over time. I'm simply confused as to how, over time, a single creature could branch off to create fish, horses, birds...people. That's some serious mutation right there!

I'm genuinely curious how evolution explains the emergence of completely novel species. It doesn't seem that there is a complete enough fossil record to support that kind of lineage.

africans don't get sunburns

Originally posted by ag2000
It is not presented to young minds as a working theory but as a proven "Law". There is most definately supporting evidence for the theory, but it has never been proven.

Do you have the same issues with 'atomic theory'?

No theories have been 'proven'. But t'is good to see you accept it has supporting evidence. That's why it's a theory. The gold standard in science.

A law isn't actually as good as a theory. A law is just a general relationship, even Newton's laws only apply under some circumstances, and even then only as an approximation.

Rather the theory of evolution, than the 'law' of evolution.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by melatonin]

people always split micro and macro

it's the same thing EVOLUTION