Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[Carebian Knight]

As for Noah's sons. I have heard that interpretation .. that his sons were married prior, but the Bible seems to indicate otherwise. And, it does not answer who Adam's sons .. and daughters married. (

Or who the grandchildren of Noah married. Or any of the "lol incest" stuff that would result in mentally handicapped children and shit.

Last I checked (which could be wrong, but my biology teacher said it so...) not all incest brings about problems. Only a percentage brings problems, I think it is a rather large percentage, but not all.

[Snorri1234]

As for Noah's sons. I have heard that interpretation .. that his sons were married prior, but the Bible seems to indicate otherwise. And, it does not answer who Adam's sons .. and daughters married. (

Or who the grandchildren of Noah married. Or any of the "lol incest" stuff that would result in mentally handicapped children and shit.

Last I checked (which could be wrong, but my biology teacher said it so...) not all incest brings about problems. Only a percentage brings problems, I think it is a rather large percentage, but not all.

Well he's correct but this is not a single case of incest. It is initially a big percentage already, but the probabilty of getting a handicapped kid approaches 1 if there is no outside genetic material. The whole group of people is related, which is bad.

[PLAYER57832]

Well he's correct but this is not a single case of incest. It is initially a big percentage already, but the probabilty of getting a handicapped kid approaches 1 if there is no outside genetic material. The whole group of people is related, which is bad.

as for the above, that is true only in our modern world. If there were only a few humans, then there would likely not be so many negative mutations, biologically speaking. (and that, by-the way, more or less holds whether you are referring to Creationism or evolution or some combination) Some, in fact suggest that the best way to ensure very limited populations survive is to intensively breed them individually .. forcing "negative" genes in the open, to die off and leaving only "good, pure, stock" (genetically speaking, of highly endangered species). This IS controversial ... and applies only to very small populations that are facing die off, where the gene pool is already too limited to provide good diversity. Though it is more or less what was decribed both post Adam/Eve and Noah .. each of their decendents disbursed to become nations.

For myself and any Chrisitian, the real answer is that God is ultimately in charge ... and that we are here is the proof this "worked".

[PLAYER57832]

If I wanted to use up hours of my time again, I would point out the lies/distortions in your post. But since I no longer have the time for that, I will point out only one. Noah's sons were married before the great flood, again, please know where we are coming from. I'm not a science major or anything, but I still have the general understanding of the subject and quite a few people, not including you Player I don't know you well enough, don't know even the most well known stories in the bible which means their views are narrowed to only what they were taught by science, they haven't had the chance to see the other side of the argument.

And therein lies the basic crux. It is pretty easy to read the creation story in the Bible ...and the truth is that most folks, even those who don't even believe the Bible, DO know at least that much. To detail the evidence for evolution or its components, however requires volumes of texts .. and even then, most assume you have some basic knowledge, such as just what constitutes real scientific proof, etc.

Take Carbon 14. The classic tactic is to talk about its "imperfection" or even to point out some cases where it was plain misused, and then claim that the whole idea that one could actually get any real information from Carbon 14 is false. IN reality, any credible scientist will be the first to point out that Carbon 14 isn't exact. HOWEVER, it does give information. AND, when possible, it has been verified by comparisons with written historical records, tree rings, and other quite verifiable, factual data.

The REAL truth is that this battle was largely fought and won shortly after the Stoke's trial. The REAL truth is that you would find only very, very few educated individuals who believed in anything EXCEPT evolution even 40 years ago. And the REAL truth is that it only began to change with the home-schooling movement. Strange, that ... the only way Creationists could get their ideas across was to keep their kids from learning the alternatives.

Oh, and this "new" idea of "intelligent design" .... that is pretty much what the REST of us, folks of faith who also happen to believe in science ... have always considered to be EVOLUTION.

Why insist it is a different and incompatible theory? For that answer, you have to do some digging. But start by following the money. Who gains by having large groups of young people completely disgard entire realms of science? Who gains by claims that extinctions "don't really happen" or that nothing we do really and truly impacts the world around us .. that we don't have any personal responsibility. Who gains by claims that the greenhouse effect is not real or highly, highly distorted. ... counter that with the consequences if you happen to be wrong.

What frightens me so much is that this is NOT truly a religious movement. And DO understand, I am old enough to have seen its evolution (no pun intended). I speak not of what I have been simply told, but what I have seen and experienced.

And if you want to claim that "all we ask is that it be given equal treatment" The problem is it is NOT an "equal" theory. The real truth is that Creationism, in many, many forms, has and keeps being disproven.


50 years ago, creationism meant you believed the earth was no more than 4000 years old .. DISPROVEN!

30-40 years ago, creationism meant there were no such thing as dinosaurs. WRONG ... exactly what dinosaurs are, how they looked, etc. is debateable, but that they existed is admitted now by most creationists

20-30 years ago, Dinosaurs were eradicated by Noah's flood. Still believed in a few Chreationist circles, but evidence strongly suggests that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist at all.

NOW -- intelligent design. Ironically, actually takes much of what used to be called "evolution", but says God dictated it all and therefore it is a creationist theory -- along with heavy criticism for various details.

Not a full summary, by any means. Nor was this a smooth, even progression. Some folks persist along the entire spectrum.

Widow did a decent job of explaining the position of many modern anti-evolutionists, but did little to actually PROOVE the truth of that position. However, understanding that takes understanding science ... and therein lies the conundrum.

[Neoteny]

Well he's correct but this is not a single case of incest. It is initially a big percentage already, but the probabilty of getting a handicapped kid approaches 1 if there is no outside genetic material. The whole group of people is related, which is bad.

as for the above, that is true only in our modern world. If there were only a few humans, then there would likely not be so many negative mutations, biologically speaking. (and that, by-the way, more or less holds whether you are referring to Creationism or evolution or some combination) Some, in fact suggest that the best way to ensure very limited populations survive is to intensively breed them individually .. forcing "negative" genes in the open, to die off and leaving only "good, pure, stock" (genetically speaking, of highly endangered species). This IS controversial ... and applies only to very small populations that are facing die off, where the gene pool is already too limited to provide good diversity. Though it is more or less what was decribed both post Adam/Eve and Noah .. each of their decendents disbursed to become nations.

For myself and any Chrisitian, the real answer is that God is ultimately in charge ... and that we are here is the proof this "worked".

I imagine this depends on a hell of a lot of factors. I wonder what the average number of lethal recessives and deleterious recessives we have as various populations. Seems like I saw a chart about it once, but I can't remember for the life of me any statistics or where I might find one.

[Napoleon Ier]

my biology teacher said it so...

Yeah. And mine said homosexuality's genetic. I wouldn't take biology "teachers" seriously.

[heavycola]

If I wanted to use up hours of my time again, I would point out the lies/distortions in your post. But since I no longer have the time for that, I will point out only one. Noah's sons were married before the great flood, again, please know where we are coming from. I'm not a science major or anything, but I still have the general understanding of the subject and quite a few people, not including you Player I don't know you well enough, don't know even the most well known stories in the bible which means their views are narrowed to only what they were taught by science, they haven't had the chance to see the other side of the argument.

And therein lies the basic crux. It is pretty easy to read the creation story in the Bible ...and the truth is that most folks, even those who don't even believe the Bible, DO know at least that much. To detail the evidence for evolution or its components, however requires volumes of texts .. and even then, most assume you have some basic knowledge, such as just what constitutes real scientific proof, etc.

Take Carbon 14. The classic tactic is to talk about its "imperfection" or even to point out some cases where it was plain misused, and then claim that the whole idea that one could actually get any real information from Carbon 14 is false. IN reality, any credible scientist will be the first to point out that Carbon 14 isn't exact. HOWEVER, it does give information. AND, when possible, it has been verified by comparisons with written historical records, tree rings, and other quite verifiable, factual data.

The REAL truth is that this battle was largely fought and won shortly after the Stoke's trial. The REAL truth is that you would find only very, very few educated individuals who believed in anything EXCEPT evolution even 40 years ago. And the REAL truth is that it only began to change with the home-schooling movement. Strange, that ... the only way Creationists could get their ideas across was to keep their kids from learning the alternatives.

Oh, and this "new" idea of "intelligent design" .... that is pretty much what the REST of us, folks of faith who also happen to believe in science ... have always considered to be EVOLUTION.

Why insist it is a different and incompatible theory? For that answer, you have to do some digging. But start by following the money. Who gains by having large groups of young people completely disgard entire realms of science? Who gains by claims that extinctions "don't really happen" or that nothing we do really and truly impacts the world around us .. that we don't have any personal responsibility. Who gains by claims that the greenhouse effect is not real or highly, highly distorted. ... counter that with the consequences if you happen to be wrong.

What frightens me so much is that this is NOT truly a religious movement. And DO understand, I am old enough to have seen its evolution (no pun intended). I speak not of what I have been simply told, but what I have seen and experienced.

And if you want to claim that "all we ask is that it be given equal treatment" The problem is it is NOT an "equal" theory. The real truth is that Creationism, in many, many forms, has and keeps being disproven.


50 years ago, creationism meant you believed the earth was no more than 4000 years old .. DISPROVEN!

30-40 years ago, creationism meant there were no such thing as dinosaurs. WRONG ... exactly what dinosaurs are, how they looked, etc. is debateable, but that they existed is admitted now by most creationists

20-30 years ago, Dinosaurs were eradicated by Noah's flood. Still believed in a few Chreationist circles, but evidence strongly suggests that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist at all.

NOW -- intelligent design. Ironically, actually takes much of what used to be called "evolution", but says God dictated it all and therefore it is a creationist theory -- along with heavy criticism for various details.

Not a full summary, by any means. Nor was this a smooth, even progression. Some folks persist along the entire spectrum.

Widow did a decent job of explaining the position of many modern anti-evolutionists, but did little to actually PROOVE the truth of that position. However, understanding that takes understanding science ... and therein lies the conundrum.

DING DING! We have a winner!

Interesting that you brought up home-schooling. I watched a documentary recently called Jesus Camp, about a summer camp for evangelical/pentecostal (?) kids from Missouri, i think. Anyway they were all home-schooled, precisely (according to their doltish mothers) to keep them from secular lies. And they were watching 'educational' creationist videos, with beardy men sneering at evolution, with no one to counter. Makes sense.

[PLAYER57832]

If you are referring to the (admittedly controversial) idea about seperating and "intensively" breeding to weed out negative genes, I think it was headed Island theory or some such ... I first heard about it roughly 20 years ago and I am not sure it is being discussed much any longer, so I am not sure that you would find much through Google.

The assumption was that some of the isolated communities would die off, but that you stood a better chance of getting one, more or less genetically resilient group. Again, this was highly controversial. I think the basic anti-argument was that while it might possibly work, folks did not want to gamble with endangered species.

By-the-way, Walruses and Elephant seals each provide case studies of re-emergence of species from near extinction, if you wish to pursue that topic.

Again, from the stand point of Christianity, we would say that God gave a little "push". But, even from a strict scientific standpoint, we ARE here, so something happened correctly.

[Neoteny]

Jesus camp: scariest horror movie I've ever seen.

[MeDeFe]

Jesus camp: scariest horror movie I've ever seen.

That's a statement I completely agree with, every other horror movie is fiction, but that one is not and that gives it an edge the length of a 16th century bihänder and as sharp as a modern day scalpel.

[Napoleon Ier]

Jesus camp: scariest horror movie I've ever seen.

That's a statement I completely agree with, every other horror movie is fiction, but that one is not and that gives it an edge the length of a 16th century bihänder and as sharp as a modern day scalpel.

Pfff...come on, thats just cheap shots directed at Christianity using rather base propaganda. Yes, there's a few nuts out there, but c'mon, the whole thing with its Elito/Supreme-Court voiceover-"oooh teh Bushitler iz lyk kontroled by teh fundementalims!!!1!!!" is just xtra-esque conspiracy bullshit.

[MeDeFe]

Nappy, I heard the owners of the camp saw the movie beforehand and that they were quite content with the way they were presented. And if they think they're presented accurately while secular people are scared by what they see in the movie, well, draw your own conclusions, I would almost go so far as to call them two completely different societies that just happen to live within one state.

[heavycola]

Jesus camp: scariest horror movie I've ever seen.

That's a statement I completely agree with, every other horror movie is fiction, but that one is not and that gives it an edge the length of a 16th century bihänder and as sharp as a modern day scalpel.

Pfff...come on, thats just cheap shots directed at Christianity using rather base propaganda. Yes, there's a few nuts out there, but c'mon, the whole thing with its Elito/Supreme-Court voiceover-"oooh teh Bushitler iz lyk kontroled by teh fundementalims!!!1!!!" is just xtra-esque conspiracy bullshit.

And you're confusing fundamentalist penetcostalism with christianity.

And it's not really a voiceover, it was a christian radio jock who they used to provide some balance - which, as discussed above, is more than these kids get, apparently. Whether they needed to show that balance is debatable, but as MeDeFe says, if both sides felt they came out of teh documentary well, what does that tell you? And how can you call it anti-xian 'base propaganda' when the xians portray'ed are happy with that portrayal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becky_Fischer - the woman in charge of the camp apparently uses the film to spread her ministry.

[PLAYER57832]

my biology teacher said it so...

Yeah. And mine said homosexuality's genetic. I wouldn't take biology "teachers" seriously.

What your teacher SHOULD have said is that evidence suggests homosexuality is biologically based. The prime example is that homosexuality occurs amongst all faiths, in all types of families ... and is no more prevalent among those raised by homosexuals than those raised by heterosexuals. (to give the barest of explanations)

BUT, that is off topic, if you want to get into that any more, it should be in another thread.

[Snorri1234]

my biology teacher said it so...

Yeah. And mine said homosexuality's genetic. I wouldn't take biology "teachers" seriously.

What your teacher SHOULD have said is that evidence suggests homosexuality is biologically based. The prime example is that homosexuality occurs amongst all faiths, in all types of families ... and is no more prevalent among those raised by homosexuals than those raised by heterosexuals. (to give the barest of explanations)

BUT, that is off topic, if you want to get into that any more, it should be in another thread.

I wouldn't even try. The catholic church says it isn't biological.

[tzor]

I wouldn't even try. The catholic church says it isn't biological.

Really? As a Roman Catholic I would sort of question that; pointing out that traditionally there has always been a tendency for the Church to separate tendencies from the act itself. More over there is always a tendency to not suggest that a genetic precondition forces a person towards a certain behavior because that in and of itself is a cop out against free will. As far as I recall (last time I checked the Catechism of the Catholic Church) the Church does acknowledge that some may have a tendency towards such behavior but the reasons for such tendency are not known (and in fact may be a combination of factors).

Of course we are evolving to a different topic. So let’s not annoy the creationists with topic evolution.

[PLAYER57832]

....


What your teacher SHOULD have said is that evidence suggests homosexuality is biologically based. The prime example is that homosexuality occurs amongst all faiths, in all types of families ... and is no more prevalent among those raised by homosexuals than those raised by heterosexuals. (to give the barest of explanations)

BUT, that is off topic, if you want to get into that any more, it should be in another thread.

I wouldn't even try. The catholic church says it isn't biological.

No, the Roman Catholic Church says it is sin, no matter how it comes about....

But this is neither about evolution nor creationism, so more discussion should be in another thread.

[Bavarian Raven]

did anyone ever stop to think that if the world was only 4000 years old, how could we have a tree that is 4767 years old. bristle cone pine? just my two cents...

[Neoteny]

Ugliest tree ever, by the way.

[Bavarian Raven]

i think it is an interesting tree....

[Backglass]

my biology teacher said it so...

I wouldn't take biology "teachers" seriously.

Of course. You should instead take legend & lore handed down for generations as fact.

[Snorri1234]

did anyone ever stop to think that if the world was only 4000 years old, how could we have a tree that is 4767 years old. bristle cone pine? just my two cents...

I have a question for anyone who knows about creationism. When did the Flood take place?

[PLAYER57832]

did anyone ever stop to think that if the world was only 4000 years old, how could we have a tree that is 4767 years old. bristle cone pine? just my two cents...

This is "of course" just plain wrong ... and fossils were put there by the devil to confuse us (to quote one of the earlier creationists)

But, to be fair, the more modern incarnations of creationism do say the earth is a bit older than 4000 years... many even acknowledge the reality of dinosaurs, but say they were killed off in the flood (never mind that the Bible says Noah took two of EVERY species ... there are explanations for that).

In fact, the most recent incarnation "intelligent design" bears a striking resemblance to evolution, but with the insistance that God is stearing it all. (there are some differences, but it is not much different from what anyone who is either a Christian, Jew or Muslim .. and probably of other faiths as well, though I am sure about that ... has always thought of as plain old evolution. Science provides the detailed "how", the Bible tells us the general "how", the "why" and by "whom")

[MeDeFe]

Then the question really boils down to whether evolution should be taught with a god in it or without a god in it. And since god isn't very scientific, well...

[got tonkaed]

Then the question really boils down to whether evolution should be taught with a god in it or without a god in it. And since god isn't very scientific, well...

I dont see it nearly as much as a teaching question in the sense of science vs not science, but as a question of legality under the establishment clause.

At least in America, its just not allowable in the current context to teach creationism. Anywhere outside of the public school system, teach what youd like, but its supposed to be evolution in the science class.