Facts for evolutionists

[Promethean]

I do not agree with the evolving man analogy since man has had the same appearance since the first documentation of man in the most ancient of writings and drawings. Tall, short, bald, hairy. Take away our grooming tools& posture training and everyone will look like Cavemen.

The ridiculous choice to stop at the "most ancient of writings" is part of your problem.

 

[JBJoe]

Since there were no land plants, were these animals carnivores for nearly 200 million years? I'm sure there is evidence of a diet.

Maybe there were ferns. Or do you deny the existence of ferns, since they don't flower?

 

[RTooty]

Vene-

You ask me for my definition of evolution. When I criticize it I am criticizing organic and macro evolution. My criticism is how schools teach that non-life begat simple cells; begat fishes; begat dinosaurs; begat apes; begat us.

When Darwin took the voyage he made observations based on the knowledge at the time. He made observations and came to conclusions. He had no idea about the complexity of cells or DNA. If he only new the components it takes to begin life he might have came to different conclusions. Even years of trying to synthesis life we have failed. It shouldn't be that hard if it was random (methane, ammonia, hydrogen and sulphide gases = failed experiments).

Maybe if he knew how life would be impossible without proteins and yet it must assemble itself from amino acids. To make collagen you would have to line up 1055 amino's in the right sequence. The odds of that happening are 1 in 10 to the power of 260 (thats 1 followed by 260 zeros). Here's the crazy part it doesn't get made. It makes itself.

Proteins are useless if they can't replicate so DNA has the blueprints. DNA doesn't happen nor can it evolve from something lesser. It's like a kid who only reads the Far Side and then one day he programs Halo 3. DNA is stuctured, organized and complex. Meaning impossible to randomly happen.

I admit that I am not a scientist nor do I play one on television but I get my information from books. I try to put things in simple examples and then try to use logic. This info came from Bill Bryson "A Short History of Nearly Everything." He supports evolution but his research can't explain it. He uses "however it happens" alot.

Concerning all your examples of missing links they came to be because some researcher yells louder than another one. Everyones looking for the missing link and when someone finds a bone or a small ape (is it possible that there are midget apes) they proclaim it's the missing link. We have multiple examples of T-REX from different areas, some fully preserved. But all these other homos are incomplete. A scientist finds one barely preserved bone and draws conclusions cause he wants his name in the history books (Piltdown anyone). Here's a poorly diagrammed example:
cairnarvon.rotahall.org/pics/chickfail.png

The problem is that everything proves evolution. A new species found, moths changing color, monkeys using tools. Evolution proponents argue the case is closed. You can't argue with that because they will find something else to proclaim as proof. But until the holes are plugged, I can't accept it as the explanation of life.

 

[us38]

Since there were no land plants, were these animals carnivores for nearly 200 million years? I'm sure there is evidence of a diet.

You misunderstood him. He said there were no fruit bearing plants until ~425 million years ago. Not that there were no plants.

I do not agree with the evolving man analogy since man has had the same appearance since the first documentation of man in the most ancient of writings and drawings. Tall, short, bald, hairy. Take away our grooming tools& posture training and everyone will look like Cavemen.

Of course they do. History only goes back around 10,000 years, and humans had tools to escape most selection pressures long before that. Hardly enough time or reason for humans to suddenly change.

 

[RTooty]

Listen everyone, all I want is discussion. The evolution theory has holes but in the public schools it's taught as law. Why can't we put a sticker on the Biology book that reads “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered" without the ACLU suing the school district?

The point is we should allow students to learn and debate evolution and its criticism. Yet people are in an uproar whenever someone doesn't believe in evolution. They're not necessarily advocating creationism. They're advocating allowing students to come to their own conclusion. They want to teach the truth.

According to CIA.gov, 78.5% of Americans are Christians (this includes Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and others). All of those groups believe in creationism. In addition to that, there's other religions that believe in creationism, but don't fall in to the Christian category. On the other hand, only 4% of the US is no religion, meaning that they're atheists.

If 78.5% of American's believe in a creationism, and only 4% believe in evolution, how is it even arguable that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools? I'm not saying to do away with evolution all together, simply teach creationism, the most widely believed explanation for how life began, alongside evolution.

The argument against creationism that I'm hearing the most is "Creationism = religion, Evolution = science". What makes creationism not religion, and not science? Is it lack of proof? Creationists have just as much proof for creationism as evolutionists have for evolution. No, it's because creationism requires a god to create, and they don't like that. Many creationists will argue that just as it takes faith to believe in creation by God, it also takes faith to believe that life happened by chance. And if evolution requires faith, doesn't that mean that it's a religion, though it's one that does not believe in a god?

Evolutionists claim to have proof to back up evolution, just as creationists claim to have proof for creationism. Both require some believing without seeing, since no one alive today witnessed Earth's creation. And if they're both theories, why can't they both be taught in schools? If only evolution is taught, the schools are promoting one religion other all others, the religion of atheism.

Someone had asked for some proof of creation:
answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

 

[us38]

My criticism is how schools teach that non-life begat simple cells

Which isn't evolution.

When Darwin took the voyage he made observations based on the knowledge at the time. He made observations and came to conclusions. He had no idea about the complexity of cells or DNA. If he only new the components it takes to begin life he might have came to different conclusions.

I sincerely doubt it, especially considering that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Even if your god created the first life, it still evolved.

Even years of trying to synthesis life we have failed. It shouldn't be that hard if it was random (methane, ammonia, hydrogen and sulphide gases = failed experiments).

It took a lab the size of the earth one billion years to create life. You give us humans too much credit.

Maybe if he knew how life would be impossible without proteins and yet it must assemble itself from amino acids.

Please define what you mean by "life".

Proteins are useless if they can't replicate so DNA has the blueprints. DNA doesn't happen nor can it evolve from something lesser.

Your proof is amazing.

A scientist finds one barely preserved bone and draws conclusions cause he wants his name in the history books (Piltdown anyone).

I have a rather simple question for you: was it scientists, or creationists, that figured out the piltdown man was a hoax?

The problem is that everything proves evolution.

Not at all. Ironically, the only things that would make creationists accept evolution (like a chimp giving birth to a human) would all disprove evolution.

But until the holes are plugged, I can't accept it as the explanation of life.

I'd be willing to bet that if a whole, definitive, and unquestionable missing link were found, you'd simply ask for two more.

 

[Promethean]

Evolution is just like every field of science. Evolution is a scientific theory and a fact. Doesn't is seem redundant to you to make a not that the Theory of Evolution is a theory. I realize that creationists are a little slow but even by their standards such a requirement seems excessive.

A good science teacher will allow and promote scientific criticisms of the field of biology in a science class. The endless runs of questions posed by creationists and the obligatory Biblical quotes do not belong in a science class.

You are lying about your numbers, and you are lying by equating Christianity with creationism. There are hundreds of Christian groups that accept evolution, including the biggest Christian sect - Catholics. Though, Unitarians, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Protestants and others.


In the end however it does not matter what percentage believes what. Science is not a democracy and the % of people who are ignorant or have been indoctrinated by religion do not affect the facts.

 

[us38]

Listen everyone, all I want is discussion. The evolution theory has holes but in the public schools it's taught as law. Why can't we put a sticker on the Biology book that reads “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered" without the ACLU suing the school district?

Because that's wholesale discrimination. Why not a sticker for gravity? Or germs? Or heliocentricity? Those are all theories, but you don't seem to have a problem with that. It's quite clear that the people who advocate those stickers do so for reasons other than evolution being a theory.

The point is we should allow students to learn and debate evolution and its criticism.

But high school isn't the place for that. Yes, students should learn the flaws in the theory of evolution, just as they should learn the flaws in any theory.

They're advocating allowing students to come to their own conclusion.

Which high school students are, by no means, educated enough to reach. Science isn't decided in the class. It's decided in labs and in peer-reviewed journals.

They want to teach the truth.

According to CIA.gov, 78.5% of Americans are Christians (this includes Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and others). All of those groups believe in creationism.

That is flat out wrong. Not ever sect of christianity believe that god made life as it is today. In fact, only about half do.

I find it odd that you referred to a study on the number of christians in the nation, rather than the studies on how many people accept evolution.

If 78.5% of American's believe in a creationism, and only 4% believe in evolution, how is it even arguable that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools?

Because of the separation of church and state. There is no form of creationism that doesn't involve a creator god, meaning they are religious, meaning that they can't be taught in public schools.

That's the beauty of our constitution. It prevents the majority from oppressing the minority.

I'm not saying to do away with evolution all together, simply teach creationism, the most widely believed explanation for how life began, alongside evolution.

In what class, pray tell? Creationism, not being science, does not belong in a science class.

The argument against creationism that I'm hearing the most is "Creationism = religion, Evolution = science". What makes creationism not religion, and not science?

Creationism involves a god creating the world, that makes it religious. Creationism does not offer any testable hypotheses or any repeatable results, and is thus not science.

Many creationists will argue that just as it takes faith to believe in creation by God, it also takes faith to believe that life happened by chance.

And many creationists would be wrong.

Evolutionists claim to have proof to back up evolution, just as creationists claim to have proof for creationism.

But the evidence for evolution can be found in the many articles written in manay peer-reviewed journals written over many years. Where's the evidence for creationism?

 

[Split Rock]

I do not agree with the evolving man analogy since man has had the same appearance since the first documentation of man in the most ancient of writings and drawings. Tall, short, bald, hairy. Take away our grooming tools& posture training and everyone will look like Cavemen.

Yet, the fossil record shows our ancestors were morphologically different from us. Analysis of DNA from Neanderthal Man shows that they were a separate species.

You ask me for my definition of evolution. When I criticize it I am criticizing organic and macro evolution. My criticism is how schools teach that non-life begat simple cells; begat fishes; begat dinosaurs; begat apes; begat us.

That is the current scientific understanding (if you replace dinosaurs with vertebrates). What else should be taught in science classes?

When Darwin took the voyage he made observations based on the knowledge at the time. He made observations and came to conclusions. He had no idea about the complexity of cells or DNA. If he only new the components it takes to begin life he might have came to different conclusions. Even years of trying to synthesis life we have failed. It shouldn't be that hard if it was random (methane, ammonia, hydrogen and sulphide gases = failed experiments).

That experiment was to create organic molecules in a reducing atmosphere similar to early earth. Not to create life.

Maybe if he knew how life would be impossible without proteins and yet it must assemble itself from amino acids. To make collagen you would have to line up 1055 amino's in the right sequence. The odds of that happening are 1 in 10 to the power of 260 (thats 1 followed by 260 zeros). Here's the crazy part it doesn't get made. It makes itself.

It makes itself? Huh?

Proteins are useless if they can't replicate so DNA has the blueprints. DNA doesn't happen nor can it evolve from something lesser. It's like a kid who only reads the Far Side and then one day he programs Halo 3. DNA is stuctured, organized and complex. Meaning impossible to randomly happen.

It did not happen randomly. In any case, you are back to abiogenesis again. How about sticking to one topic at a time... like biological evolution?

I admit that I am not a scientist nor do I play one on television but I get my information from books. I try to put things in simple examples and then try to use logic. This info came from Bill Bryson "A Short History of Nearly Everything." He supports evolution but his research can't explain it. He uses "however it happens" alot.

Read a better book then.

Concerning all your examples of missing links they came to be because some researcher yells louder than another one. Everyones looking for the missing link and when someone finds a bone or a small ape (is it possible that there are midget apes) they proclaim it's the missing link. We have multiple examples of T-REX from different areas, some fully preserved. But all these other homos are incomplete. A scientist finds one barely preserved bone and draws conclusions cause he wants his name in the history books (Piltdown anyone). Here's a poorly diagrammed example:
cairnarvon.rotahall.org/pics/chickfail.png

Many are nearly complete. Most fossils are incomplete, including dinosaurs. Science is not based on yelling louder.

The problem is that everything proves evolution. A new species found, moths changing color, monkeys using tools. Evolution proponents argue the case is closed. You can't argue with that because they will find something else to proclaim as proof. But until the holes are plugged, I can't accept it as the explanation of life.

"The problem is that everything proves evolution?" Yes, this is certainly a terrible flaw in the theory. You seem to be implying that it is unfalisifiable. This is false. If a chimera were found (as you mentioned earlier) that would falisfy evolution. If a human skeleton were found in Cambrian strata, it would falsify evolution. If the DNA sequence of a newly tested species did not fit in with evolution, if would falisify it, etc.

Listen everyone, all I want is discussion. The evolution theory has holes but in the public schools it's taught as law. Why can't we put a sticker on the Biology book that reads “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered" without the ACLU suing the school district?

Where is evolution "taught as law?" Why don't you want to put stickers on textbooks for gravity and germ theory? You don't care about "discussion." You want the teaching of evolution watered down because you don't like it. Tough.

The point is we should allow students to learn and debate evolution and its criticism. Yet people are in an uproar whenever someone doesn't believe in evolution. They're not necessarily advocating creationism. They're advocating allowing students to come to their own conclusion. They want to teach the truth.

The truth has nothing to do with this "debate." Creationists don't want to hash out the truth as you claim. Creationists are only interested in winning their war on science. By Hook or by Crook.

According to CIA.gov, 78.5% of Americans are Christians (this includes Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and others). All of those groups believe in creationism. In addition to that, there's other religions that believe in creationism, but don't fall in to the Christian category. On the other hand, only 4% of the US is no religion, meaning that they're atheists.

This is all wrong. Most Christian sects have no issue with evolution.

If 78.5% of American's believe in a creationism, and only 4% believe in evolution, how is it even arguable that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools? I'm not saying to do away with evolution all together, simply teach creationism, the most widely believed explanation for how life began, alongside evolution.

Your statistics are all wrong. You are also making an argument from popularity. Science is not a popularity contest. Science is about what scientists do. That is what should be taught, regardless of what Creationists like you want to hear.

The argument against creationism that I'm hearing the most is "Creationism = religion, Evolution = science". What makes creationism not religion, and not science? Is it lack of proof? Creationists have just as much proof for creationism as evolutionists have for evolution. No, it's because creationism requires a god to create, and they don't like that. Many creationists will argue that just as it takes faith to believe in creation by God, it also takes faith to believe that life happened by chance. And if evolution requires faith, doesn't that mean that it's a religion, though it's one that does not believe in a god?

Science is not about faith, it is about natural explanations about natural phenomenom that make predictions that we can test. Creationism fails on all counts as science. Therefore, it should not be taught in science classes.

Evolutionists claim to have proof to back up evolution, just as creationists claim to have proof for creationism. Both require some believing without seeing, since no one alive today witnessed Earth's creation. And if they're both theories, why can't they both be taught in schools? If only evolution is taught, the schools are promoting one religion other all others, the religion of atheism.

Wow. So many falsehoods in one paragraph.

1. Evolution is not a religion and requires no faith to accept.

2. Evolution is not equivalent to atheism.

3. The past cannot be directly observed, but has left its mark on the present. Therefore, it can be studied.

4. The reason creationism should not be taught as science in schools is because it is not based on science, but on a particular religious belief.

Someone had asked for some proof of creation:
answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

Is there some particular argument you wish to discuss from AIG? I am not going to spend the time refutting every falsehood they have there... especially since yoiu have so many of your own to refute.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Vene-

You ask me for my definition of evolution. When I criticize it I am criticizing organic and macro evolution. My criticism is how schools teach that non-life begat simple cells; begat fishes; begat dinosaurs; begat apes; begat us.

evolution is change in species over time. evolution is not origin of life, that is abiogenesis. abiogenesis is its own theory with its own evidence. All life is chemical in nature so why couldnt a chemical process or a series of them be responsible? especially when we are able to create copias yield of the building blocks in the lab with relative ease.

Let's be clear about something. evolution is like a bush with nearly countless branches within branches all eventually tracing themselves to a single origin. what it is not is a ladder.

there are countless species of fish that have existed. one group had tough loby fins. one group of these loby fins developed their fin into a functional limb with a hand, wrist, arm, and shoulder. the progeny of this group eventually lead to the amphibians. one group of amphibian developed the ability to completely prevent dessication this group would later develop a dry land egg and become the reptiles. one group of reptile would become dinosaurs. one group of dinosaurs is still with us...birds. going back a bit, another group of reptile developed different kinds of teeth (i.e. molars, cuspids, so on). this group, independantly from birds, developed warm bloodedness and a outer covering.

When Darwin took the voyage he made observations based on the knowledge at the time. He made observations and came to conclusions. He had no idea about the complexity of cells or DNA. If he only new the components it takes to begin life he might have came to different conclusions. Even years of trying to synthesis life we have failed. It shouldn't be that hard if it was random (methane, ammonia, hydrogen and sulphide gases = failed experiments).

He had no idea about DNA but DNA has confirmed his ideas about inheritence of traits. we know about complexity of cells and DNA and yet biologists are unanimously in favor of evolution. evolution is the basis upon which modern biology rests. if you learn nothing else, then this at least.

Maybe if he knew how life would be impossible without proteins and yet it must assemble itself from amino acids. To make collagen you would have to line up 1055 amino's in the right sequence. The odds of that happening are 1 in 10 to the power of 260 (thats 1 followed by 260 zeros). Here's the crazy part it doesn't get made. It makes itself.

Proteins are useless if they can't replicate so DNA has the blueprints. DNA doesn't happen nor can it evolve from something lesser. It's like a kid who only reads the Far Side and then one day he programs Halo 3. DNA is stuctured, organized and complex. Meaning impossible to randomly happen.

RNA can make proteins and RNA can self replicate.

I admit that I am not a scientist nor do I play one on television but I get my information from books.

yet you are confident enough in your opinion to disagree with 99.9% of biologists on a topic that is fundimental to their field.

The problem is that everything proves evolution. A new species found, moths changing color, monkeys using tools. Evolution proponents argue the case is closed. You can't argue with that because they will find something else to proclaim as proof. But until the holes are plugged, I can't accept it as the explanation of life.

there are holes in every theory. we do not know what causes gravity, yet gravity is among the oldest theories in modern science, and evolution is up there. it has withstood a century and a half of new discovery and scientific scrutiny and remains one of the most important ideas in science. If there were no gaps in knowlege, scientists would be out of a job and we clearly arent slowing down. and most of the holes you cite are tired PRATTs. little more than gross misunderstandings of evolution, how it works, and what it claims. Even if genuinely held, your concerns are NOT enough to overturn the mountains of genetic, fossil, and other biological evidence. Look up ERVs. Look up the amino acid code and realize that two organisms could be identical in evry way but have an entirely different genetic code.

 

[Morcova]

Why can't we put a sticker on the Biology book that reads “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered" without the ACLU suing the school district?

Because evolution has nothing to do with the origin of living things.

Next thing you'll want us to put stickers on math books saying that it's a recipe book.

 

[HammOnWry]

In reference to Creationism v Evolution, I define evolution to include all it's periferal theories let it be Big Bag or Extra Terrestrial Intelligence.

Except that these things aren't 'peripheral' to the theory of evolution. In fact, they're not related at all, and no amount of claiming otherwise will make them such.

The term Creationism v. Evolution itself is a misnomer since apparently Creationism discusses the origin of life and Evolution discusses the changes life has made since is arrival, whenever you may believe that may have occured.

Oh. So you do know that evolution isn't actually how you've defined it above (to include cosmology, abiogenesis, etc), but you still insist on using that wrong definition in your argument. That doesn't seem like a terribly honest thing to do, quite frankly.

If you want a functional definiton for evolution in its barest sense it would mean change. It could be genetic, phenotypal, social, behavioral, fashion. Whatever. Evolution to me in is most basic is change.

The theory of evolution is concerned with the change in allele frequencies within a population over time. That's all.

You say you're not an evolutionist but you defend it.

I say I'm not an evolutionist, because I'm not sure how it is you're defining that particular word.

What would you classify yourself as?

In the context of this discussion, I would say that I view the theory of evolution by natural selection as being the most strongly-evidenced explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

For that matter, how do you see life as having come about and how do you account for the wide variety of animal families and genuses (not species)?

These are two separate questions, and only one of them has relevance when it comes to a discussion of evolution. Guess which of those questions it is?

Do you not believe in the common amoeba ancestor like many others?

You'll excuse me for asking you to clarify what you mean by this, I hope.

 

[Chalnoth]

Listen everyone, all I want is discussion. The evolution theory has holes but in the public schools it's taught as law. Why can't we put a sticker on the Biology book that reads “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered" without the ACLU suing the school district?

You seem to be misunderstanding what is meant by theory. In science, a theory is of higher status than a law. Laws and theories must both be vetted against the evidence; theories are just more comprehensive descriptions while laws are simple statements. Unlike in general parlance, the word theory in science does not mean, "wild guess," but instead is an explanation for set of disparate phenomena. The theory of evolution is the explanation for how life diversifies, and it is a superb theory that explains a tremendous amount about life, and has been tested extremely thoroughly, perhaps more than any other scientific theory (whether it has or not depends upon how you measure). But either way, the Theory of Evolution is so strongly evidenced today that there are only a few possible reasons for not believing in it:

1. A person is ignorant of the evidence. Clearly if they are unaware of the evidence in support of evolution, they can be excused for not believing it. But remaining deliberately ignorant is inexcusable.
2. A person is stupid.
3. A person is insane.

Now, I'm going to guess that you are neither stupid nor insane, but are simply unaware of the depth and breadth of the evidence in support of evolution. It is extremely strong. Why not start with this little exercise: look up the Ediacaran fossils (a search for "ediacaran biota" should do well for this). Now, explain why none of the following organisms are found in Ediacaran rocks:
1. No animals with bones of any kind (including teeth).
2. No animals with exoskeletons.
3. No cephalapods (like squid, octopi).

So, with most of the animals being small, soft-bodied things (there were a few shelled molluscs), how did they survive? Where were the animals with teeth to eat them, or with bones to anchor their muscles for faster movement? Or animals like crabs that could use their claws to capture prey?

Simply put, there is no place on Earth that you can go today, not even the remotest parts of the deep ocean, where life like this could survive. So how did it survive? When did it survive? How could it have survived by any other mechanism other than the simple fact that things like exoskeletons and bones simply hadn't yet evolved?

Edit: here's an image of an artist's impression of the Ediacaran:

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Listen everyone, all I want is discussion. The evolution theory has holes but in the public schools it's taught as law.

Actually, just like gravity, evolution is both a theory and a law. The law of evolution is that Allele frequencies in a population change over generations. The theory explains how and why, and the outcome of these accumulated changes.

In science, the terms Theory and law have a very specific meaning, which a great many creationists don’t understand. This is not their fault, as the school system in most western countries does not teach the correct scientific terminology, or even the correct version of the scientific method. These tend to be taught at college or university level.

Why can't we put a sticker on the Biology book that reads “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.

Because this wouldn’t be true, the theory of evolution does not deal with the origin of life.

According to CIA.gov, 78.5% of Americans are Christians (this includes Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and others). All of those groups believe in creationism.

This is not true. Most Christian sects do not advocate creationism at all, they advocate theistic evolution. The catholic church considers creationism to be heresy, the Anglican church accepts evolution as the mechanism of Gods plan, so does united reform, so do the Methodists and so on.

Creationism is most prominent amongst provincial Christian sects, many of which do not accept the creed of Nicea, and so are not considered to be Christian sects at all by many of the larger denominations. (Mormonism for example).

A quick glance around this forum at the faith icons of the posters will show you that a great many of us are Christians who accept evolution as Gods mechanism for creating biodiversity, because most modern Christians do.

In addition to that, there's other religions that believe in creationism, but don't fall in to the Christian category. On the other hand, only 4% of the US is no religion, meaning that they're atheists.

An argument from popularity is a logical fallacy. Just because the majority believe a thing, does not make it so. Besides which, I’m afraid its not true to say the majority believe in creationism. Most Christian denominations accept evolution, so do the jews, who have a much greater claim on Genesis as their book than we Christians do.

If 78.5% of American's believe in a creationism, and only 4% believe in evolution, how is it even arguable that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools?

As I mentioned above, it is not true that 78.5% of Americans believe in creationism. They may be Christians, but most Christians reject creationism in favour of theistic evolution. So how can it be argued that a minority belief, rejected by most Christians, should be taught in schools as if it was the Christian belief?

Having said that, I have no problem with teaching creationism in schools, so long as it is in comparative religion lessons and all the books are marked with a sticker which reads;- “Creationism is a theological belief, held by certain minority sects within the Christian religion but rejected by the major Christian sects, this material should be approached with an open mind”.

I'm not saying to do away with evolution all together, simply teach creationism, the most widely believed explanation for how life began, alongside evolution.

Creationism is not the most widely believed explanation of how life began, unless you are conflating creationism with theism, which is a grave mistake.

. Many creationists will argue that just as it takes faith to believe in creation by God, it also takes faith to believe that life happened by chance.

No one believes life happened by chance. Abiogensis (which is a distinct theory from that of evolution, I really do wish you would at least take that from this discussion) argues that life arose from chemistry. There is nothing chance or random about chemistry, if there was, tehn we would not put sugar in our tea, becase we would not know what the outcome would be.

And if evolution requires faith, doesn't that mean that it's a religion, though it's one that does not believe in a god?

Evolution does not require faith, just because AIG say it does, does not make the statement true. Acceptance of evolution stems from the evidence that god left in his creation. Rejecting this evidence on the grounds of a literal reading of a Jewish text which the Jews do not read literally is why Creationism is held as heresy by the Catholic church. More precisely it is considered “Biblical Idolatry”.

Evolutionists claim to have proof to back up evolution, just as creationists claim to have proof for creationism.

The difference is, that eh evidence for evolution has withstood all attempts to falsify it,, whilst the evidence for literal creationism has been debunked, sometimes by people who set out to try and support it.

Both require some believing without seeing, since no one alive today witnessed Earth's creation.

Speaking as a criminologist, you do not need to see an event to know it happened. All events leave behind evidence, and you only need to test the evidence to learn what the event was that left it. When we find a dead body with a bullet hole in the head and no powder burns on the hands, we do not conclude that death was from natural causes!

And if they're both theories, why can't they both be taught in schools?

They are not both theories. A theory is a collection of statements which explain the details of a law. Creationism is an attempt to justify a literal interpretation of genesis.

If only evolution is taught, the schools are promoting one religion other all others, the religion of atheism.

Evolution does not equal atheism, if it did, then it would hardly be accepted by both Catholicism and Anglicanism.

What is more, whatever Richard “lost the plot a bit” Dawkins claims, science is not atheistic, it is agnostic.

Ghost

 

[Chalnoth]

What is more, whatever Richard “lost the plot a bit” Dawkins claims, science is not atheistic, it is agnostic.

I beg to differ:
http://machineslikeus.com/scientific-proof-of-gods-non-existence

 

[Vene]

This is getting boring. Tooty, it is very clear how ignorant you are of biology and science. In every single post you misrepresent information, ignore the actual research done, and do not have the capacity to understand the arguments against you (an example). Either present what you think has eluded biologists, physicists, geologists, and chemists for the past 150 years or shut up. And while you're at it, either read an intro to biology textbook or take a class on it. Take the time to actually learn what the theory states and why it says that. I bet I could mention the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and you won't have a clue what I'm talking about or even why it is relevent.

Now cease with the PRATTs, the next time you think you have some great idea that destroys evolution, look at talkorigins, if it's covered there, it's old news.

 

[Vene]

Look up the amino acid code and realize that two organisms could be identical in evry way but have an entirely different genetic code.

He doesn't even have to look it up, I posted it on the very first page. This is part of the reason I'm done here. Even after being shown how genetics works, he still thinks that the formation of various proteins is some big mystery. I bet he doesn't even know that evolutionary relationships have been determined using protein analysis and that they match up with the fossil record.
For example, cytochrome c (link):

And the evolutionary tree from this sequence:

Hey, look at that, biochemistry supports evolution too.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

I do not agree with the evolving man analogy since man has had the same appearance since the first documentation of man in the most ancient of writings and drawings. Tall, short, bald, hairy. Take away our grooming tools& posture training and everyone will look like Cavemen.

Wow, that's some pretty spectacular point-missing there, chief. Still, I shouldn't expect someone who believes the world was created complete in 6 "days" to be an expert in figurative language usage.

Let's try the analogy again. Analogy. Got it? Everyone say after me "analogy". In the same way that there's a gradual progression from bald to hairy -- in the men alive at this moment, if you were to line them all up -- there is a gradual evolutionary progression from dog to non-dog (or whatever). Bob has three more hairs than Jim, but that doesn't mean Jim is bald and Bob is hairy. Similarly, a dog gives birth to a very slightly more evolved dog, but the offspring isn't instantly a non-dog. The difference comes in the accumulation of small changes, just like adding a millimeter doesn't make a short man tall, but adding lots of millimeters does.

Thus, there is no fundamental difference between micro and macro evolution. The latter is just the cumulative effect of multiple instances of the former.

 

[RTooty]

To all that have replied to me, uou guys are contradicting yourself. If you believe man evolved from an amoeba like single cell organism, then there must be multiple species between amoeba-like and man yet you say dogs will still be dogs. Yes it hard do draw the line where hairy becomes bald, but there is a point where someone is clearly bald and bears no resemblance to and is in fact no longer a hair man; he is a bald man. I believe that there is an unobservable line that cannot be crossed by genetics. You cannot prove that it doesn't exist and I can't prove that it does because these theoretical changes take place in geologic time at the minimun over the course of thousands of years which no single person could document.

You say that without knowing the mechanism, there is no reason to not believe that they can't change further but there's no reason TO think that they can change further. Futher more, all the examples of new species emerging through mutation and evolution are actually the mergence of new subpecies. All the "new" organisms are for the most part majorly similar to the previous iteration. The argument that because you can make inumerable little changes to an organism and therefore get a whole new organism is exactly like the mathematical asymtote. You Suppose you start with the nubmer one then you half it, then half it again, and agin to infinitum. You can make an inifinite number of changes to the number 1 but at the end of the day, it will never truly be zero. Until you prove that the function crosses over into the negative realm, you must assume that the function in fact approaches zero but never actually equals zero.

I read Genesis 1 and 2 (OK skimmed, even as a Christian I still sadly find the Bible quite a bore to read) and find no inconsistencies.

You ask for evidence of creationism and ID? Here it is. Life. The Bible says God created life and clearly here it is. The Bible says God made the sun, the moon, et cetera and you can clearly observe them. Yes, you may say that's a cop out answer but it's not. The evidence for evolution is more evolution but technically not evolution because the active process hasn't been actually observed but only the before and after. The evidence for the creation of life is life. It makes perfect sense.

Moreover, archeology turns up new information proving more and more that the contents of the Bible are true. Years ago, the city of Jericho was thought to be a myth and yet it was found. They have found the remains of an army at the bottom of the Sea of Reeds (aka the Red Sea) corroborating the story of the Israelites crossing through the sea and then the sea swallowing the armies of Egypt. I could tell you dozens of stories of miracles but unless you believe, they are just unexplained anecdotes. The Bible says that God formed man out of the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life. And yes, the human body is in fact formed out of elements commonly found in the air and in the air and in the ground, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen.

The biggest evidence of the Biblical creation story is what we experience every day, the week. The weekly cycle is the only cycle that doesn't have a linked physical phenomenon. A year is the time it take the earth to orbit the sun. A month is the time it takes for the moon to complete it's cycle (plus or minus, the Caesars kinda effed with it back in the day). The day is the daily solar cycle. After that, everything is based off of base 12 (24 hours, 60 minutes, 60 seconds, are all divisible by 12). But the week is unique. There are no base 7 systems that were wide spread. The only explanation for the seven day week I have ever found was the Biblical story of creation. No matter what the civilization, they all observe the seven day week and the only explanation of this is found in the Bible's creation story.

In response to your question of why a being would put so much deception into a universe, I say that He didn't. He made a perfect universe. It was his artwork. If he made a "new" universe, we wouldn't be able to see the beauty of the stars. Would you call the Mona Lisa a deception? No. It's a work of art. He made a world to please Himself. In particular, radiometric dating is simple. If he began with world from zero and had all the radioactive elements set at their maximum levels, the world would not be able to sustain life. He would have made Adam and Adam would have immidiately contracted radiation poisoning and died if he wasn't boiled alived by the gamma rays. If he didn't make the soil with nutrients already in it, plant would be unable to grow. If he made a world with just baby plants, animals would have nothing to eat. If he made a world with only baby animals, they would have no one to suckle or feed them and take care of them. He made an aged system because this world cannot survive growing one system at a time. He made the whole system and set it into motion.

This is why the Biblican story makes so much sense. In John, it says "In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was God and the Word was with God." What are the prerequisites for a univers. The first thing you need is data, rules, laws. The word "word" in greek is logos or in English, logic. This is data, information. "In the beginning" this establishes time. "And the Word was with God," this establishes space. So you have the beginnings of the universe, data and the time and space in which to organize it. Then God creates light, energy, without energy there is no matter, antoher building block of a thriving universe. At this point, God starts his first organization of time, night and day. Then he makes fluid, air and water (air is often mathematically modeled as a fluid as in fluid aerodynamics) and He organizes it again into gasses and fluids. So far we have information, time/space, matter/energy, and the first two types of matter. At this point, there are no starts which means no solar energy but I will explain this later. He then adds the third on the third day, solid ground. He then makes life in the form of plants. Notice that each new stage would be impossible without the stage previous. Then he makes fish and birds. Notice again. Birds and fish need oxygen that's made by plants. Plants can't live without water. Water can't sustain plants without energy, in this case solar energy. It can't sustain plant life because without solar energy it would freeze. Now at this point, there is no sun and moon or stars because he's about to make them. Assumedly, plants would die and water would freeze without this incoming energy. However, God IS this energy source. Cheap answer I know but even when Moses sees God thousands of years later, He's still blindingly bright. AFter the sun, moon, and stars are created, God made it's first moving live, fish and birds. They need the oxygen provided by the plants (which they can't make without photosynthesis, hence the sun made in day four) that are on the land and sea. On the sixth day, God made the creatures of the land. Why not make these guys at the same time? Very few land creatures pollenate. Also, the land was made separately from air and sea so it makes sense that land animals are made separate from land and sea animals. Then God makes Man, reasonably explainable by the fact that a planet without all the previously created features would be terribly depressing. Imagine you're Adam and God made you on pre-Earth. You're standing there in the middle of no where with no landmarks and no animals. Wouldn't you expect a bigger introduction to the world for the universe's first reproducing sentient being?

It's important to note that the events of the Biblical creation story make perfect scientific sense. Consider this. Humans bodies need energy, then air, then water, then nutrients, then food in the form of vegies, meat (again fish and bird coming earlier in the creation story are healthier than cows and pigs which come later) then finally we need companionship. This is Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs before Maslow pointed it out.

The best part of the story is when God makes women and then tells them to be fruitful and multiply. Even if you DON'T believe in this story, you gotta admit He's got style. He makes paradise for one man, then gives him a smoking hot chick, then tells him to go have lots of sex.

Speaking of women, how does evolution or albiogenesis explain the arrival the sexes?

 

[Vene]

*sigh*
The problem is you know so little, but are dealing with people trained in the subject of biology. You just don't have the required knowledge to even understand what we are talking about. For your own sake, there is an online book here covering the material presented in an intro biology course. Naturally, it isn't as in depth as what it could be, but it should give you a base with which to work. This is an academic topic and it is expected that you know about it before hand. Or do you routinely lecture your doctor about which medication s/he should prescribe?

And if you really want to know about how sex evolved, read this. Actually, read wikipedia before you ask a question here.