Creationism or Evolution??

Mother - posted on 03/05/2012 ( 184 moms have responded )

1,627

79

30

What is our beliefs on the origin of life?? Adam and Eve?? Abiogenesis??

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Jenny - posted on 03/11/2012

4,426

16

129

There is no such thing as a transitional fossil. ALL species are in constant transition, all fossils are transitional fossils.



Frances, how do you explain the fact that we don't find giraffe fossils? Why do whales have hipbones? Why do some humans still grow tails? We find them exactly how we would expect to find them to have evolved.



Yes, we have observed evolution, look into the Lenski E.Coli experiments. It is very well documented.

Jenny - posted on 03/10/2012

842

5

28

Most likely not if both sides believe that they have science on their side.



I've heard the creationists side of it and I agree with you to some point that they do have science to back them up, and yes they do have science books and text books. However they do not stay consistent to the scientific terminology that is used to explain the evolution theory in the way it was first hypothesised and proven.



So whenever I used to bring up points from a creationist-scientific perspective to non-creationists the points were easily debunked. Whereas I feel that it's harder for creationists to prove their point of view with a definite scientific perspective. They need to go outside of the box with their explanations, and like Krista E said, pick on tiny flaws or "gaps" in the original theories to make a point. It seems like creationists do have an agenda where as the evolution theory has no agenda, it just is what it is so I would give more credit to a theory that has no bias.



My biggest wakeup call was learning more factual information about evolution, especially learning that there is no such thing as "micro and macro-evolution" which someone like Kent Hovind uses to fuel his point on the evolution theory not being a fact. Understanding that if there is micro evolution then their automatically is macro-evolution, was a cross over for me. Now its impossible to understand how anybody can say "there is micro evolution but there is no macro-evolution". It just makes no sense, you can't have one without the other. It makes more sense to have someone say that they don't believe in evolution at all.



Same thing with transitional fossils. From a creationists point of view, they will never find a transitional fossil that fits their criteria because they will not recognise one when they look at it.



The creationist definitions of what a transitional fossil is and what "evolution" itself is, is vastly different to what the evolution theory actually states it to be. Once one has those definitions clarified from a purely scientific point of view it is very difficult to see the gaps in the evolution theory that originally seemed so huge.

Krista - posted on 03/10/2012

12,562

16

847

Many of the animals probably hibernated for a while on the ark, just like some do in winter today.



So, you are blithely disregarding mountains of scientific evidence, and yet expect us to accept a guess that you just hauled out of your ass right now? With absolutely no evidence to support it?



Okay, then.

Mrs. - posted on 03/08/2012

1,767

6

30

Yeah, but that's kind of like saying since the Civil War happened, Gone with the Wind is all true.

Johnny - posted on 03/09/2012

8,686

26

322

We have not just carbon dating, but also all other methods used by scientists to date wood, rocks, fossils, and other artifacts. These comprehensively disprove the Bible’s claims. They include uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating as well as other non-radioactive methods such as pollen dating, dendrochronology and ice core dating. In order for any particular rock, fossil or other artifact to be aged, generally two or more samples are dated independently by two or more laboratories in order to ensure an accurate result. If results were random, as creationists claim, the two independent results would rarely agree. They generally do. . They regularly reveal ages much older than Genesis. Indeed, the Earth is about 750,000 times older than the Bible claims

184 Comments

View replies by

Nataschia - posted on 03/28/2012

58

6

3

Evolution, based on scientific findings, is the thing that mainly just logically makes sense to me everything has changed, morphed around us . I also don't believe we are the only planet with life even if it is just bacteria But I don't think we'll ever know how we came to existence andbif there are other things " out there"

Minnie - posted on 03/21/2012

7,076

9

788

I was taught growing up that early hominid fossils were merely humans with disfigurements.



Of course, baptist children aren't taught about DNA in home school biology.

[deleted account]

Fossils only support Creationism if you ignore a bunch of data because that counters your faith.



But I've read many creationist books and they all hinge on 2 things - arguments from ignorance and a unending habit of begging the question.

Jenni - posted on 03/21/2012

5,928

34

393

Exactly Jaime. This article explains the flood of Mesopotamia: http://news.discovery.com/earth/ancient-...



Of course a monumental event like this would have been passed down through story telling for generations after. But like an ancient game of telephone over centuries the accuracy is lost, embellishment occurs. The interpretation of a catastrophic event by ancient people, would be much different than we would interpret it today.



Like when Pompeii experienced the eruption of Mt vesuvius. People had no CLUE what was going on. They hadn't experienced a volcano erupting in over 2000 years. Most probably thought their gods were punishing them for their misdeeds.



The history of many ancient people was passed down verbally before recorded history and becomes fables, myths; to teach morals, values and beliefs to younger generations.



There is evidence of a flood occurring in that area. This story was passed down verbally by the ancient Hebrews until later written down and recorded. Like the Illiad. Troy existed. There was probably a great war. But the characters and many of the stories of individuals had been invented 500 years later and embellished to create a memorable story that would teach of bravery and honor and other morals/values of their people. There exists seedlings of truth. But as one can imagine, much accuracy is lost.

[deleted account]

hypothesis.

1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.

3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.

4. a mere assumption or guess.



theory.

1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.



dictionary.reference.com is a great site. pretty sure a theory is NOT just an educated guess. if it is, it's pretty damn educated.



as for the great flood happening, there is evidence in the Mesopotamian area that it happened, true. but in a world where all you know is what you can walk or ride to, how could you possibly know that this huge encompassing flood of all Mesopotamia didn't cover the entire world? if you have no knowledge that there is more to the earth than just where you have traveled, then the world is a lot smaller and sure, you could say the entire earth was flooded. but more than likely you'd be wrong.



the Bible is not based on fact. it is based on people's ideas and the stories passed down from generation to generation. it is full of folklore and parables. did some of it really happen? i believe it did, as all legends began as truth, but with time everything is distorted. so i really don't see the point in saying the Bible is all truth and nothing is fictional and it should be taken completely literally.



i also don't understand people who are entirely for creationism. it just seems like they're feigning ignorance to feel like they're right about something. maybe they are, but i see plenty of evidence for evolution just looking out into my backyard at my dog, which is why evolution will always be a truth for me. i don't understand why that's so bad, why evolution should be such a horrible thing to consider, seeing as how God is all-powerful and can do anything.

Jenni - posted on 03/21/2012

5,928

34

393

I'm curious of how creationists explain all the other hominid species that existed before and along side modern humans?

Isobel - posted on 03/21/2012

9,849

0

286

Every religion has a story of a great flood, I tend to believe that that particular story is part of us having the collective knowledge of our ancestors.

Johnny - posted on 03/21/2012

8,686

26

322

Please elaborate. How does one interpret the data to support the bible exactly?



I will concur that there is evidence of several great floods over the earth's history. But I had not heard that the specific story in the bible and it's timeline is supported by the available evidence.



Since the fossil record clearly shows many creatures existing BEFORE even primates developed, let alone humans, how does this support biblical creation?

Frances - posted on 03/21/2012

382

10

39

Actually, the fossil record is in favor of creationism and the Flood. It's all in how you interpret the data.

Johnny - posted on 03/21/2012

8,686

26

322

Okay, hold the phone. What is said in one book written over 1000 years ago has more logical proof for you than a century of scientific study, data, documentation and evidence from a wide variety of fields of study? I suggest you start by looking up the meaning of the term "logical" and then move on to the meaning of "scientific theory". Because you have them BOTH wrong.

Mother - posted on 03/21/2012

1,627

79

30

Yup, our fossils tell it all!! Evolution isn't something that happened.....it is something that is STILL happening!! Take a trip to a museum....lots of proof.

Jenni - posted on 03/21/2012

5,928

34

393

And there's logical proof that the creationist story is correct?



It's a scientific theory. If you don't know what a "scientific theory" is, I suggest you look it up. Gravity is a scientific theory. But it isn't an educated guess and faith that keeps us from floating off into space.



Have you read anything about evolution? the proof is out the wazoo. Fossil records! They weren't just placed there to test faith.

Jerusha - posted on 03/21/2012

17

0

0

I am a creationalist. There is no logical proof that evolution is correct. A theory is nothing more than an educated guess. I believe what the Bible says.

Jenni - posted on 03/21/2012

5,928

34

393

While we're on the topic of evolution, I found this fascinating new discovery out last night. A newly discovered hominid that lived as early as 11 500 years ago. That's about 15 000-20 000 years later than Neanderthals were believed to have gone extinct. It is possible they have found sub/new species of hominid (DNA tests will reveal). And that would make them the most current sub species or different species of hominid to live along side modern humans.



Here's the details: http://news.discovery.com/human/stone-ag...



Anthropology is so cool and mind blowing!

Jenny - posted on 03/21/2012

842

5

28

I have heard of the shrinking pinikie.....back when I was in the christian circle. Its christian evolution science, they've got their own take on the whole thing it seems, a lot of random crap like this to keep the believers believing.

Isobel - posted on 03/20/2012

9,849

0

286

and I'll throw in...Even IF we were evolving to lose our little finger which I have never ever heard, did you think it would happen in your lifetime? Not exactly how evolution works.

[deleted account]

And my mother had one of the original "Our Bodies, Our Selves." That great tome of feminist thinking. I snuck it and read it. (I told my mother years later that I did that and she said that if I'd asked her, it would have been ok. LOL) I read it when I was between 10-12. They talked about abortion there too. Now this would have been a printing from the late 60s early 70s and yeah, they talked about it being babies although not fully formed.

Krista - posted on 03/19/2012

12,562

16

847

When I was a girl in the 70's the "educated" women all "knew" fetuses were all just a jumbled up bunch of cells in the womb; NOT a baby at all.



Yeah, that's bullshit. Sorry.



My mom is a nurse. She graduated from nursing school in 1968. She kept her textbooks, and when I was a kid, I'd read them (yes, I was a weird child, who read anything I could get my hands on.) I remember VERY clearly the section on pregnancy and childbirth, and also remember that it showed the embryo and fetus, during their various stages of development, QUITE accurately.



So unless the educated women were talking about ZYGOTES and not fetuses, and you mis-heard them, then trust me -- they were not very educated at all.

[deleted account]

"When I was a girl in the 70's the "educated" women all "knew" fetuses were all just a jumbled up bunch of cells in the womb; NOT a baby at all. "



I was a girl in the 70s too and I NEVER HEARD THAT AT ALL. That's a blatent misrepresentation of the pro-choice movement.



"Another idea I was taught by "educated" people that I still have not seen to this day (over 30 years later) is the ever shrinking pinkie finger that we were evolving away from; that in just a few short decades they were supposed to get smaller & smaller until they disappeared as they were useless ;) Maybe the educated folks that came up with that were right & they just didn't disappear because we all use them to type now~lol "



I'm pretty up on evolutionary theory as much as a lay person can be and in all my readings over the last 20 years, i've never once come across this.



Care to cite any sources for either?

Mother - posted on 03/19/2012

1,627

79

30

Millions of years ago all of us had a close ancestor. We've just evolved differently and adapted differently that we've changed. Certainly you've heard of a MULE. That is a donkey and horse breed. Two different species but the same family. At one time they believe humanoids bred with neandrathals....why....because at one time we were related. Lots of animals can breed with other species in the same family, like horses and donkeys or lions and tigers. These were not "created" by people, the animals mate naturally. We also have animals MAN created for example the CAMA. which is a mixture of a camel and a Llama. So long as animals fall under the same "family" breeding is possible.



Now before someone jumps in and says....yes....within the same family!!! Where do we think these families came from?? Evolution has been documented by one scientist. I think someone mentioned it earlier in the conversation. Richard Lenski, a biologist has watched before his very eyes how cells evolve and change. If these changes can produce such results in the 20-30 years he's been doing his experiment....imagine what changes can occur in 20-30 million years. and imagine further, is you will, these changes going in opposite directions. This is how different genus and family form.



I don't like wiki but I thought I'd include a link you could read so you knew I wasn't making this up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon...

Erin - posted on 03/19/2012

15

20

0

I guess I am another that does not see the conflict with faith & evolution... I am older than most on this site (had our 4th & last child at 39 a couple of years ago ;)

For me, I look at this as where did I come from, where do my children come from, it is a birth story...

When I was a girl in the 70's the "educated" women all "knew" fetuses were all just a jumbled up bunch of cells in the womb; NOT a baby at all. And I believed this wholeheartedly. You can imagine my shock when, at the age of 20, I received my first ultrasound for our 1st born at just 6 weeks to determine due date. I definitely expected to see a glob of undecipherable bio-matter. But, I saw a humanoid w/ a head, arms, legs, etc...

I have always been a Christian & had faith doubts due to what the "educated" world was putting out. However, I have not had a doubt since that very first ultrasound back in 1990...

Now I am a firm believer in God ( "Psalm 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. ") & his power to do anything whether form a person, a world, a universe or even aliens (& their planet) to come here & start life on this one... Or a huge explosion that results in the vast array of life forms on this earth... Each species is so particular, and can only reproduce with it's like kind... You would think if it were all just a "bang" (w/o an intelligible plan) that anything would be physically possible, "cat-dogs", "fish-birds", etc...

Another idea I was taught by "educated" people that I still have not seen to this day (over 30 years later) is the ever shrinking pinkie finger that we were evolving away from; that in just a few short decades they were supposed to get smaller & smaller until they disappeared as they were useless ;) Maybe the educated folks that came up with that were right & they just didn't disappear because we all use them to type now~lol

[deleted account]

the bible may not have been originally to blame, but there are so many people now who try to keep going with those ideas and use the bible as their "proof" that their way is right. look at all the politicians throwing women under the bus while waving that book around...



but the thread got off-topic...hmm...

Stifler's - posted on 03/14/2012

15,141

154

604

It totally is described almost positively isn't it! And then people carried it on into the future. VERY warlike.

[deleted account]

I don't Emma. I say that the society that wrote the book was very tribal, very warlike and very patriarchal. It's only natural that the book they wrote followed that structure closely. This is why things like honor killings, forced marriage, slavery and total annilhilation of your enemies is described with such a casual yet positive tone.

Jenny - posted on 03/14/2012

4,426

16

129

Of course, we all know women are no good at creating and sustaining life. There's just no way a supernatural creator could have lady parts.

[deleted account]

well there are a few things that pop up when you google "god is female" and it seems like a lot of people ask that question on various sites (and there are a few movies that suggest the idea) so it must not be too small a group.



i always considered God and the angels androgynous. sure, the Bible calls them "him" and "he" but the Bible was also written during a time when women were most often considered luggage and livestock and society was extremely patriarchal. this is reflected in the Bible on multiple occasions.

Frances - posted on 03/14/2012

382

10

39

I have never heard of the Holy Spirit being thought of as female. It must be a small group that believes this.

Jenny - posted on 03/14/2012

842

5

28

Some people believe that as part of the trinity the holy spirit is female, so althought i dont have an oppinion on this, thats how i understand some christians believe that there must be a female/mother involved.

Minnie - posted on 03/13/2012

7,076

9

788

Many birds possess claws on their wings.



I own an Abeka science book. Half of it is speculation. Very little is based on evidence.

Ashley - posted on 03/13/2012

32

18

3

I believe we all worship the same God(s) we just call them by different names and have different ways to show our devotion and love to them. I believe there is a Mother and Father God, that it would not work any other way and that is the balance of nature. It even says in Genesis that "We should make man in OUR image". I think the big bang theory is definitely plausible, but it would not have a been possible unless the mother and father did it. Science and religion should be friends, not enemies.

Tracie - posted on 03/11/2012

317

9

1

Seeing as how the story of Adam and Eve is patently impossible, I'm going to have to go with the one that has tons of scientific evidence to back it up - evolution.

[deleted account]

And their answer to the evidence that shows the dna record clearly diagraming one species to another?

Johnny - posted on 03/10/2012

8,686

26

322

Frances, how about posting some of the scientific studies and research that has been done to back up creationism as I have done for examples that support evolution? So far you have said nothing that is not easily refuted by various research in a variety of scientific fields. If you believe that your creation "science" can refute evolution, why not show us some of the evidence.



Just so you know, one of your examples Mr. Gish, is well known for repeating erroneous information. For example,he repeatedly states that there are no fossil precursors to the dinosaur Triceratops. However, it is absolutely untrue. Ceratopsian precursors of Triceratops include, for example, Monoclonius and Protoceratops. This lineage appears in proper sequence in the fossil record. It shows the expected developmental change in body size, size of the bony frill, and number of horns.



Either he is ignorant to the scientific evidence contradicting his information. Which is unlikely since it has been repeatedly demonstrated to him. Or he is bearing false witness, some what ironic for a supposed man of faith.



I willingly agree that we do not have all the information about every aspect of evolutionary biology, and frankly, the nature of scientific investigation would indicate that we will never have all the answers. As well, there are aspects of the information which now or in the past we have taken as fact that will be shown or have later been shown to be incorrect. Which is also par for the course with the scientific method. As another poster noted, science itself does not have an agenda. While researchers or theorists may have their own bias, the nature of scientific inquiry eventually brings the facts to light.



Interestingly, throughout the entire study of evolutionary biology (in a huge array of specialties) no facts supporting biblical creation have come to light. Other than for a few dozen, whose "findings" have been frequently discredited as above.

[deleted account]

"Abeka puts out science textbooks. Christian Liberty Academy has text books. I know Bob Jones has good textbooks. There are other books out there by scientists many with doctorate degrees such as books by Duane Gish, Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Robert Morris, and an orthodontist named Jack Cuozzo who traveled to Europe and looked at many of the fossils of Neanderthal man"



Do any of them discuss the DNA record or is it simply fossils?



An interesting page at talkorigins.com shows photos of diferent states of human development and what the Creationist sides says about them (ape vs human) and they all agree up to a certain point and then they seemm to argue over which form is an ape vs human. Fortunately biologists don't use the fossil record as the only evidence now. We have the DNA to prove it as well.

[deleted account]

Evidence stands on its own. It doesn't matter if we won't read your books. As I've often said, the evidence put out by creationists seems to be solely focused on showing by evolutionary theory is wrong and that's how it works. Im willing to pretend completely that evolution is 100% false, what is evidence that Christian Creationism is true vs any other religion?

Frances - posted on 03/10/2012

382

10

39

Abeka puts out science textbooks. Christian Liberty Academy has text books. I know Bob Jones has good textbooks. There are other books out there by scientists many with doctorate degrees such as books by Duane Gish, Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Robert Morris, and an orthodontist named Jack Cuozzo who traveled to Europe and looked at many of the fossils of Neanderthal man.

Isobel - posted on 03/10/2012

9,849

0

286

I would like to read them, what are they called and who are their authors?

Frances - posted on 03/10/2012

382

10

39

There is no point in talking to people whose minds are already made up. There are lots of good science books and high school textbooks out there that agree with me, but I know none of you are interested in it. There is lots of scientific proof to back me up, but it does not matter. I don't think it is possible to come to any sort of agreement on this topic.

[deleted account]

"Besides, no transitional fossil forms have never been found. There should be millions of them. "



This is either a blatent lie or you are woefuly ignorant of the topic. There are tons of transitionl fossils. How many would you like me to name? It's easy enough to look up.

Johnny - posted on 03/10/2012

8,686

26

322

You should probably stop getting your information about evolution from non-scientists and Christian apologetics. They are not giving you correct information.



I hope this isn't what you are teaching your kids. That will certainly limit their potential.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms