I am a catholic and i actually believe more in evolution because it makes more sence than god creating us. by the way... we are still evolving, but the prossess takes millions and millions of years. (the story i believe is that we came on to the planet as bacteria when the planet had just begun and then over billions and billions and billions of years until we became humans.)
Then you have to realize that you are evolving even as we speak. There has been more proof of our evolution as a species, the shrinking of the "pinky toe", the gradual disappearing of the Cusp of Carabelli [thats a peice of a tooth], and finally the enlarging of the prefrontal cortex. All these have been noticed over just the last couple centries.
Wait, I'm confused. Creationism relies on the basis of an intelligent designer, namely God. But, many other religions offer their own creation account. With so many different variations of the origins of life, you can't simply pick one and go backwards. It's far easier to prove God's existence and so on and so forth. But anyways... How about we start with the definition of a species.
No rusty... If you are going to defend biblical creationism you need find evidence for the claims it makes, not for the god it says made it. We should really start with the definition of a kind but, what the hell, I'm game for defining scientific terms. Species are expected often to have fuzzy and imprecise boundaries because evolution is ongoing. Some species are in the process of forming; others are recently formed and still difficult to interpret. The complexities of biology add further complications. Many pairs of species remain distinct despite a small amount of hybridization between them. Some groups are asexual or frequently produce asexual strains, so how many species to split them into becomes problematical. Creation, defining things as kinds that were created once and for all, implies that all species should be clearly demarcated and that there should be a clear and universal definition of kind or species. Since there is not, creationism, not evolutionary theory, has something to explain. Different definitions of species serve different purposes. Species concepts are used both as taxonomic units, for identification and classification, and as theoretical concepts, for modeling and explaining. There is a great deal of overlap between the two purposes, but a definition that serves one is not necessarily the best for the other. Furthermore, there are practical considerations that call for different species criteria as well. Species definitions applied to fossils, for example, cannot be based on genetics or behavior because those traits do not fossilize.
I am atheist but I stil have my share in religious matters. There is no easy way to say this without somebody feeling offended. There is an unbelivable amount of evidence supporting evolution. Monkeys share 93 percent of our Deoxyribonucleic acid according to top scientists around the world. However that other 7 percent obviously makes a big difference. By looking at prehistoric monkeys scientists can find rather impressive evidence to support evidence. Many facial features are shared by modern/prehistoric monkeys as well as humans. Close diagraming of the skull reveals a similar design and many features that are different than previous monkey skulls. Showing that the facial area has indeed changed or evolved over time. Lets take a look at another major example. The galapagos islands in south America reinforce the concept of evolution very strongly. Once the islands break apart the animals were somewhat seperated. I will use Iguana 1 and Iguana 2 to explain this. The Galapaggos tear off of S. America with Iguana 1 stuck on them. Iguana 2 is stuck on the mainland. As Iguana 2 evolves to conditions on the mainland, Iguana 1 evolves to life on the island. Birds on the Galapaggos have different shaped beaks for different food. These are all examples of speciation.
Like I said, a blurry line. If you are so inclined you can and probably make a valid argument for it. I doubt how far you get with species but with subspecies there would definitely be some interesting points raised. They're definitely not a different species. They're still **** saipien saipein. I doubt they're a subspecies. They don't have any unique character combinations I don't (high melanin production is the exception). There is no reason not to consider them the same species as us.
If all forms of life were intelligently designed as seperate species, then what is the explanation for the vestigial organs and useless body functions? There is the appendix, which could guard against losing bacteria that aids in digestion. It isn't essential for survival in any way. Not the best example here, but it's the first thing that people think of. Another example is wisdom teeth, an extremely imperfect and unnecessary thing. Why would we have teeth designed that don't even fit in our jaws? They need to be removed if they come in. That doesn't seem very intelligent. In human ears, there are minimally developed muscles that just hang out on the ears. In other primates, these muscles are used to move the ears. Some humans actually have these developed and actually can move their ears but with no purpose. Why are these here? In human eyes, there is a fold of skin in the corner. They serve no purpose, they're just there. Evolution provides explanation, it's a leftover from species with nicitating membranes ("the third eyelid"). What is the creation reasoning for this? Goosebumps. All they do is form under stress or cold temperatures. This function is completely pointless, the hairs on our bodies raise? for what? If this reaction wasn't there at all, NOTHING would change. What was the intelligent reason behind this design feature? Evolution explains it as human ancestors having the ability to puff their fur out to look intimidating or for warmth. We don't have fur. an analogy often used as an argument on the side of creationists is the 'mousetrap analogy' How does this create valid points if parts of the mousetrap aren't even needed and can be removed without affecting its function? Where is this exact intricacy of an intelligent creator if there are any unneeded parts whatsoever? It all just seems so flawed to have been created by a higher power described as perfect. Sure, the way human personalities are is flawed completely and religion made up a way to get that to make sense along with everything else that disproves it in any way... (Saying "god works in mysterious ways" as an argument against anything is bullshit, stay out of this thread if you're going to say things that aren't debate worthy.) The fact that our physical set up has these tiny flaws that are easily explained by evolution really doesn't make sense on creation's part. Evolution is obviously the rational choice here. On an unrelated note: a pet peeve of mine is anybody who believes people are any different or above any other life form. We're all in the same boat if you ask me.
You know what corduroyCHUCK, I don't think I've ever seen anyone turn the irreducible complexity idea around and use that to argue against an intelligent creator. The funny thing is that while it (the argument) isn't necessarily that strong, it definitely counters those arguments from the intelligent design promoters.
So if the only seperating factor is an exception to melanin production and other physical features such as facial shape, eye color, and hair color, then how are galapagos finches entirely different species?
The size of someones nose, while genetically controlled, is not the same thing as beak size and shape. Darwin's finches have more differences than just their beaks but the beaks are what first caught Darwin's eye. Even if the beaks were the only reason for them being a different species a beak and its size is much different from a nose and its size. We're talking about a large growth too, not just this nose to this nose but from a 3 cm tall beak to almost a 2 in tall beak. It's a fantastic increase and its not even a cartilaginous structure.
Going to throw in my two cents. First, there is greater genetic variation between individual humans than there are between the races. Technically this means that the term "race" is innacurate, never mind the term "species". Second, the galapagos finches are different species because they were classified that way. Classification is not an exact science, it is an interpretive one. It is believed that over 50% of the worlds plant species have been "discovered" more than once. It is only with the relativley recent discovery of DNA (which Darwin did not know about but predicted) we can start to sort out the mess. Finally, a point someone made at the beginning of the argument - why are humans no longer evolving, if we were we would be sprouting new bits all the time. Well, we are still evolving, and we are still sprouting new bits. You usually see them on Maury. The last beneficial human evolution was the ability to digest milk into adulthood, and there are still large populations who dont have this mutation.
evolution : fact Creation : made up God, Jesus, anything in the bible : made up i hate christians and christianity, its just plain dumb how your always attacking things like evolution that has sooooo much proof and then stick to your holy man in the sky theory, theres no proof of your silly little god, and unless jesus rides domn on a lightning bolt and tells me otherwise im not changing my mind
creation cause if it wasn't then there wouldn't be apes and i am a catholic so God is the creater of heaven and earth so yeah creation.
Evolution It seems to be most logical to me. I believe things were a little bit more technical than what the bible leads onto. Adam & Eve? Narrow minded bigotry? It ain't my thing. Evolution isn't so far fetched that it is beyond any credible recognition by the general population. And Creationism just ignores the facts, plain & simple. By the way, I just joined Forge Hub! My name's Chris & I like making maps! Haay guys!
Please. Don't. Post. Stupid. Arguments. Like. Yours. You CANNOT come in, and the first thing you say being "well its false". Support your claims. Also, leave your introductions to the introductions forum. (as if it wasn't obvious enough)
Well, I think I'd have to go with evolution(or something like that...maybe not specifically evolution..) but I definitely don't think "God" just "created" everything at once, because if you look at the law of Superposition, and then go deeper into the earth, you stop finding mammals and other life forms, but only single cell fossils..so..idk, i'm just saying what I've learned.
The Bible states that a day to the Lord is a thousand years to mankind. This is open for interpreting.