Poll: Evolution Yay or Nah?

[WhatIsThisIDontEven]

Science is awesome. It's correct whether you believe it or not.

Science, though awesome, isn't always correct. Theories do come and go all the time as they are proven or disproven. In general, science could not progress without people questioning it. In this case though, I see your point. Most of the people arguing against evolution are not publishing scholarly papers in scientific journals, and a lot of the arguments are not based in hard science.

Excellent point, and I see what you mean.
I meant that hard evidence and experiments will always give the correct outcome, it's how we interpret those outcomes that determines whether we are right or wrong.

 

[TK421]

and why would you think said interpretations are incorrect? There are gaps, but we know where the fossils we do have fit in, even a 6 year old would likely agree on the fossil placements in the record by inspection alone. And we have many forms of dating to check the time periods, and for recent fossils and preserved DNA we can trace the DNA through the generations. The results from all these things form the same image of the fossil record, and of the Theory of evolution as a whole.
And we don't just have fossil records, if you read those links on ring species and followed up on that, we have evidence right now that does not rely on fossils. Also, if there were that a great a disagreement on the fossil records, the world would know about it. But scientists in all the relevant fields agree on what the results mean, and even agree the basic time-frame.

I understand that a great many scientists agree on time-frames and such, but I do not agree with their estimates. The way I figure it, the world is between 8-15 thousand years old, and most of their estimates do not fit into this time frame.
I am a creationist, as you can surely tell by my statement above, but I don't think science is a bad thing at all. In fact, I would go so far as to encourage it. Science is a wonderful thing, it has created many conveniences that make life easier, and a great many wonderful medications and surgeries. I just think that scientists should work on refining their dating systems, and continue to search for evidence about how species came about. Until they can prove to me that evolution is a fact, I will stick to my current opinion of how things came to be.

 

[evilneko]

I understand that a great many scientists agree on time-frames and such, but I do not agree with their estimates. The way I figure it, the world is between 8-15 thousand years old, and most of their estimates do not fit into this time frame.

The way I figure it, and I am not alone in this, you are wrong. All evidence points to an Earth billions of years old.

I am a creationist, as you can surely tell by my statement above, but I don't think science is a bad thing at all. In fact, I would go so far as to encourage it. Science is a wonderful thing, it has created many conveniences that make life easier, and a great many wonderful medications and surgeries.

Many of which owe their discovery to scientists thoroughly understanding evolution.

I just think that scientists should work on refining their dating systems,

Naturally dating methods will be refined as technology marches on, but there is no reason to doubt the current methodologies by several orders of magnitude.

and continue to search for evidence about how species came about. Until they can prove to me that evolution is a fact, I will stick to my current opinion of how things came to be.

And what would it take to do that? Have your instructors been inept? Or has it been you that is unwilling to accept the facts and evidence laid out before you? There is an abundance of actual, scientific learning material available online and much of it for free. I can point you to several sources myself. The wikipedia page on evolution has links to at least a half-dozen sites where you can learn as well. The information is out there. At some point, you've only yourself to blame.

 

[Brandon237]

and why would you think said interpretations are incorrect? There are gaps, but we know where the fossils we do have fit in, even a 6 year old would likely agree on the fossil placements in the record by inspection alone. And we have many forms of dating to check the time periods, and for recent fossils and preserved DNA we can trace the DNA through the generations. The results from all these things form the same image of the fossil record, and of the Theory of evolution as a whole.
And we don't just have fossil records, if you read those links on ring species and followed up on that, we have evidence right now that does not rely on fossils. Also, if there were that a great a disagreement on the fossil records, the world would know about it. But scientists in all the relevant fields agree on what the results mean, and even agree the basic time-frame.

I understand that a great many scientists agree on time-frames and such, but I do not agree with their estimates. The way I figure it, the world is between 8-15 thousand years old, and most of their estimates do not fit into this time frame.
I am a creationist, as you can surely tell by my statement above, but I don't think science is a bad thing at all. In fact, I would go so far as to encourage it. Science is a wonderful thing, it has created many conveniences that make life easier, and a great many wonderful medications and surgeries. I just think that scientists should work on refining their dating systems, and continue to search for evidence about how species came about. Until they can prove to me that evolution is a fact, I will stick to my current opinion of how things came to be.

They have, to what is close to the scientifically possible limit, proven evolution as fact. There will never be a significant other piece of evidence, they just have to do a little fleshing out of what they do have. The evidence they have forms a very good, stable, supported coherent theory.

And as for your age of the Earth, these two links should show decent evidence that is can be proven that the Earth is significantly older: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochronology

Read the citations if you don't trust wikipedia.

 

[TK421]

They have, to what is close to the scientifically possible limit, proven evolution as fact. There will never be a significant other piece of evidence, they just have to do a little fleshing out of what they do have. The evidence they have forms a very good, stable, supported coherent theory.

And as for your age of the Earth, these two links should show decent evidence that is can be proven that the Earth is significantly older: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochronology

Read the citations if you don't trust wikipedia.

I appreciate your desire to help, but if I don't trust the dating systems, I don't see why those links would change my mind.

 

[evilneko]

Well, at least you seem to accept that the fault lies with you now.