The misinterpretation of evolution

[Olrod]

You may need to provide some of this "evidence" that you claim exists.

To quote Wikipedia: CITATION NEEDED.

There's as much evidence supporting the Bible's story of creation as there is supporting the Ancient Greek, Egyptian or Aztec's stories of creation.

No, there is far more evidence, which is why people still believe in Creationism. Take the Grand Canyon for example. Evolution says that it evolved over million of years, but based on what we really know, it is impossible for the sediment to settle in the way it did in the grand canyon over a long period of time. The only real answer is that it must have happened over a few short weeks. In fact, the grand canyon perfectly fits the profile of a worldwide flood. Evolution explains it away, but based on what you can find in any geology book, the explanation that evolution gives makes no sense.

And I respect your need for citation, but if you are going to require it from me then please also do it for comments such as "There's as much evidence supporting the Bible's story of creation as there is supporting the Ancient Greek, Egyptian or Aztec's stories of creation." Especially since that is anything but the case. You can argue that the evidence that Creationism has is worthless, but nevertheless it has much more ground than any of the other religions in the past.

One source I don't really look at but is nevertheless a good source is called answersingenesis.com. You might want to look at a few articles to really grasp the evidence that Creationist have, since you seem to be so far out of the loop.

Now I know you're just trolling.

Claiming that there's evidence for creationism isn't doing anything to prove you're not lying, if you don't even state what the nature of this evidence is.

Geography has nothing to do with evolution. Nobody can be that ignorant.

You're the one making the claim that Creationism is a valid idea. You need to provide the evidence that NOT ONLY is your version of Creationism the correct one, but evidence that ALSO DISPROVES *every other* Creation story AND evolution.

Until you do that, you're just a troll and a liar.

 

[evilneko]

Well starting at the most common problems: 1. Speciation is part of the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Most of evolution is accepted, the problem thing not proven at all is that a species can evolve into a higher form of life, which has never been seen before.

I'm sorry what? Am I in a timewarp? I swear I've seen this post before, and this has been addressed -- multiple times in this very thread even.

2. Naturalistic explaination usually includes evolution. Rarely will someone belief in evolution but NOT in abiogenisis, the big bang etc.

What's your point?

3. Yes paleontology as of yet does not prove that evolution occured because there has been no solid water-tight connection that these are not simply different species of animals rather than related to one another. Because if

This is false. Also apparently not completely copy-pasta'd from wherever you got it from.

4. Again terminology. I understand that higher form of life is not the technical term and that creatures can evolve into lower forms of life (As the theory goes) THAT kind of works in the ID advocates favor, NOT the evolutionists favor because that make it even LESS likely that humans evolved in this manner, and it makes it more problematic since we havnt seen EITHER a creature evolving into a SUPERIOR or INFERIOR form of life. Yes I understand the concept is to evolve to better survive, but so far we've seen NEITHER one happen.

A species will evolve in the direction that natural selection pressures it into. This is understood and expected. Your opinion of whether that is superior or inferior is irrelevant.

And if you argue speciation at this point, I would remind you that a dog turning into a different type of dog and eventually a wolf or a chihuahua (Whatever) doesnt turn it into a pseudo-ape or primape-like mammal creature (it doesnt follow the chain) And it doesnt branch off into another chain of NEW animal kinds, so speciation doesnt work here.

Speciation happened in the past, is happening now, and will happen in the future. It has been observed. I thought we covered this...

5. MOST the majority of evolutionists I've talked to: Look down upon and consider themselves superior to non-evolutionist and often polarize them before they even heard their arguements and often resort to sterotypes like "Goddunnit" Which I've never heard ONE ID advocate say, or other such childish nonsense, but I've RARELY seen an ID advocate or creationist or simply someone who doesnt believe in evolution like myself, act in the same manner.
Part of that is what leads me to belief that evolution is not true, simply by the way evolutionists almost NEED To marginalize non-evolutionists.

Glass houses, stones, etc.

I swear I saw this exact post earlier in the thread... maybe it got buried under other discussions and was never directly answered and that's why it's been copied and posted anew but every issue contained herein has been addressed.

Finally, creationists don't need to be marginalized, but their pseudoscience/religious-based claims do need to be exposed for what they are. Science in American schools needs to be defended, if for no other reason than because the people serving on school boards often aren't educated enough (ironically) to debunk creationism on their own. This is why the National Center for Science Education exists. If that counts as marginalizing creationists, then so be it. Marginalize away, I say. Creationism has no evidence, no predictive power, and is not falsifiable--it cannot be called science and should not be taught in schools.

 

[mrdude2010]

now remember kids, evolution is only a theory. just like gravity.

 

[King Toasty]

From the Book of Forums, Science 3:48;

"Lo, men and women of forums shall never know what Evolution is, nor what causes it, for they do not wish to know. Those that do wish to understand may understand ONLY through ancient right of Biology classes and intense study; for the young who claim to understand Evolution cannot truly understand it."

TL;DR: Study it.

Simply beautiful. Can I call you Socratoasty?

Book of Names, Toasty 7:80;

"Fear him, for he shall be the Soctratoast."

The Book has spoken.

 

[KoalaKid]

snip

You say that creationism and intelligent design are the same thing, but that's not true. intelligent design is just one FORM of creationism, not a representation of what all creationist believe.

My knowledge of evolution is pretty basic, but I have never thought that the theory of evolution is in anyway incompatible with creationism. Evolution simply tries to explain how things evolved on the planet, not where matter itself came from.

As a creationist my personal beliefs are not the beliefs of any one faith or denomination as I don't belong to any religious organizations, but I see the creator, G-d, or whatever you would like to call it as a prime mover that bought the universe into existence. Life may very well have evolved by happenstance without the creator pushing it in one direction or the other or not, I'm personally fine with either idea.

One reason creationism seems logical to me is this: I believe to explain the existence of the universe you have to start at zero, at nothing, before the existence of matter and precede from there, and this is what science has yet to do.

That is not the issue though. Creationism is fine for me when it does not tread on evolution's "turf". However, Creationism is not an alternative to Evolution, that is the issue. In all honesty, you believing that the origins of life, matter, ect was created by God, or any other "Intelligent Designer", is not an issue. The idea that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, that all DNA and all the animals right now in existence were created by an "ID", that is not scientifically arguable.

Finally, in use in the "anti-evolution" arguments, Creationism and Intelligent Design are the same thing. Maybe Creationism is a broader choice, but it still implies the same subject.

If you read my post carefully you would find that I am not promoting intelligent design, I never said the earth was only 6,000 years old, nor did I say that creationism is an alternative to evolution so half of your statement doesn't even apply to me. I will happily discuss any subject with you, but I'm fucking tired of reading comments to my posts that clearly show the person either skimmed my post or just didn't read it at all, it's a waste of my fucking time and yours. now as far as creationism and intelligent design being the same thing, well that's simply not true, as in absolutely not true, as in never was or well be true, as in your just fucking wrong. ID takes evolution and writes a creation story unique to itself. there is no other creation story of any culture or faith that I am aware of that claim a deity created life through a process of evolution. ID is a FORM of creationism It is not in itself a representation of the beliefs of creationist of different faiths or cultures, and to say so is idiotic and insulting! As far as an intelligent designer of some kind being a prime mover that brought life into existence not being scientifically arguable (or what your actually saying is that it's not an "intelligent" idea) Well how is matter springing from nothingness an intelligent argument? I have never in my life tried to force someone into conforming to my beliefs, I have never tried to make someone feel stupid or ashamed of their culture. I would hope you people could show me the same respect, but then this is the fucking internet So I guess I don't need your respect.

 

[Falconsgyre]

Well starting at the most common problems: 1. Speciation is part of the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Most of evolution is accepted, the problem thing not proven at all is that a species can evolve into a higher form of life, which has never been seen before.
2. Naturalistic explaination usually includes evolution. Rarely will someone belief in evolution but NOT in abiogenisis, the big bang etc.
3. Yes paleontology as of yet does not prove that evolution occured because there has been no solid water-tight connection that these are not simply different species of animals rather than related to one another. Because if
4. Again terminology. I understand that higher form of life is not the technical term and that creatures can evolve into lower forms of life (As the theory goes) THAT kind of works in the ID advocates favor, NOT the evolutionists favor because that make it even LESS likely that humans evolved in this manner, and it makes it more problematic since we havnt seen EITHER a creature evolving into a SUPERIOR or INFERIOR form of life. Yes I understand the concept is to evolve to better survive, but so far we've seen NEITHER one happen.
And if you argue speciation at this point, I would remind you that a dog turning into a different type of dog and eventually a wolf or a chihuahua (Whatever) doesnt turn it into a pseudo-ape or primape-like mammal creature (it doesnt follow the chain) And it doesnt branch off into another chain of NEW animal kinds, so speciation doesnt work here.
5. MOST the majority of evolutionists I've talked to: Look down upon and consider themselves superior to non-evolutionist and often polarize them before they even heard their arguements and often resort to sterotypes like "Goddunnit" Which I've never heard ONE ID advocate say, or other such childish nonsense, but I've RARELY seen an ID advocate or creationist or simply someone who doesnt believe in evolution like myself, act in the same manner.
Part of that is what leads me to belief that evolution is not true, simply by the way evolutionists almost NEED To marginalize non-evolutionists.

Does anyone else here have a completed or partially completed degree in biology and want to shoot themselves anytime they hear something like this? Someone has already addressed most of your points, so I'll just take:

1. First misconception: species don't evolve into "higher" forms of life. They just evolve to fit their environment. You can become more complex, or less complex. Second, evolution as most people understand it takes a relatively long time. The kind of thing you'd want to see would take much longer than your lifetime. The only way to observe it is through the fossil record and WE HAVE THE DAMN FOSSILS. Third, speciation is not in the least controversial. I could explain these points better, but I'd have to teach you biology first.

And do you know why some of us get annoyed at creationists? As Dawkins put it, telling a biologist that evolution is false is like telling a historian the Roman empire never existed. More than that, actually: it literally underpins all of modern biology. Simply put, all your arguments are childish nonsense. Have you ever actually studied biology? Have you ever actually done research? No? Then why do you think your opinion is as valid as those who have? I'm not going to go to a physicist and tell him quantum mechanics can't be right because the universe isn't random. I'm not going to tell an engineer he built his bridge can't work because it doesn't look right to me. My opinion on those matters has no weight whatsoever, and if I'm interested in the subject matter, I will assume the people in question know what they're doing and ask them to explain it to me. We are annoyed because you bring up the same flawed arguments time after time which have been addressed in excellent sources elsewhere and somehow have the audacity to think you'll be the one to disprove decades of work by thousands of people.

And having said that, I realize that most creationists probably just have never encountered these arguments, and many of them on this board are young, and I'm probably overreacting because it's okay to be ignorant if you're trying to learn. But it still annoys the hell out of me.

 

[Asita]

If you read my post carefully you would find that I am not promoting intelligent design, I never said the earth was only 6,000 years old, nor did I say that creationism is an alternative to evolution so half of your statement doesn't even apply to me. I will happily discuss any subject with you, but I'm fucking tired of reading comments to my posts that clearly show the person either skimmed my post or just didn't read it at all, it's a waste of my fucking time and yours. now as far as creationism and intelligent design being the same thing, well that's simply not true, as in absolutely not true, as in never was or well be true, as in your just fucking wrong. ID takes evolution and writes a creation story unique to itself. there is no other creation story of any culture or faith that I am aware of that claim a deity created life through a process of evolution. ID is a FORM of creationism It is not in itself a representation of the beliefs of creationist of different faiths or cultures, and to say so is idiotic and insulting! As far as an intelligent designer of some kind being a prime mover that brought life into existence not being scientifically arguable (or what your actually saying is that it's not an "intelligent" idea) Well how is matter springing from nothingness an intelligent argument? I have never in my life tried to force someone into conforming to my beliefs, I have never tried to make someone feel stupid or ashamed of their culture. I would hope you people could show me the same respect, but then this is the fucking internet So I guess I don't need your respect.

Again, what you describe is NOT Intelligent Design, which is quite literally Creationism using 'Politically Correct' terms to get around the Establishment Clause, whose key argument is 'evolution is false because certain systems are "irreducibly complex" and thus must have had a designer'. This was best proven in Kitzmiller v. Dover a mere 6 years ago. What you describe when you're talking about having a deity using evolution is Theistic Evolution.

 

[Asita]

No, there is far more evidence, which is why people still believe in Creationism.

Uh, no. When actually asked, the overwhelming majority of Creationists cite theological concerns as their primary reason for endorsing Creationism, most often an unwillingness to believe that Genesis could be anything other than a literal history. This in turn ties into why the overwhelming majority of creationists are from evangelical sects of Christianity that espouse a literalist reading of the Bible.

Take the Grand Canyon for example. Evolution says that it evolved over million of years, but based on what we really know, it is impossible for the sediment to settle in the way it did in the grand canyon over a long period of time.

For those confused at home, it's worth noting that, being concerned with and explaining only the change in life over time Evolution actually says NOTHING about the Grand Canyon, which needless to say is not alive. What explains the Grand Canyon is known as erosion, the process through which mineral is removed from a region of the Earth's surface.

The only real answer is that it must have happened over a few short weeks. In fact, the grand canyon perfectly fits the profile of a worldwide flood. Evolution explains it away, but based on what you can find in any geology book, the explanation that evolution gives makes no sense.

And that, boys and girls, is the part that tells us that the post is satire by virtue of its emphasis of a worldwide flood to explain a mark in the ground fitting a river pattern.

And I respect your need for citation, but if you are going to require it from me then please also do it for comments such as "There's as much evidence supporting the Bible's story of creation as there is supporting the Ancient Greek, Egyptian or Aztec's stories of creation." Especially since that is anything but the case. You can argue that the evidence that Creationism has is worthless, but nevertheless it has much more ground than any of the other religions in the past.

And for our viewers, a special test: name the evidences that specifically point to the Garden of Eden and its inhabitants and those which point to Yggdrasil. Operators are standing by.

One source I don't really look at but is nevertheless a good source is called answersingenesis.com. You might want to look at a few articles to really grasp the evidence that Creationist have, since you seem to be so far out of the loop.

Studio Disclaimer: Answers In Genesis is criticized by creationists and noncreationists alike, both of whom characterize the site as deliberately misleading. If it must be viewed, the studio reccomends viewing it in tandem with sites like talkorigins.com which is famous for its index to creationist claims.


And now, a word from our sponsors

 

[BrassButtons]

Well starting at the most common problems: 1. Speciation is part of the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Most of evolution is accepted, the problem thing not proven at all is that a species can evolve into a higher form of life, which has never been seen before.

Where have you looked for evidence of speciation, and how long did you search before concluding that no such evidence had ever been found? Additionally, what qualifications do you have that would allow you to identify evidence of speciation if you did come across it?

3. Yes paleontology as of yet does not prove that evolution occured because there has been no solid water-tight connection that these are not simply different species of animals rather than related to one another.

What qualifies you to look at paleontological evidence and state what it does or does not support?

4. Again terminology. I understand that higher form of life is not the technical term

If you think the issue people have with this claim is one of terminology, then you really don't understand. Replace 'higher form' and 'lower form' with any terminology you like--it will all be equally irrelevant to Evolutionary Theory.

How can you possibly know that the Theory of Evolution is wrong if you don't even know what the theory is?

MOST the majority of evolutionists I've talked to: Look down upon and consider themselves superior to non-evolutionist

When 'non-evolutionists' stop trying to claim expertise in fields they've never studied, that attitude will change.

 

[AMMO Kid]

Now I know you're just trolling.

Claiming that there's evidence for creationism isn't doing anything to prove you're not lying, if you don't even state what the nature of this evidence is.

Geography has nothing to do with evolution. Nobody can be that ignorant.

You're the one making the claim that Creationism is a valid idea. You need to provide the evidence that NOT ONLY is your version of Creationism the correct one, but evidence that ALSO DISPROVES *every other* Creation story AND evolution.

Until you do that, you're just a troll and a liar.

*Sigh* Well, if I literally have to DRAG this to you than so be it.

Here is a 20 minute video about what I believe as a Creationist. Even if you don't believe everything that is said I highly recommend that you watch the whole thing to get a grasp on the ignorance that we Creationist really have, and how we ignore honest facts on purpose just to piss off the evolutionists The first five minutes is just warm-up, and the intro guy is a little cheesy, so go ahead and skip that if it's a little bit too much.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/riddle/origin-of-life

You should also check out a 68 minute video by the same guy:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/riddle/origin-of-humans

If you don't watch at least the first one then I really have nothing else to say to you, but you mine as well try to gain some insight into the extremely narrow/simple mind of Christians while one of us is giving you a preferred source.

 

[Olrod]

What you "believe" as a Creationist has no relevance nor bearing on reality.

 

[crudus]

Which "misinterpretation" are we talking about?

Things that I hear quite often are things like "we evolved from monkeys", "evolution says we came from rocks", "evolution doesn't explain the origin of life", "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics"(I find this one hilarious), "evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved", "evolution has never been observed", etc. I am sure he meant misconceptions like those. The basics of evolution aren't that hard to understand and clearing up all of these aforementioned misconceptions doesn't take much.

(by now, it's probably safe to say that it is not a mere "theory", as it has been proven so thoroughly that it'd require something truly earth-shattering to change it's status)

There's a subtle and almost arbitrary difference in the usage of the terms. I suggest looking them up.

 

[darkstarangel]

I apologise Asita I still havent gotten the hang of the quoting system or how to break it up into individual paragraphs so bare with me for now.

OK. I went as far back as families because genii & species can diverge from common ancestors via their combinations of alleles. But this is where it is limited as I have mentioned, a species will either just recycle the same combinations or hit a dead end such as the sterility or the physical inability of procreation (Imagine a chihuahua trying to knock up a rottwiler)
This would also account for the Cecal valves in P. sicula you also mentioned. Since cecal valves are present in 1% of all known species of scaled reptiles according the original article http://www.umass.edu/loop/talkingpoints/articles/74409.php this may very well have been a recessive trait that was present heterozygous in the 'Ancestral strain'. Being isolated with an undigestible food source may have only allowed the homozygous P. sicula to store the nematode more efficiently in its gut.

As for the citrate & nylon eating bacteria I read about this in a New scientist article & was incredibly dissapointed that it had made no mention of plasmids. http://askabiologist.asu.edu/plasmids Plasmids can splice & slice themselves in & out of the bacterias genome, copy them, & inject them in other bacteria with a tube called a pilus. This is how bacteria develop resistance or produce enzymes to break up new substances.

When I said that evolution is superficial being based on external traits I was referring mostly to homology not speciation & ERVs are more commonly called retrotransposons now & play vital roles in gene regulation http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v41/n5/abs/ng.368.html & also contribute to extra variation but isnt necessarily a gain in new information but repeats in already present info.

I believe you provided an example with the thompson & rutherford models as theories that must adapt or die. Further discoveries resulted in Bohrs model being the most accurate at the time & has adapted through further modification by quantum mechanics.

I know enough about chemistry, organic & inorganic to state that abiogenesis is a chemical impossibilty. Living systems function by the utilisation yet seperation of conflicting chemical properties & formation. Infact living systems a machines that function at the atomic level, which is how they also replicate, & not something that can form in a test tube or pond under any conditions.

I shall reword the statement I previously posted. My rejection of evolution isnt due to my Creationist faith, that came before hand. Its just convenient that im a creationist & reject evolution. Im tackling evolution on scientific grounds because I believe the models are flawed & claims not possible. But it is true that we cant truly know the past only go by what we interpret from evidence.

And the trouble with presenting data contradicting evolutionary models is that everyone shrugs them off thinking theres an explanation somehow. Nobody has yet given me a reasonable explanation how an XY chromosomes suddenly become WZ chromosomes without any repercussions to the birds or insects.
But heres a question, how does a gene come into existance? If there is a strand of DNA sitting the genome not affecting the phenotype then theoretically its free to mutations. This mutating strand can become nothing significant in all its existance but lets say hypothetically its destine to accumulate the right types of mutations that will give it the right length & base sequence for a functioning protein, an enzyme for example. If the strand is non-protein coding then theoretically is could scramble to become something functional but because its not being translated it can continue to mutate & the useful sequence will be lost. If at some point it does become translatable then why would it only happen in the period of the useful sequence? Because the other transitional sequences occupy the genome longer there is greater chance they will be translated should it occur producing junk proteins, especially in the organisms offbranching bloodline who inherit the transitional gene before hand. There is no evidence of this in any organism.
If the strand was translatable to begin with then there should be more junk proteins throughout divergient species. Naturally if the junk sequences are toxic natural selection will eliminate them. If they're all fatal then evolution doesnt happen, so only neutrals can progress. Again, there is no animal naturally riddled with junk sequences & this is what the preposed mechanism for evolution predicts.

It is true that its easier to prove something exists than something doesnt exist so logical predictions are the best I can do you for at the moment. Mind you, because of the length of this post iv chopped lots of detail & other factors so, sorry about the long read. Especially if my attempt at quoting actually worked.

 

[darkstarangel]

Dang it!

 

[Hyper-space]

First of all, your run on sentences make an extremely incoherent argument. Second of all, you seem to have some of your facts bass-ackwards. You seem to believe that evolution was the lead idea the whole time, and that these filthy newcomers of Intelligetn Design are invading. It is actually quite the opposite. Evolution is an idea that is barely even a hundred years old, while Creationism has had free reign for thousands of years.

I think that it is fair to say that you seem to need to brush up on some things first before you go crying wolf on other people. Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well. People need to see all of the choices, and then decide for themselves what they want to believe is true. There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

There is one reason why creationism shouldn't be taught in science class: ITS NOT SCIENCE.

Therefore, it belongs in classes about world religion or theology.

 

[Flac00]

created us through evolution.

And this would be why your not a creationist.
Creationism and Evolution are opposite beliefs and you cannot believe in both.
If you think something guided Evolution your still not a Creationist.

I don't mean to sound harsh by linking web definitions and would normally use a dictionary (to late sadly XD)

The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution

the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

Creationism is the religious doctrine, opposed to naturalistic evolution, that life on this planet was created by a special, unique act of God. Creationism goes beyond this traditional religious belief, however, in asserting that this belief can be proven empirically and scientifically. (there is a second section to this definition however it is not nice for any believers so I left it out)

"Creationism is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being."

It is creationism.
Creationism doesnt dictate, "Poof humans existed". It dictates that through the supernatural beings power, humans exist, even if its through evolution.

But the problem there is that it is not a science. You can't scientifically prove or disprove god, therefore creationism can't be a science.

HA, you can't scientifically prove or disprove evolution!

Sure you can, its just that the theory has held up so well. In fact, because no one has been able to disprove it shows that the theory is on very very very solid ground.

sigh... just Google "can science prove or disprove anything"

Telling me to google something doesn't make it true. Science can in fact disprove and prove many things. Why do you think the idea that animals are created by objects (cheese makes mice ect) doesn't exist anymore? Its been disproven. Cell theory has been proven. We have huge amounts of evidence for it. Just because science has doubt doesn't mean you can't prove or disprove anything.

 

[Flac00]

snip

You say that creationism and intelligent design are the same thing, but that's not true. intelligent design is just one FORM of creationism, not a representation of what all creationist believe.

My knowledge of evolution is pretty basic, but I have never thought that the theory of evolution is in anyway incompatible with creationism. Evolution simply tries to explain how things evolved on the planet, not where matter itself came from.

As a creationist my personal beliefs are not the beliefs of any one faith or denomination as I don't belong to any religious organizations, but I see the creator, G-d, or whatever you would like to call it as a prime mover that bought the universe into existence. Life may very well have evolved by happenstance without the creator pushing it in one direction or the other or not, I'm personally fine with either idea.

One reason creationism seems logical to me is this: I believe to explain the existence of the universe you have to start at zero, at nothing, before the existence of matter and precede from there, and this is what science has yet to do.

That is not the issue though. Creationism is fine for me when it does not tread on evolution's "turf". However, Creationism is not an alternative to Evolution, that is the issue. In all honesty, you believing that the origins of life, matter, ect was created by God, or any other "Intelligent Designer", is not an issue. The idea that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, that all DNA and all the animals right now in existence were created by an "ID", that is not scientifically arguable.

Finally, in use in the "anti-evolution" arguments, Creationism and Intelligent Design are the same thing. Maybe Creationism is a broader choice, but it still implies the same subject.

If you read my post carefully you would find that I am not promoting intelligent design, I never said the earth was only 6,000 years old, nor did I say that creationism is an alternative to evolution so half of your statement doesn't even apply to me. I will happily discuss any subject with you, but I'm fucking tired of reading comments to my posts that clearly show the person either skimmed my post or just didn't read it at all, it's a waste of my fucking time and yours. now as far as creationism and intelligent design being the same thing, well that's simply not true, as in absolutely not true, as in never was or well be true, as in your just fucking wrong. ID takes evolution and writes a creation story unique to itself. there is no other creation story of any culture or faith that I am aware of that claim a deity created life through a process of evolution. ID is a FORM of creationism It is not in itself a representation of the beliefs of creationist of different faiths or cultures, and to say so is idiotic and insulting! As far as an intelligent designer of some kind being a prime mover that brought life into existence not being scientifically arguable (or what your actually saying is that it's not an "intelligent" idea) Well how is matter springing from nothingness an intelligent argument? I have never in my life tried to force someone into conforming to my beliefs, I have never tried to make someone feel stupid or ashamed of their culture. I would hope you people could show me the same respect, but then this is the fucking internet So I guess I don't need your respect.

You're taking what I said too far man. I only said that when put in context against evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design cannot be scientific alternatives. They are not scientific theories, therefor they cannot be scientific alternatives. You believing in them is fine, however they should not be ever given the same sort of traction from a scientific standpoint as Evolution.

Also, I never said it is idiotic, nor did I say you are an idiot for believing it. However the two (Creationism and ID) are more like religion than anything else. I do not care your religious beliefs, they do not effect me (idea of tolerance going in there).

Now about the two being the same. True, they are not the same idea (if they were they would have the same name). However, in the argument against evolution in general, these two ideas have been the only ones to try to count themselves as science (more ID then Creationism though). The arguments used by their proponents were very much the same as well. Now being a creationist (I am guessing you are), you do not fall under the category of ID-er, but an ID-er would fall under the category of creationist. This is like the Christian to Catholic relation. Not all Christians are Catholics, but all Catholics are Christians.

Finally my motivations. My idea is not to force anyone to do anything, it is instead to try to educate. I know that many people doubt Evolution because they do not understand it. If they understood it, they would have a different perspective on it. I do not know if you understand it completely, however I will go on the assumption that you do. You have made your choice based upon all the information, then your decision is fine. However, someone who is ignorant of the theory as a whole and makes a decision is misinformed and their decision is flawed.

 

[Flac00]

This is the way evolution works, for anyone who's interested:
A theoretical species of giraffe has, on average, relatively short necks. This wouldn't be a problem, except that the trees in their area are, on average, quite tall. Now, note that I said "on average." I said this because there is natural variation in every population, meaning some giraffes have shorter-than-average necks, and others' necks are slightly longer. Because of this set of circumstances, the longer-necked giraffes will be able to eat more and be healthier, so when mating time comes, they will be better able to pass on their genome. Over time, the average neck length in the population will change, due to the fact that the long-necked giraffes have a better chance of surviving.

This is the way it DOESN'T work:
A population of giraffes has short necks. Unfortunately, the trees in the area are tall! So what do the giraffes do? They harness the magical power of evolution, lengthening their necks to reach the leaves! SCIENCE!

There still seems to be a huge misconception about evolution. Animals are not Pokemon. It's not mysterious. It's what HAS TO HAPPEN for life to survive.

That is a good example though not necessarily true (sorry to nitpick). The trees that Giraffes eat are actually more medium sized, the neck is not lengthened to reach the trees. Instead, it is for mating. Giraffes wack each other with their necks to get mates (male v male fighting), the longer the neck, the more damage is done. So the longer the neck, the more mates. Just a weird tidbit of info

 

[DaJoW]

now as far as creationism and intelligent design being the same thing, well that's simply not true, as in absolutely not true, as in never was or well be true, as in your just fucking wrong.

The reason a lot of people see "creationism = ID" is because of the Dover trial and the edits of the textbook "Of Pandas and People" - where after it was ruled creationism could not be taught in classrooms, each mention of "creationism" was replaced by "Inteliigent Design", and "creator" was replaced by "designer". That was the full extent of the edits to the new version of the textbook, in order to circumvent the ruling that creationism could not be taught as science.

Now, ID may very well have changed since that happened (late 80's/ early 90's), but it's still pretty damning evidence for a lot of people.

Spoiler: Graph showing the edits done

 

[KoalaKid]

snip

You say that creationism and intelligent design are the same thing, but that's not true. intelligent design is just one FORM of creationism, not a representation of what all creationist believe.

My knowledge of evolution is pretty basic, but I have never thought that the theory of evolution is in anyway incompatible with creationism. Evolution simply tries to explain how things evolved on the planet, not where matter itself came from.

As a creationist my personal beliefs are not the beliefs of any one faith or denomination as I don't belong to any religious organizations, but I see the creator, G-d, or whatever you would like to call it as a prime mover that bought the universe into existence. Life may very well have evolved by happenstance without the creator pushing it in one direction or the other or not, I'm personally fine with either idea.

One reason creationism seems logical to me is this: I believe to explain the existence of the universe you have to start at zero, at nothing, before the existence of matter and precede from there, and this is what science has yet to do.

That is not the issue though. Creationism is fine for me when it does not tread on evolution's "turf". However, Creationism is not an alternative to Evolution, that is the issue. In all honesty, you believing that the origins of life, matter, ect was created by God, or any other "Intelligent Designer", is not an issue. The idea that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, that all DNA and all the animals right now in existence were created by an "ID", that is not scientifically arguable.

Finally, in use in the "anti-evolution" arguments, Creationism and Intelligent Design are the same thing. Maybe Creationism is a broader choice, but it still implies the same subject.

If you read my post carefully you would find that I am not promoting intelligent design, I never said the earth was only 6,000 years old, nor did I say that creationism is an alternative to evolution so half of your statement doesn't even apply to me. I will happily discuss any subject with you, but I'm fucking tired of reading comments to my posts that clearly show the person either skimmed my post or just didn't read it at all, it's a waste of my fucking time and yours. now as far as creationism and intelligent design being the same thing, well that's simply not true, as in absolutely not true, as in never was or well be true, as in your just fucking wrong. ID takes evolution and writes a creation story unique to itself. there is no other creation story of any culture or faith that I am aware of that claim a deity created life through a process of evolution. ID is a FORM of creationism It is not in itself a representation of the beliefs of creationist of different faiths or cultures, and to say so is idiotic and insulting! As far as an intelligent designer of some kind being a prime mover that brought life into existence not being scientifically arguable (or what your actually saying is that it's not an "intelligent" idea) Well how is matter springing from nothingness an intelligent argument? I have never in my life tried to force someone into conforming to my beliefs, I have never tried to make someone feel stupid or ashamed of their culture. I would hope you people could show me the same respect, but then this is the fucking internet So I guess I don't need your respect.

You're taking what I said too far man. I only said that when put in context against evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design cannot be scientific alternatives. They are not scientific theories, therefor they cannot be scientific alternatives. You believing in them is fine, however they should not be ever given the same sort of traction from a scientific standpoint as Evolution.

Also, I never said it is idiotic, nor did I say you are an idiot for believing it. However the two (Creationism and ID) are more like religion than anything else. I do not care your religious beliefs, they do not effect me (idea of tolerance going in there).

Now about the two being the same. True, they are not the same idea (if they were they would have the same name). However, in the argument against evolution in general, these two ideas have been the only ones to try to count themselves as science (more ID then Creationism though). The arguments used by their proponents were very much the same as well. Now being a creationist (I am guessing you are), you do not fall under the category of ID-er, but an ID-er would fall under the category of creationist. This is like the Christian to Catholic relation. Not all Christians are Catholics, but all Catholics are Christians.

Finally my motivations. My idea is not to force anyone to do anything, it is instead to try to educate. I know that many people doubt Evolution because they do not understand it. If they understood it, they would have a different perspective on it. I do not know if you understand it completely, however I will go on the assumption that you do. You have made your choice based upon all the information, then your decision is fine. However, someone who is ignorant of the theory as a whole and makes a decision is misinformed and their decision is flawed.

I apologize for taking your last comment as an attack. I am willing to admit that creationism isn't science, it's beyond science, as it doesn't appeal to just the mind, but instead the human soul as well. You cannot measure or study the spiritual with worldly means as it in itself is otherworldly. Evolution is a fine theory, and I don't believe that creationism should take it's place, but I also don't believe that evolution should take the place of spirituality. I truly believe that to deny or do away with spirituality is to deny or remove what makes us human, and all that would be left is a machine. I think we can embrace both science and spirituality without having to mix up the two the way ID tries to do.