I am trying to compare the finer points of Darwinian evolution with Creationism, but I cannot find any FACTS supporting either.
201517
Check out Ken Miller's testimony from the Dover, PA trial (link below) for examples of evidence supporting evolution.\n\nThere isn't scientific evidence supporting creationism, because it's not a scientific concept.  By definition, science encompasses things that can be tested.
668585
Yeah, the only people dumb enough to think you were really arguing for creationism were evolutionists.\n\nBecause your stupid question is exactly what evolutionists think creationism/Intelligent Design is about.  \n\nToo bad you people won't do any independent reading because we all know the public schools aren't going to broaden your knowledge of the topic.
672641
Hi, EyeLoveJesus!  I like your question!  :-)   Evolution is still a theory---it is not proven 100% yet.  Science is also not stoic and unchanging---it is always flexing and changing over time and by different discoveries.  I don't agree that scientists are "desperate to disprove "god"".   Science isn't focusing on "god".  It is focusing on studying the world and universe.  :-)  Anyway....\n\nScientists tend to form different theories (not facts) from the same discovery.   It is fascinating to learn about the different theories and to decide which one likes better.   Scientists don't think alike at all.  They tend to see different things in the same objects.  :-)   There are usually heated debates and discussions among them!  ;-)\n\nFor me, I know of two different theories of how evolution might have processed:  macro evolution ("giant leaps") or micro-evolution.   I tend to take more stock in micro-evolution.  That means each generation is born with very tiny mutations that will eventually create or de-create whatever trait or physical attribute of the organism.   Macro-evolution happens when one generation is born with a completely different physical attribute that none of the species has.\n\nI hope I clarified.  I will keep an eye on this Q as I find this fascinating!  Thanks for sharing the link.  :-)
48824
Various recent Popes have repeatedly stated there there is no discrepency between science and the Roman Catholic faith. \n\nThe creation story in the bible is allegorical, not factual. The bible is not a book of science. \n\nIn fact, there are two creation stories in the bible that disagree with each other in the details. This in itself should tell you something.\n\nEvolution is not "right" or a "fact". Evolution is a theory, and it is just the most currently accepted theory to explain the observations we have. I would expect it would be replaced when a better theory that exlains more of the data supercedes it.
626592
Good job!\n The timelines are the key to the fallacies in the Evolution THEORY! Oh, did I mention that it IS a THEORY?\n\n Who created the timelines anyway? Scientists.\nThe reason evolution has to REMAIN a theory is because there is no human eyewitness documentation of the timelines...\n\nThis is exactly why every time an Athiest Scientist sets out to prove the Bible wrong....they end up becoming Creation Scientists! Because, if they are TRUTHFUL there IS NO evidence to support Darwins' claims.\n\nCheck it ALL out on...\n\nwww.answersingenesis.org   ~Ken Ham(from Australia)\n\nwww.drdino.com  ~Kent Hovind (American)\n\nBoth of these men have EXTENSIVE info on this subject\n\nYou can find everything you need there and other
39384
Despite your poorly worded question, I think you are trying to ask if DNA refutes the idea of natural selection and evolution, right?  I think DNA, if anything, supports the idea of evolution.  In my simple understanding of evolution, I was able to take 1 protein from a turtle, human, lizard, snake, rat, monkey (using a protein/DNA sequence database, www.pubmed.com), and find how how different they are.  By using the accepted rate of mutation (1 base pair of DNA per million years), you can actually figure out how long ago did the species diverge simply based on random mutations.  By doing this, I made the evolutionary timeline that you see in textbooks all the time.  So in a way, I "proved" evolution by just doing something anybody can do with the resources available to me.\n\nThe part that I skip over in this program is that when a mutation is "bad" (something that would make it less likely to survive), that animal dies off.  Therefore, only "good" mutations will persist.  So when Watson and Crick in the 1950's "discovered" DNA, they in fact show how genes are passed on and how evolution can occur on a purely chemical level.\n\nI know this reply is a bit scattered, but if you do some research in scientific magazines/journals/text-books, evolution isn't some half-brained invention by anti-Christians (in fact most Evolutionists are Christians by the sheer fact that most Americans are Christian).  Evolution is a great theory in the sense it could easily be disproven, but it hasn't, therefore its the best we got until we find some greater truth.
613872
As an "evolutionist" I side with science and logic that evolution is the method of speciation in organisms.\n\nMy personal opinion on why Creationists find fault with evolution is two-fold. First, a strict interpretation of the often-translated Bible. It is viewed as the ultimate authority and a "first-hand" account of what happened throughout history. \n\nThere are several problems with this, most importantly the translation of words from the original text, into English, which may change the true meaning of words, or more often their isn't a word in English that fits the original word. A good example of this is in Genesis, the main accounting of creation for theists. The word translated into "day" from the original text may have different meanings, it could literally mean a day, or it could mean periods of time. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of this throughout the bible, but the problem is clear, logically, you cannot maintain a strict interpretation if your reading a interpretation. Also the first hand account isn't really a first hand account, many of the scriptures are oral traditions that were written down long after the events transpired, many were written a few hundred years after the people in the passed away. We've all played whisper-down-the-lane. \n\nSecondly, the scientific account of life, and it's origins (which isn't considered part of the Theory of Evolution by the way) doesn't mention, and doesn't require a god to exist for it to happen. Unable to separate scientific thought, from religious ones, some Creationists find evolution has to be incorrect because it makes no mention of a Creator. Really, ANY kind of science can never make mention of any kind of God, it is a fundamentally unprovable idea. Nevertheless, because of this, Evolution cannot and will not be accepted by many believers.\n\nPersonally, there is no reason that both ideas cannot be. While the account of Genesis cannot be true, if a God does exist he has created everything else through natural means, it would only make sense that he would do the same in creating life. The difference is, only one can be taught as a science, the other is philosophy.
618789
I can understand where your coming from but before you make any conclusions on evolution take a look at this website.  It has all you need to know about evolution vs. creationism.  http://www.talkorigins.org/.  The reason so many people believe in evolution is that every field of natural science supports it independently from geology, biology, genetics etc. and it makes a lot of sense once you sit down and really analyze the fact.  Unfortunately there is much misinformation out there so I urge you to read the information on the website and then make up you mind on evolution.  Personally I feel that evolution and religion can co-exist.  I feel that its a shame religious leaders exploit controversial topics in order to rally their base.  The true teachings of religion are of acceptance and forgiveness and any dogmatic interpretations of the bible (or any religious text) only serve to weaken message.
31401
Creationism by our Creator. And the evolution theory would be okay if it werent contradictory to scripture... The bible says He created everything according to its kind.  See Genesis 1:20.  Also if we evolved, why are we not stil evolving?
239357
Creation Science\nwww.answersingenesis.org\nwww.icr.org\nwww.creationworldview.org\nwww.creationists.org\nwww.drdino.com\n\nHope these help.
317331
First of all, I don't think you would appreciate me insulting whatever beliefs you hold dear, but you commit sacrilege  out of total ignorance, so you are excused. \n\nSecond of all, it would help you a great deal if you understood the Catholic position on evolution, which I doubt you have a clue. http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp\n\nIt seems evolutionists banter on about how religion is opposed to science, and faith and reason are incompatable, blah, blah, blah. Nothing could be further from the truth. \n\n"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.  Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.... We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be." (-Pope John Paul II)
3077
I suggest you do a bit more research on your thermodynamics debate.  Please check out this website, which explains exactly what thermodynamics is, which you seem to be lacking in understanding of:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html\n\nSecondly, there are many people that believe that evolution simply doesn't exist.  That all things were created, and that all things will continue to be created by a greater force.  However, as there is no proof, this too remains a theory, however much the creationists dislike it being called thus.\n\nThe problem that i see with the evolution vs creationist issue is that evolution has been proven to take place in the animal kingdom.  We have seen, for example, 2 exact same species grow up in completly different geographical areas and be 100% different from each other.  They evolved from one state into another to adapt to the surroundings of their enviornment.  Creationists attribute this to god giving them new traits, ect, that allow them to interact and adapt with their new surrounding.  Evolutionists, however, can see the 'paper trail', ie the evolutionary trail of these species, from the failed, to the development of traits and abilities over long periods of time.\n\nFossiles, which are one good source of information, are one of the good ways of proving evolution took place.  But, just as the positer said, evolution is indeed a theory at the moment; but we are ever increasingly stepping closer to proving it a reality. Whereas the creationists are still within the 'theory' state, and unfortunatly for them, their 'theory' isn't even a true 'theory'.  It is a simple form of religious-biased fact, instead of a documented possiblity.\n\nSo, are there people out there that don't use the bible to argue against evolution, sure, why not; but most of the time, these people have no clue about the dynamics of evolution and the debate in which it takes place.\n\nAnd, as is typical of any debate that must accept a defeat, creationists have taken a passive aggressive stance, in making pepole believe that god created evolution.  This is laugable at best, because it is one way for a person who believes in creationism, but who also understands that evolution is a possibly, to cop out of the debate and say that 'god' created the premise by which evolution took place.\n\nSounds kind of fishy to me :)
656609
I believe creationists are definately evidence of de-evolution, but there's no way to stop this process because in becoming intelligent we have decided that to let people die and to be so competitive as to allow some to suffer is socially unacceptable..... hence, welfare and people living on life support. It's a catch 22.... allow the weakest to die off and progress... save them and evolve socially and we keep the crack baby population in the gene pool.... we can't win! Although there's no evidence that people who believe in creation couldn't survive in an Atheist world so who knows.... it'd be a great experiment though ;)
517332
"Creation" and "Evolution" are two different processes, I think.\n\nThey are easier to understand for me if I put them into different "frameworks".\n\nIf there shall be some "beginning" of every item in the world, there shall be also "Creation". But, in opposite, if we are satisfied with the idea of constant continuation - without any beginning and any end - we do not have to think this idea anymore.\n\n"Evolution" is something which can be proved everyday. I work as a microbiologist and small modifications of living creatures is very obvious for me.\n\nThere are still many open questions which can be placed between "Creation" and Evolution". One of my "favourite problem" is the beginning of DNA-based living creatures: DNA needs enzymes to be constructed, and enzymes need DNA to be produced. Which is the probability of an event where both DNA and enzymes (and such forms of them which are interconnected!) can be formed exactly in the same time? 0,00000000000000000000....%?\n\nAs a conclusion: I thrust on "Evolution" but I see also "Creation", managed by "X" (you can replace "X" by "God", "Engineer" or whatever you like). They are not alternatives for ones thinking; they have a peaceful coexistence in our world.
83294
This is a topic that sets a lot of people off. Mainly creationism states god created everything, and the burden of evolution is, it being based on science, it must have hard evidence to prove the existance of evolution.\n\nSince Origin of the Species by Chales Darwin in 1859, moutains of evidence has come forward to prove that evolution is behind every living creature on earth. The one weak linkis that evolution hasn't yet been able to prove how life first started. It is this one point that creationist harp on, and state as their proof that god is behind everything.\n\nIt must be noted that until recent times teh age of the Earth was only believed to be 10,000 years old, this has been disproven. It can also be compared to medevil times when the world was considered flat and it was thought that the earth lay in the center of the universe. In time science will find a solid explination for everything that we consider impossible today.\n\nAs a chemist and a scientist, there are many things in science that boil down to beautiful mathmatical relationships, or theories that are very simple yet profound implications. What I believe, is that who was ever here before the universe made a very complex yet elegant system of particles and enegrgetic interactions that give us the world today. What I have against creationsim is that it doesn't seek to find the real awnser; their reasoning is that it is too complex to be understood, despite historical evidence of things being not understood only to be explained in good detail later. The people that say the bottom line in science is too complex to understand today are the same people who believed that the world was flat 800 years ago. \n\nWikipedia has a good breakdown on evolution and opinion, hope my thoughts helped
664791
The theory of evolution is most definitely NOT a religion.\n\nI disagree with the accuracy of your comparison.  To elaborate...\n1) Evolution did not sprout from an inspired man.  Evolution was postulated to explain evidence, and that evidence points to common descent.  Evolution was postulated 100 years before Darwin published Origin of Species, and the ones who came up with it first were not greek, nor were they Charles Darwin.\n2) "Religion supports tales occurring before man."  If these tales are interpreted metaphorically, there is no conflict between science and the bible.  It is only biblical literalists that take issue with it.  Still, this statement and the supposed comparison doesn't help to define evolution as a religion.\n3) If religion is defined as that which answers the questions every man longs the answer for, I guess Jeapardy, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, and other such TV shows are also religions.\n4) What constitutes proof is up to the individual.  Evolution is proven to me.  Maybe not to you.  That's fine.  For the sake of argument, we will say that there is no proof of evolution.  But there is a lot of evidence for it.  Creationists have no evidence whatsoever, other than twisted science, fallacious arguments, and illogical conclusions.  Oh yeah.  I forgot about criticisms of evidence for evolution.  Regardless of how valid the criticism, that isn't evidence for creation.\n5) "Evolutionists defend there views despite the inability to prove its basis"  Again, this premise is way off.  If you think a particular brand of car is better than any other, you may argue why, but you couldn't prove the statement to be true.  And I doubt you would consider your preference for that make and/or model a religion.\n6) Evolution is supported only on the basis of the evidence.  Prior to the fossil record, and prior to taxonomy, it was assumed that all earth's critters were created from nothing.  Then came the evidence.  Then came people who looked at it closely.  Then came the attempt to explain that evidence...evolution.\n\nI could go on through the rest of your points, but none of them are accurate comparisons between religion and evolution, in my opinion.\n\nHere is a much better breakdown of how religion and evolution differ...\nFrom http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html\n"1) Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life). \n2) Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments. \n3) Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not. \n4) Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist. \n5) Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that. \n6) Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies. \n7) Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off into new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.\n\nHow can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolutio
245747
Well, creationism by definition requires faith since it has at it's core a being that cannot be subjected to experimentation. Evolution, on the other hand, is a natural process and can therefore be subjected to the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experimentation, theory).\n\nAll the scientific evidence that has been accumulated through the years points to the evolutionary process as the means by which all the species today developed. There is no hard scientific evidence in creationism (the Bible doesn't count as it's not accepted as historical fact - no evidence to prove/disprove).\n\nDon't get me wrong, I'm not saying that creationism couldn't have happened, but there is no evidence to support it.