please,a little thought here.do you think evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive?
113540
I also feel that both theories can exist together.  Evolution does NOT answer where and how life began, and where and how our humanity began.  Yet, the physical evidence of evolution is undeniable.  \n\nI'm agnostic, but feel that there is something more than chance that led to our existence.
875133
I think the most important thing to do is to get rid of the word, 'belief', when it comes to evolution.  It is a tactic used by creationists to marginalize evolution and it bring it to the same level as theology.  It's very important to take out the word, 'belief', when it comes to scientific systems because we're not talking about belief.
400596
I've been debating creationists for the better part of a decade and I have still never heard a single piece of evidence against evolution (really, common descent, almsot all creationists accept evolution, though they hate the word and refuse to use the correct definitions).\n\nIf they had anything, we'd have heard of it by now.  Instead we just get, "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" and such nonsense.  (Hint: that question has been asked on Answers.Yahoo at least ten times since I started coming here three days ago, and it has been answered for over 100 years, GET UP TO DATE CREATIONISTS!)\n\nCreationists have no evidence against evolution.  If they did, it still wouldn't make creationism a reasonable proposition.  They need explanations for the evidence that contradicts creationism, such as the sorting of the fossil record (how did all those mangroves make it to the top?).
222212
OK, I will put this nice and simply.  There is absolutely no scientifically credible evidence that supports creationism, or the idea that we originated from two individuals.  Faith is a wonderful thing but is not a substitute for evidence.
210421
Everything but Darwinian evolution "theory" has pretty much fallen by the wayside.  Lamarck is easy to refute; it is the selection process every time, which is observable.  Spontaneous generation is simply absurd; also observable.  Creationism is an attempt to suggest that God did it one way when in fact he did it another; by the motivation of mate selection and child care.  "Mother nature's way," if you will.\n\nNatural selection basically says that mate selection, which determines the available genes, together with survival of the offspring, is what moves evolution.  Success in reproduction is basically viable grandchildren, since having sterile or non-reproducing children means the end of that particular line (like in my family).\n\nWe can see it in small ways on the short term, and we can see it in the fossil record in the long term.  The only reason it is called a theory and not a fact is to placate the creationists.  I suspect one of the reasons fundamentalists are against people marrying who are not of the same skin color is to avoid admitting that people change by that method.  But frankly, some of the most attractive people around are those of mixed heritage.  They tend to get the best traits of both parents; every farmer and animal breeder knows that.
33692
Beatz, Beatz, Beatz.  What were you thinking?  You should have known that there would be nothing but appeals to ignorance poffered as evidence as answers to your question.  What's worse is that, even though people like Behe make those continual suggestions that a lack of evidence for evolution is evidence for creation, so much of what creationists claim has not been explained has been.  From immune systems to eyeballs, it's all been done in the journals.\n\nI'm not sure which is more pathetic... the fact that the creationist position is based off of a logical fallacy, or that they aren't even right when they keep chanting their "Science hasn't explained this" mantra.  I used to be a Christian, and from that I can say, absolutely, that the kind of lazyness and willful dishonesty displayed by people of this sort is NOT a good way of emulating Christ.\n\nAnyway, I've seen some of your posts, and I like them a lot.  Keep up the good work.\n\n[EDIT]: Jesus Christ Rob... before you open your mouth to talk about thermodynamics again, you might want to, you know, actually learn something about thermodynamics.  You have completely botched both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.  You cannot draw conclusions from flimsy, qualitative, and innacurate paraphrasings of precise quantitative laws.  I'm getting tired of putting this old chesnut back down every time one of Hovind's lackeys digs it up again, so I'm going to send you here:\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html\nand here:\nhttp://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=an6JrBwCTk&isbn=0226075745&itm=1\nand I'll mention these:\n"Considering the earth as a system, any change that is accompanied by an entropy decrease (and hence going back from higher probability to lower probability) is possible as long as sufficient energy is available. The ultimate source of most of that energy, is of course, the sun." (See Rob? That's what happens when you ignore that whole "closed system" part of the Second Law).\nand:\n"Evolution no more breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics than one breaks the law of gravity by jumping up." -Michael Shermer\n\nAnd one other thing: that "mutations are always fatal and not beneficial" stuff is utter bunk.  Everyone reading this now is carring multiple mutant genes.  Can you taste litmus paper?  Or see the 3-D images in the magic eye pictures?  Congratulations: you're a mutant.  There are many very harmful mutations, yes.  But by admitting that, you are also admitting that natural selection does indeed happen.  As for beneficial mutations, those happen also, and have been exhaustively documented:\nhttp://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html\nhttp://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html\nAnd I'd also like you to ask yourself what makes a mutation beneficial.  And then think about your answer.  And then realize that that is ALSO exactly what is meant by natural selection.
1005527
I don't see how you can think that the intelligent design theory states that God designed people to evolve. If anything, it says the opposite. If anything, intelligent design is creationism cloaked in scientific terminology, and to say the least, it's faulty science! Proponents of creationism and intelligent design basically try to use science to back up their preconceived notions, and to say the least, this is irresponsible and not conducive to uncovering the truth. And not only that, but despite what many would like to believe, there IS evidence that Darwin's theory is correct. After all, there are more genetic similarities between humans and chimpanzees than there are between Asian and African elephants. And not only that, but a fossil of a long-extinct fish was discovered some time ago, and it was shown that its fins were in the process of evolving into limbs. Plus, the fossil of a dog-like creature that eventually evolved into the whale has been found. The evidence is everywhere!
706011
Creationism is not "against" modern science! In fact, the Biblical mandate to "subdue" the earth (Genesis 1:28) requires us to understand it, which is what science is all about. "Creation Science" is simply the practice of science with the assumption and acknowledgement that there is a creator God, versus the now standard operating assumption of naturalism (that nature is "all there is").\n\nNo one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called "micro-evolution" (variation within a type of organism) caused by natural selection occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. Almost all touted evidences for evolution are of this category (like Darwin's finches, the "peppered moth", or bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics). However, it is important to note that "micro-evolution" is a misnomer, as it implies that "a little" evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is taking place, as no increase in complexity (such as the development of a new organ) is being generated, but merely the emphasis of some already present traits over others.\n\nLarge scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called "macro-evolution", is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a "research issue". Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible.\n\nThe "geologic column", which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened about 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible. Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of "fully-formed abrupt appearance" and "stasis" (that is, no change over time).\n\nThe belief that the atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory. The universe is known to be "running down" yet evolution postulates it is "building up". Atoms to people evolution is much more a "religious belief" than a scientific fact.\n\nThere is no reason not to believe that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis!
238663
It is truly absurd. \n\nI don't know if I can completely, 100% believe in creation, but evolution is even more impossible to believe. Even true science doesn't stand behind it. \n\nCheck out: 2nd law of thermodynamics, and Chaos theory.
977079
huh, yeah im not a creationist either, but i dont think that you can fully understand the stuff without an in depth study of scientific material. \n\nthere is a book called darwins black box by michael behe.  he doesnt call himself a creationist, hes a biochemist that after looking at plenty of evidence has alot of questions and decided to write a book. it basically is challenging evolution. \n\nfrom what i understand the missing links (transitional species) are not there in the fossil record.  thats why you have guys that come up with the punct eq theory, etc.  there are some that say they have found a couple missing links here and there, but it doesnt explain the massive amount of life that supposedly changes from one thing to another. \n\nanother guy is sennapathy (sp.), he is a south asia indian guy that has the same questions and different conclusions.  hes a genetic scientist.\n\ngranted there are examples of mutations, like in viruses and the like, that one could point to, but the data for large scale biology is still sketchy
332923
I think it's just a random fact that neither proves nor disproves anything.  I do, however, believe in creationism (intelligent design) based on the fact that believing in evolution is the equivalent of watching a tornado rip through a junkyard and expecting a perfectly assembled 747 ready for takeoff.
632
I happen to agree that evolution may not be the way god chose to create the world. There must be an intelligent designer - the more I learn science the more I see that must be true. I've watched dr dinos vids and as a scientist I see a lot of cool stuff, but also a bunch of flaws - I loved his work on dinosaurs though.\nThe only scientific evidence for evolution that really leaves me hanging is radioisotope degradation (I can see around C14, but what about the others)\nAnyone want to explain a way around that...I'd be interested!
260278
There is physical evidence supporting evolution.  There is no physical evidence supporting creationism.
956969
I believe that God created evolution.  Therefore, I believe in creationism.  Things evolve, but as far as man coming from beast, no way!
79540
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?
1018036
I understand what you're saying -- I believe in the theory of evolution.  But you do realize that people are just going to say God put it there in the beginning?  As fossils -- not as ancient creatures imprinted or encased in stone.
340817
Oh good grief.\n\nHow can someone not believe in evolution?  The evidence is freakin' everywhere.\n\nFirst off: evolution is not incompatible with creation theory.  You just have to widen your theological perspectives and stop being a tool.\n\nSecond, there is a host of evidence for evolution.  Just look at the biological tree.  Life has trended from simple life to complex.  There are also fossil records that demostrate quite concretely (excuse the pun) that creatures have changed over the centuries.\n\nIf you write such glaring evidence off as some sort of "demonic trickery" then I truly have to wonder about your gullibility.  I mean, some people seriously need to think about the full rammifications of their religious beliefs.