Help me understand why Evolution and Creationism are at odds.?
828335
When I think of god saying, "Let there be light." I can't help but imagine a blinding flash... much like a big bang would be.
1064729
Scientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism.  There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level.  And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this.  Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead.  We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nLet me turn your question around, if (as many claim here) Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not?  That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world.  No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'.  There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence.  Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first.  They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing.  And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/) and find out for yourself.
398979
Therein lies the basic conflict between creationism and evolution - In a creationist view, we are Ascended or above all other species, because we were created by God as the prime species on the planet. The governors of Earth and all it's lands and animals.\nIn an evolutionary sense, we descended from a common ancestor that is related to the plains' apes and gorillas, but diverged at some unknown time in the distant past, approx 5-7 million years ago. Evolution scientists are hunting for this missing link so they can prove that this is a fact - however - this missing link has not been found, and until it is - there is no hard evidence to back up a evolutionary claim.
499317
Because they know the evidence cannot be explained in light of creationism.  Therefore they ignore this aspect and instead attack evolution.  You could fill 1000's of warehouse's of why the evidence doesn't show creationism;  You couldn't fill a shoebox with the evidence for creationism.\n\nEvolution so far is being proven on a daily basis, and has mountains upon mountains of evidence confirming/supporting the Theory of Evolution.  Evolution as a biological process however is already fact!  There is no getting away from micro-evolution now matter how ardent a creationist you are.  What's left of this failing movement attacks Macro-Evolution, but they are always so far of the mark as to make their arguments laughable.\n\nI totally agree, just because you don't think evolution is true (and i find this an incredulous position) doesn't mean creationism is therefore true; but then creationism is just full of logical fallacies anyway.\n\nAnd to the commenter somewhere below me, 29+ evidences for MacroEvolution:\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/\n\n& this \nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
729705
I've read and studied to limited degree some of the standard textbooks on evolution and it has not shaken my faith, but i don't claim to be an expert, but you might want to take a look at the fact that some of the writers of standard text supporting evolution have since begun to question its ability to explain the world around us... see Dean Kenyon, he didn't read the standard graduate level text "Biochemical Evolution", he wrote it, but he has since changed his view to intelligent design.  see also Stanley Salthe he wrote the widely used text "Evolutionary Biology" (1972) as far as I know he's not a christian but he recently signed a list of over 600 scientist expressing their doubts about evolution.Even among staunch evolutionist there is widespread disagreement as to how or if current theories can adequately explain the complexity and diversity of life. Don't let an oversimplified pop culture understanding of evolution mislead you into thinking the universe is understood and God has been somehow disproved/discredited or made irrelevant. Evolutionary theory has in no way proven we are here by chance. see www.wasdarwinwrong   its a good survey of pro-darwin, neo-darwin, alternative and intelligent design literature.  see also  discovery.org and reasonstobelieve.org  don't fail to examine the claims of Christ because a theory of biological origins
1130770
So, what's your problem?\n\nThe text you pasted supports evolutionary science.  Every year more discoveries by archaeologists and paleontologists add more content to support the principles of evolution.\n\nA "theory" is a proposition put to test by empirical study.  In science, very little is considered hard and fact TRUTH - today's truth is usually tomorrow's error.  Evolution is in this sense theoretical, but the evidence all supports it.  And the quote you delivered says that the writer strongly endorses evoltionary science.\n\nThere is NO evidence for alternative concepts, especially that mythology out of some "holy book."\n\nWork on your reading and critical understanding.  You're trying, but you aren't there yet.
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.
1011831
A good place to start is the talk origins site (http://www.talkorigins.org/ ) which puts together a lot of the stuff that originally appeared in the talk origins usenet group.  Most of it is focused on exploring the creationist/evolution controversy, and sometimes takes up a defensive stance when none is required, but generally gives a good overview and explanation of many central questions in evolution.\n\nThe site for the PBS television series 'Evolution' (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ ) is also a very good site.  The related web activities for each episode's page give incredibly good basic information, and the Teacher's Guide section could easily form the backbone of an entire High School level course on evolution (not that any High School actually offers such a course).\n\nIf you can get a hold of the Evolution series itself, it also provides some excellent explanations of many of the concepts.  It may be available through your local library.\n\nAnd the University of Berkeley's Understanding Evolution website is also an excellent resource (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ ).  \n\nThose three sites should keep you busy for the next few months.\n\nGood luck!
509868
I never heard that story, it strikes me as contrived bollox anyway, but no, it makes no difference.   Anyone that thinks it matters is searching desperately for something to substantiate that anti-intellectual horror: creationism.  Science works because it outlasts every individual scientist, to be tested and refined again by the next generation of open minded clever people.  Evolution has, er, evolved quite a lot since Darwin's time, and many of the puzzles left by him have been solved.   If Newton had recanted, apples would still fall to the ground.
260278
There is physical evidence supporting evolution.  There is no physical evidence supporting creationism.
130469
There seems to be some confusion here. Let's try to define our terms a bit first, before we get nasty, shall we? \n\nEvolution is a scientific theory. It will never be more than a scientific theory. Just like gravity. Gravity is not "proven" or more than a theory. It is just the theory of gravity. \n\nAll a scientific theory is, is an attempted explanation for the evidence we have. A scientific theory is expected to be superceded by a better theory that explains more of the data as more evidence accumulates. \n\nOur current theory of gravity is probably wrong. We will discard it eventually, and replace it. I am sure of it. \n\nOur current theory of evolution is probably wrong too. We will discard it eventually as well, and replace it. \n\nTo the main body of your question:\n\nSince this has been answered repeatedly on talkorigins and other sites, and in fact is even listed as an argument to be avoided by procreationists such as Answers in Genesis, it hardly seems worth addressing here. I have enclosed a link if you want to pursue it further. \n\nActually, I do not believe you are actually sincerely interested in learning anything about the subject at all, but just jeering at people on the other side. However I might make some comments and some misconceptions about Darwin's theory:\n\n1. evolution has very little to do with radioactive dating\n2. evolution in biology has very little to do with the Big Bang\n3. evolution in biology has very little to do with stellar evolution\n4. evolution in biology has very little to do with children growing up and getting taller\n5. evolution in biology is not the same as abiogenesis (self-organizing molecules etc to form life from nonlife)\n6. evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics\n7. Darwin did not renounce evolution on his deathbed in favor of creationism\n8. evolution and creationism are not the only two alternatives to the species we observe\n9. we have observed evolution in action\n10. we make use of evolutionary principles in our work on vaccines etc.\n11. evolution is not a random process\n12. if you look in genesis, there are two separate incompatible contradictory creation accounts\n13. evolution is a scientific theory, just as gravity is a scientific theory. Both are expected to be superceded by something that fits the data better eventually. \n14. evolution makes predictions we can verify\n15. the definition that the intelligent design community wants to use for science is so vague it would include astrology as science, according to admission by intelligent design supporters in court under cross-examination.
891014
As much as I want to believe my religion, I feel that the evolution theory is correct . If the bible was written incorrectly or abridged by the writer of genesis to not include dinosaurs, and the timeframe infered between Adam and Eve and the creation of the Earth were different, then it would be possible that both theories are correct.
1157600
Evolution is NOT science. There is nothing scientific about it. It is a religion. You cannot prove that we came from nothing. Its not even possible. You cannot create nor distroy matter, thats physics. So then how did all this "matter" around us get here. There has to be a creator. The animals may have different variations but they're still the same kind. Everything comes after its own kind. Same with people, there are tall, short, skinny, big. You'll never get a bannana from a fish. The reason you say the earth is billions of years old is because you think if you give it enough time it might happen. God created everything.
568570
The fact that evolution is a theory that makes sense and that has evidence that supports it.\n\nCreationism is an irrational belief of those who are afraid of science and do not wish to get in their any more information than  "god created and controls everything, that is all i need to know", personally i think shows weakness of mind.  Creationist thinking has no way to even theorize how "god", "heaven", "hell", etc. might exist, while evolution has facts that supports it.
91197
To answer this question is to resolve FIRST the issue: Is evolution part of a religious belief? If so then it should be banned from public school.\n\nIMHO, it is the opposite of creationism--also a religious belief. In other words both evolution and creationism are religious beliefs. The former being espoused by aetheists, and the latter by bible-believing people. This being the case, both should be banned from being taught in public school to STRICTLY observe the First Amendment. I understand that the core of this amendment is that the State should not favor (or dis-favor) one religious belief over another.\n\nBut, banning the teaching of evolution in public schools is not practical. It will not help children develop analytical minds. On the other hand, teaching evolution while at the same time banning the teaching of creationism is like teaching children that they use only their left hands and not their right hands.\n\nCommon sense and fairness calls for public schools to teach both Evolution and Creation. Let children develop their minds free from bias.\n\nSome on this site will insist that Evolution is not a religious belief it is a theory. But, you are only  playing with words. Would you also agree if someone will say that creationism is not a religious belief but a theory? \n-------------------------------------\nBTW, please read carefully the replies of Zac and the Marker. Their comments just proved my contention that evolution is really a religious belief--disguised as theory.\n---------------------------------------------------------\nwith kind regards.
513828
Whoa! Thanks so much for the LOGICAL information against evolution, especially the lie about us being 99 percent identical to chimps. I knew about some of the other forgeries, but thanks. What's disturbing, though, is that some of these things are still promoted by biology teachers in school as fact. For example, the industrial melanism and peppered moth example has still been used in high school biology courses, even AP Biology. Thanks for all the information; it definitely strengthens the idea of a God who wouldn't let this all happen by chance. \nThe only question that remains for the evolutionists, though, is why. Why would they want to support an idea that says we are related to monkeys? Why would they want to downgrade the status of man like this? I simply don't understand it. Though, according to classification, we are primates, we are much greater than that. We are humans. It mystifies me as to why evolutionists can't accept this idea.
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.