Can't Creationists and Evolutionists just get along ...?
960766
Why don't we teach animism/shamanism in Medical school and germ theory in Bible class?  That the Sun orbits the earth in Astronomy class?\n\nAbout as relevant don't you think?
291165
Yes. I am a firm creationist, and speak out against evoulutionists reguarly. \n\nGo to drdino.com for more info on how creation is supported by facts, and how evolution is supported by assumptions.
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!
597485
I am not quite sure what you are getting at here, you start with one question and end with a second one.  Frankly, I am not sure that I understand the first question.\n\nFirst let me start by saying that when we try to make scientific facts line up with the writings in Genesis, there are discrepancies.\n\nThe nature of time is somewhat poorly understood, to say the least.  The statements made by both Hawkins and Einstein are attempts to explain the nature of time.  Granted that these two men are among the most brilliant men ever, but they are still men.\n\nWe should take each version of the creation of the universe and keep asking "Where did that come from?" or "How?"\n\nWe would eventually ask the creationist: "Where did God come from?"  or, "How did God do that?"  The answer to each of these questions is "We don't know."\n\nSimilarly, we would eventually ask the evolutionist: "Where did the matter for the Big Bang come from?" or "How did matter form into the elements that we know?"  The answer for these questions is "We don't know."\n\nSo both the evolutionist and the creationist are stuck with the answer "We don't know." or even "God (or the matter) just always was there."  Does that mean that neither one is right?  No.  Does it mean that both are right?  No, again.  Each view requires some amount of faith.\n\nNow, about science being wrong.  Yes, Yes, Yes!  Science can afford to be wrong and often is.  The whole premise of science is that we come up with a theory, test it and make adjustments when we are wrong.  We often learn more by being wrong than by being right.
1133128
I read the answer to the question "How did marsupials get to Australia?" and the article "The Grand Canyon, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid". Is it the same people that say evolutionists have no evidence and that their explanations are ridiculous? Whoa!\n\nGood to know that several christian churchs/organizations accept evolution as a valid theory and that it doesn't contradict their belief. And I wonder too, is it ok for christians to lie in such shameless ways?
173278
Wait a minute people! Let's be honest with Pastor. \n\nOf course evolution, and the rest of science, requires a kind of "faith." In fact it requires two inter-related "faiths," or constructs not subject to further analysis.\n\nThe most rudimentary one is rooted in the concepts of logic. Or, put another way, scientists "assume" certain elementary building blocks of logic, for example axioms. They also have a qualified "faith" in the scientific method.\n\nThere is a  difference between this "faith" and what the asker is referring to as "religion." Scientists require predictable, reproducible results from their theories. Luckily for religious & non-relgious folks alike, scientists are NOT faithful to the particulars of a theory. In fact, when empirics call for it, a whole theory can be discarded by the its very authors. It has a self-correcting dynamic - BECAUSE IT DAMN WELL HAS TO WORK IN THIS WORLD. \n\nThat last element is inimical to most religious dogma. That "faith" requires a vast array of perpetual and unchanging tenets. It even provides for the logically impossible by positing forces necessarily beyond the reach of reason. \n\nThis gives that "faith" a great advantage over science. It is impervious to any force that pretends to question it.
170837
No, but I think modern monkeys and I had a common ancestor a very, very long time ago.  When a family diverges, they start getting different pretty quickly, depending on who they marry.  If one of my more recent ancestors went to China while my branch went to America, we'd look rather different now, wouldn't we? Why is it so hard to believe a more ancient equivalent, except because you are trying to take literally something which was written when scientific knowledge was extremely primative?\n\nScience and religion have two different goals, two different world views, and two vastly different vocabularies.  Religion is writing about things so beyond human experience that our words just do not fit, and we have to resort to symbols.  When you look at ancient manuscripts and ponder the symbols, you get a lot more than you get from words which have been sorted through any number of translations and interpretations since they were written.  Not a single word of the modern Bible (and remember, you go into a Bible Bookstore, you will find a great many modern versions, not just one) was originally written in English.  The writers had probably never even heard about that far-off island, and English as we know it had not been born.\n\nPlease, don't ridicule those of us who accept the theory of evolution as the most reasonable one.  We have let you continue to label it "theory" once most the rest of us have accepted it as fact.  Don't ask for more!
1104157
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
597102
They are not willing to accept evolution because if they do, all their other beliefs will also be called into question.      So maybe you are correct in your assessment- they are scared of the consequences.
622104
The real question for your teachers is, "If we evolved from monkeys and apes, how come we still have monkeys and apes?" \n\nThe beauty of evolutionists is that they only claim it as a THEORY, therefore, if they are wrong, they can just say, "hey, it's only a theory." It is just as much faith-based as any religion out there. \n\nThe best book I ever read on creation didn't come from the Bible, it came from one called "Scientific Creationism." See link.
251395
Well, if you really want an answer..\n\nYou can see by the answers of the creationists who responded that they will not believe in evolution, no matter HOW MUCH evidence is in front of them.  It has been my experience that they care little for the truth and only for maintaining what they already believe.\n\nKen Miller wrote an EXCELLENT book on this called "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution."\n\nMiller does a great job of answering your question but the short version may go like this:\n\nCreationists FALSELY believe that if evolution is true, then their religion is necessarily false.\n\nAs long as they continue to decieve themselves with that, no amount of evidence will ever convince them and they will continue to expound that the sun revolves around the Earth.\n\nI should note here that Miller is a Christian who FULLY belives in his religion and is a celluar biologist who FULLY understands evolution.\n\nMy last thought is from comedian Lewis Black: He says he won't even debate evolution's detractors because "we've got the fossils. We win."\n\nWell put, Mr Black but there is far more to rely on than just fossils.
788350
In general, people who attack evolution barely know anything about it as it is. I seriously doubt they'd take the time to learn about any *other* scientific theories.
981042
I believe that both creation and evolution rely on religious belief and are supported by scientific observation.  The fundamental beliefs vary as well as the interpretation of the scientific facts.\n\nAs for your points:\n\n1.  I would agree that Creationism does not fit the description of a testable, repeatable, scientific theory... but neither does evolution.  However, there are theories as to how observable scientific facts fit together to support both creation and evolution.\n\n2.  Some "believers" WILL accept evidence against their religion and some NON-believers WILL NOT accept any evidence supporting religion.  But this is irrelevant and does not lend scientific credibility to either side.\n\n3.  There are theories supporting both creation and evolution that allow for error and are peer reviewed.  In fact, many theories for both sides are continually modified, updated, or rejected based on new evidence.  In this way both ideas are very similar to all other pure scientific fields.\n\n4.  When talking about the origin of the universe and life, ANY theory must have its origin in belief of something that was not observed, cannot be repeated, and will not happen again, as well as the assumption that something existed in the first place to start it all.  Creationists believe in God and creation while Evolutionists believe in the Big Bang and a monstrously long list of extremely statistically improbable occurrences that take place in an amazingly perfect order.  Almost sounds like it needs "divine intervention"...
1091281
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.
523015
In my experience with creationists in my personal life and profession as a biologist, is that they know enough about evolution to know it is complicated.  Then, they stop and say it is too complicated, rather than try to understand.
351353
Let me begin by saying that I always enjoy reading your answers and very often you beat me to the punch with an explanation that is more coherent than I could likely come up with. Excellent work.\n\nI think that much of the issue here comes back to the basic divisiveness of faith. It makes sense for each religion to clearly define lines between "us" and "them." Jesus might have believed in peace and love, much like a modern day hippie, but the only real way to gather people around a common idea is to give them a common enemy. These days it's considered relatively poor taste to engage in crusades against Muslims, or chase Jews out of town for drinking the blood of the Christian born, so modern-day Christians have needed to unite against a new common enemy, evolutionists. Strangely, the only group of Christians now required to agree with us are the Catholics, based on JPII's statments that evolution is the most likely explanation for the current state of the world. Then again, many Protestants have issues with Catholics (and Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons), but I think their favorite target du jour is the atheistic evolutionists.\n\nOne of the nice things about scapegoating is that you don't really have to define what is so terrible about the goats. Most of the time you can just point a finger and shriek. Pretty soon the rest of the mob will join in. As far as I know there has been no theory put forth by the creationist camp as to the "true" motives of evolutionists. Clearly most middle-of-the-road Christians (well, the ones who don't agree with us) feel that we've just studied the world and come to the wrong conclusions. However, many others likely feel that there is a nefarious agenda behind evolutionist ideas. Fortunately, they have a catch-all go-to-guy when it comes to nefarious agendas. Anything that isn't "godlike" is always attributed to this character. What's his name? Could it be...Satan?\n\nI'm sure that there are creationists out there who think that most evolutionists are on Satan's payroll and will be driving big gold Cadillacs around shortly after the Rapture. Sadly, no amount of reasoning on our part will get them to think any differently. In the meantime they will continue to see all of us as part of some cabal in Satan's service. It's strange to think that there was a time when only heavy-metal bands and role-playing-gamers were part of The Devil's army, now it seems that a degree in biochemistry is a standard recruitment tactic. \n\nWell, keep up the good work, and I'll see you at the meetings.
8356
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 :)