Quantcast

Evolution is supported by scientific method; creationism is supported by fairy tales. Does Evolution or Creationism have the better case?

bob 2012/07/10 15:28:51
In addition to usually losing political fights, creation science supporters also lose in the courts as well.
Creationism  Laws caused the government to give special support and consideration to one type of religious doctrine.
Evolution has the better case in court
Creationism has the better case in court
Creationism is only to support by Christian Fairy Tales
Evolution is supported by scientific method
Undecided
All of the above
None of the above
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥ 2012/07/10 15:42:31
    None of the above
    Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥
    +6
    In any argument, God wins.

    I could call Evolution a "scientific" myth. It is just plain wrong to say that mankind evolved from other forms. God has proved to me that He is real. You must seek that proof for yourself - it's not rocket science.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Jimmy Earl 2012/12/02 11:09:03
    Creationism has the better case in court
    Jimmy Earl
    Creation is the only logical explanation based on both science and reason.

    Evolution is like telling me my car assembled itself in the junkyard (and that isn't even getting into where the pieces came from in the first place).

    I have noticed a lot of "kids" on here, generally young people, seem to have a misunderstanding about evolution and get extremely hostile when their worldview is disagreed with...they seem to confuse natural selection (adaptability within a kind) with evolving into another kind.... they confuse micr-evolution with macro-evolution (what people really are talking about when they say "evolution").

    besides, the biggest open secret today within evolution is that the fossil record undermines it- even Richard Dawkins says that..... Where is the evidence for evolution?



    open secret evolution fossil record undermines richard dawkins evidence evolution
  • Christian Miller 2012/07/11 23:13:25 (edited)
    None of the above
    Christian Miller
    +1
    Evolution is taken to mean random mutations plus natural selection or unnatural selection. For thousands of years men have known that characteristics of the parents appear in the offspring. They have managed the selection process as in the breeding of horses and farm animals. So there is nothing new in the "selection" side of the theory of evolution. There are problems in the "random mutation" side of the theory. Why does evolution seem to stop? Say in Leather Back Turtles that do not seem to have evolved in the last 10 million years?

    For people to say that evolution explains everything is a bit of tautology: Things are as they are because they became to be so.

    Because creationism is wrong does not make evolution correct.
  • bob Christi... 2012/07/12 14:51:05
    bob
    Evolution is correct and DNA is proving it.
  • 3003573 Christi... 2012/07/12 16:04:10
  • Christi... 3003573 2012/07/13 12:57:28
    Christian Miller
    +1
    Would you agree then that ancient man used selection in breeding to keep traits he considered valuable and discard traits that he did not want?
  • 3003573 Christi... 2012/07/13 18:31:57
  • Christi... 3003573 2012/07/13 20:48:03
    Christian Miller
    Or "evolution".
  • 3003573 Christi... 2012/07/13 20:59:43
  • Brian L... Christi... 2012/09/19 14:00:06
    Brian Larsen
    +1
    Better to call it "microevolution" for this discussion, but "domestication" is also correct.
  • Frank Christi... 2012/07/16 01:47:20
    Frank
    "Because creationism is wrong does not make evolution correct"- I agree completely
    In fact all of the creationist / ID arguments center around trying to discount evolution and one is supposed to accept Creationism or ID by default- I suppose.

    The case for evolution is not based on anti-creationism arguments. In fact- the case for evolution is made using all existing evidence- the Theory of Evolution can explain all existing evidence without ever once mentioning Creationism or ID.

    You ask interesting questions- and there are answers- answers that help with the understanding of evolution. Some of the questions or criticisms of evolution are based on mischaracterizations or misunderstandings of evolution.

    Evolution is not always a steady forward moving process- species change does not happen unless it is needed for species survival or driven by sexual selection. Random mutations occur within species all of the time. In fact many random mutations are necessary to exist within a species so evolution Can occur. But Leather Back turtles (and Sharks and Horseshoe crabs for that matter) have changed very little because they haven't needed to in order to survive. Species can remain relatively unchanged for millions of years- and they are considered to be stabilized within the env...



    "Because creationism is wrong does not make evolution correct"- I agree completely
    In fact all of the creationist / ID arguments center around trying to discount evolution and one is supposed to accept Creationism or ID by default- I suppose.

    The case for evolution is not based on anti-creationism arguments. In fact- the case for evolution is made using all existing evidence- the Theory of Evolution can explain all existing evidence without ever once mentioning Creationism or ID.

    You ask interesting questions- and there are answers- answers that help with the understanding of evolution. Some of the questions or criticisms of evolution are based on mischaracterizations or misunderstandings of evolution.

    Evolution is not always a steady forward moving process- species change does not happen unless it is needed for species survival or driven by sexual selection. Random mutations occur within species all of the time. In fact many random mutations are necessary to exist within a species so evolution Can occur. But Leather Back turtles (and Sharks and Horseshoe crabs for that matter) have changed very little because they haven't needed to in order to survive. Species can remain relatively unchanged for millions of years- and they are considered to be stabilized within the environment. And while random mutations occur in individuals within the species- they do not define the entirety of the species a group can branch off with local adaptations - adaptations that end up perfectly suited to that environment.

    It is when the environment changes- in a way especially that is hazardous to the survival of the species- that those species with the random mutations that are beneficial to the new environment that are most likely to survive and now those mutations- or recessive traits- become dominant within the species.

    This is what the creationists and ID'ers always conceded was what they called "micro-evolution" as opposed to "Macro-evolution". But really- "macroevolution" is nothing more than an accumulated series of "macroevolutionary" changes.
    (more)
  • Christi... Frank 2012/07/16 06:07:10
    Christian Miller
    First. I do not have an alternate theory to traditional evolution, but it is not so clear how things can to be as they are, "evolved". In the case of the Leatherback Turtles. I agree. The design is good enough. Not perfect, but good enough. But it would seem other adaptations would also be good enough that do not seem to have survived. I would think there would be more diversity. Why do animals have two eyes and not three? Why does all life start from a single point. Why did it start only once? Why not multiple trees of life from multiple beginnings at different times?

    My more practical problem is the Evolution has become sort of a religion, a belief system. A problem for the biologists that investigate evolution is that they are not respected as “real” scientists like physicists or chemists . They have been attacked so much during the last 100 years that they have become defensive, thin-skinned, and feel persecuted. So much so, that they do not welcome questioning of their theories. In the popular press such as Scientific American, those who raise questions about evolution are ridiculed as “ignorant” and worse. Not a very persuasive way to start an argument.

    A major value of high school science is not so much learning specific facts, laws or theories, but rather critical think...
    First. I do not have an alternate theory to traditional evolution, but it is not so clear how things can to be as they are, "evolved". In the case of the Leatherback Turtles. I agree. The design is good enough. Not perfect, but good enough. But it would seem other adaptations would also be good enough that do not seem to have survived. I would think there would be more diversity. Why do animals have two eyes and not three? Why does all life start from a single point. Why did it start only once? Why not multiple trees of life from multiple beginnings at different times?

    My more practical problem is the Evolution has become sort of a religion, a belief system. A problem for the biologists that investigate evolution is that they are not respected as “real” scientists like physicists or chemists . They have been attacked so much during the last 100 years that they have become defensive, thin-skinned, and feel persecuted. So much so, that they do not welcome questioning of their theories. In the popular press such as Scientific American, those who raise questions about evolution are ridiculed as “ignorant” and worse. Not a very persuasive way to start an argument.

    A major value of high school science is not so much learning specific facts, laws or theories, but rather critical thinking skills, the “scientific method”, questioning and being exposed to the excitement of doing controlled experiments. The lesson now often being taught via the study of evolution is: “profess belief in evolution or be ridiculed”.
    (more)
  • 3003573 Christi... 2012/07/16 16:45:31
  • Christi... 3003573 2012/07/16 22:12:58
    Christian Miller
    You say, ""Why not multiple trees of life from multiple beginnings at different times"
    Because all life is related by common ancestry." Sounds like a tautology to me.
  • 3003573 Christi... 2012/07/16 22:21:55
  • Christi... 3003573 2012/07/16 23:15:39
    Christian Miller
    So life on earth began 3 billion years ago in a unique one time event never to be repeated?
  • 3003573 Christi... 2012/07/16 23:35:52
  • Frank Christi... 2012/07/17 05:40:54
    Frank
    I don't believe in Evolution. I have studied it and accept it based on the evidence. I don't see any leap of faith. Your suppositions betray a need to further investigate the Scientific Theory of Evolution- including the evidence supporting evolution.

    The questions are good questions- and the truth is there are good answers that will give you better insight into the process of evolution. The truth is- nothing is perfectly adapted- including humans. No species is perfectly designed. Look at humans- Many of the adaptations that give humans great advantages for success over other primates- have carried negative trade-offs. Because of the human ability for speech- there is also a greater danger of choking to death - I am sure a zookeeper has never had to heimlich maneuver a chimp. Women face greater danger in childbirth- and until recently greater mortality than Chimps because of walking upright. Good enough is what evolution seems to produce. Because it works with what there is- and modifies. If a species is good enough to survive- then it does. And perhaps the "ideal" modifications that one would suggest- carry trade-offs that are negative - so much so that they did not become a characteristic of the general species.



    While you say you do not promote ID- Evolution answers c...



    I don't believe in Evolution. I have studied it and accept it based on the evidence. I don't see any leap of faith. Your suppositions betray a need to further investigate the Scientific Theory of Evolution- including the evidence supporting evolution.

    The questions are good questions- and the truth is there are good answers that will give you better insight into the process of evolution. The truth is- nothing is perfectly adapted- including humans. No species is perfectly designed. Look at humans- Many of the adaptations that give humans great advantages for success over other primates- have carried negative trade-offs. Because of the human ability for speech- there is also a greater danger of choking to death - I am sure a zookeeper has never had to heimlich maneuver a chimp. Women face greater danger in childbirth- and until recently greater mortality than Chimps because of walking upright. Good enough is what evolution seems to produce. Because it works with what there is- and modifies. If a species is good enough to survive- then it does. And perhaps the "ideal" modifications that one would suggest- carry trade-offs that are negative - so much so that they did not become a characteristic of the general species.



    While you say you do not promote ID- Evolution answers concerns that ID cannot. If one were to consider an alternative (in the high school classroom) - as you tacitly imply- Then I believe that the critical thinking should be applied to everything equally. I disagree- Facts should be taught in high school- and accepted science. We do not get wishy / washy about teaching facts of any other discipline. We do not question whether the holocaust really happened and call it critical thinking. We do not present Ebonics as just as viable as standard English. The theory of evolution is the theory of the mechanism ( natural selection through genetic mutation) - it is a fact that all life shares common ancestry- and live evolved on earth- regardless of the mechanism. Critical thinking and questions are welcome- I have never seen evolution negated by applying critical thinking- I have seen it better understood.

    The fact that most species have 2 eyes (or 2 sets of eyes) is considered evidence that all life is related. There is great diversity of life- although presently the earth is losing species at an alarming rate. There are about 1.7 Million species known on earth- with an estimated 80% still undiscovered.

    I really hope you look into the evidence in favor of evolution and try to get a greater understanding of evolution.
    (more)
  • Christi... Frank 2012/07/17 13:42:33
    Christian Miller
    There are no experiments that can be run, no data that can be collected related to ID. I view ID only as an expression that parts of the theories of evolution are counter intuitive. Evolutionary biology is different, more difficult, than physics or chemistry. Experiments are harder to run, partly becuse of the huge time scales involved and the difficulty of obtaining historical data.

    But there are questions. There are theories and speculations about the origin of life. There were questions about how genetic changes could occur so rapidly. It i snow being shown that genes can be turned on and off due to evironmental effects. The science of biology is dynamic. Theories come and go and being modified.

    You say the earth is losing species at an alarming rate. Has there ever been a time when there were more species on earth than the present? You speak of the holocaust. The common understanding is that the holocaust was the genocide of 6 million Jews by the Nazis during World War 2. There is more to history. There were another 6 million non-Jew who were murdered in genocide by the Nazis. Genocides have occured before and after World War 2. It has become politically incorrect to even ask questions about evolution or the holocaust.
  • Frank Christi... 2012/07/18 11:22:00
    Frank
    The holocaust reference was only an analogy. You and I both know that there have been some absurd allegations by racists that the holocaust never really happened and was a hoax. My analogy was to point out that it would be absurd to suggest to students that they should question the holocaust based on those allegations.

    While the origin of life is more hypothetical - and actually the origin of the universe is at this point unknowable- it is a fact that all life on earth shares common ancestry- and evolved.

    Genes are not turned on and off. There is genetic variation an mutation constantly within each species. But when a species is stabilized within it's environment- the variation merely remains. In fact one can look at variation as potential adaptation. It is only through environmental change- or niche availability that nature capitalizes on the variations that are best suited to the newer environment. The individuals that are not as well suited die off and are not carried on. And then the species with the newer adaptations of course have genetic variation and mutations- but not all are carried on or become a characteristic of the entire species- unless survival dictates it. Of course as species become more highly evolved- they begin to manipulate the environment- and evolut...

    The holocaust reference was only an analogy. You and I both know that there have been some absurd allegations by racists that the holocaust never really happened and was a hoax. My analogy was to point out that it would be absurd to suggest to students that they should question the holocaust based on those allegations.

    While the origin of life is more hypothetical - and actually the origin of the universe is at this point unknowable- it is a fact that all life on earth shares common ancestry- and evolved.

    Genes are not turned on and off. There is genetic variation an mutation constantly within each species. But when a species is stabilized within it's environment- the variation merely remains. In fact one can look at variation as potential adaptation. It is only through environmental change- or niche availability that nature capitalizes on the variations that are best suited to the newer environment. The individuals that are not as well suited die off and are not carried on. And then the species with the newer adaptations of course have genetic variation and mutations- but not all are carried on or become a characteristic of the entire species- unless survival dictates it. Of course as species become more highly evolved- they begin to manipulate the environment- and evolution becomes more complicated.

    It is hard to know the exact number of species during any time period- but there have been many mass extinctions. Our environment is changing and we are losing species- that is fact.
    (more)
  • Cal 2012/07/11 17:02:51
    Evolution is supported by scientific method
    Cal
    +1
    I am under the impression that even in America Creationist beliefs are rare in comparison to most (please correct me if I'm wrong). So to enforce said beliefs is irresponsible surely the parents can put forth a counter argument and allow the child to decide. Its likely the child will always side with the parents anyway. Alas I'm getting off topic apologies.

    Though this is blatant in its one sided ness I find it hard to even see a creationist side of the argument.

    (Insert blatant trolling) Maybe if I hit my head off the wall for the next 5 mins
  • schjaz 2012/07/11 16:51:35
    All of the above
    schjaz
    +1
    And with a mighty and Divine maker ... unknowable ... both cannot be true?
  • Dweezle 2012/07/11 15:51:25
    Undecided
    Dweezle
    +2
    It depends who you are talking to, bible thumpers will answer creationism, wise people will reply evolution.
  • purpleicecreamvan<3 2012/07/11 15:45:51
    Evolution is supported by scientific method
    purpleicecreamvan<3
    +2
    enough said
  • ★misfit★ 2012/07/11 14:05:04
    None of the above
    ★misfit★
    You can believe in evolution or not, but it doesn't take away the need for an original creator. Something can't evolve from nothing.
  • 3003573 ★misfit★ 2012/07/12 15:38:35
  • ★misfit★ 3003573 2012/07/12 15:44:01 (edited)
    ★misfit★
    If nothing can ever be created, why does the universe exist? Do you believe it has always existed? As far as I know, scientists used to believe this way. However, they have since revised that idea and now most believe in the "big bang," or that the universe did in fact have a definite beginning. If nothing can ever be created, this makes no sense.
  • 3003573 ★misfit★ 2012/07/12 16:09:40
  • ★misfit★ 3003573 2012/07/12 18:11:09
    ★misfit★
    "It is not a belief.
    It is a FACT."

    No, unless you have always existed yourself in order to witness this, it's a belief. You may be very sure of it, but it's still a belief.

    The first law of thermodynamics applies to the universe as WE know it. It cannot prove or disprove anything that occurred before humans existed. Just because we cannot create or destroy energy doesn't mean that it was not at some point created by a higher power.
  • 3003573 ★misfit★ 2012/07/12 18:18:13
  • ★misfit★ 3003573 2012/07/12 18:39:53
    ★misfit★
    +1
    "You know, understand or comprehend absolutely positively NOTHING about science, don't you?"

    I'm not a scientist, no. But I do know what science is, and it appears that you don't. Science is the realm of the observable. It encompasses that which we can simulate conditions for and conduct experiments on. What happened before humans existed is not observable. Therefore, questions about the origins of the universe must be left to some extent to philosophy.

    "The first law states that NOTHING can ever, ever has, or ever will create anything."
    As you are so fond of saying, FALSE.
    The first law of thermodynamics states nothing of the kind, and if it did, then it could not be proven to be true. Remember, it was written by HUMANS, who can only prove scientifically what they can observe. You are more than welcome to keep your philosophy, but it is still a philosophy. Stop trying to pass it off as scientific fact.
  • 3003573 ★misfit★ 2012/07/12 19:33:15
  • ★misfit★ 3003573 2012/07/12 20:55:44
    ★misfit★
    +1
    Okay, I can see you're a pompous ass who can't have a discussion without being rude and insulting. I was trying to have a civil conversation and see if you had any intresting answers to my questions, but you seem incapable of saying anything except "FALSE," "WRONG," and "you're stupid." You realize if you want to "educate" people that's not the way to do it, right? It makes it look as if you have no real argument.
    I'm not going to subject myself to this garbage anymore. This conversation is over. Gooday, sir.
  • Child o... ★misfit★ 2012/07/18 07:27:06
    Child of light
    +1
    I personally think you destroyed him, but of course, he will never admit it
  • ★misfit★ Child o... 2012/07/18 15:01:02
    ★misfit★
    +1
    Yes, he's the sort who will never even take the time to consider someone else's viewpoint, which is why I ended the conversation. I figure I already made my point, take it or leave it.
  • Headhunter 13 2012/07/11 13:02:45
    Evolution is supported by scientific method
    Headhunter 13
    +2
    Evolution is a proven fact. But when you say creationism which of the thousands of human myths do you mean?
  • pops 2012/07/11 11:40:45
    Evolution is supported by scientific method
    pops
    Evolution. evolution
  • Frank 2012/07/11 06:27:41
    Evolution is supported by scientific method
    Frank
    +3
    Evolution explains all existing evidence. A positive case can be made using the scientific method. Creationism / Id is based primarily on negative arguments against evolution. The evidence supporting evolution is questioned-but there never has been any case made in favor of ID creationism using existing evidence. It is pretty much based only on criticism of evolution- and I suppose the creationist / ID conjecture is supposed to win by default. That is not the scientific method. The evidence that exists creates great problems for Creationism / ID
  • Child of light 2012/07/11 04:47:41
    None of the above
    Child of light
    +1
    I think it's not possible for life to arise from non-living material. Regardless of time given. And don't go saying that origin of life and evolution have nothing to do with each other. While they do have separate purposes, they are both ultimately connected to each other, because you can't have evolution if you don't have origin of life. And if you prove to people that life cannot from arise from non-living material, you basically throw out the entire modern theory of evolution.
  • 3003573 Child o... 2012/07/12 15:37:28
  • Child o... 3003573 2012/07/14 12:48:44
    Child of light
    So, from my understanding, I see that the chemicals necessary for life did come about on its own. My question is, how does it come together "just like that?" How do they so happen to combine/get together/whatever as to give rise to life?

    Secondly, how do those chemicals come about in the first place?

    Thirdly, how does it combine in the right way as to give rise to life. Simple as it may be, it still had to come about in a certain fashion.

    Is there even any evidence of something that simple ever existing on our planet?

    And finally, if the process of first life from non-living objects is that simple, why have I never heard of anyone trying to replicate the process?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/08/23 01:36:54

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals