evolution vs creationism?
I am currently doing an argumentative paper for evolution vs creationism on the creationism side. I need research from both sides and wanted to hear from people what their thoughts on the matter was.
I have found it easy to find information to support my side so i am not to worried about writing the paper, but i wanted to see what many people had on the argument.
Here are a few key points i have discovered mostly hitting evolution at the start.
Single celled organisms contain thousands of protein cells to just exist in evolution they just happened to have been created.How? Due to ultraviolet light there life span would only be a few hours so in order for them to actually produce any kind of living organism they would have to be created simultaneously which is a 1 in 10 ^(4,478,296) chance of that happening.
I noticed on another yahoo question this statement "The big bang was not the beginning of everything. If you research quantum physics, you will find that many scientists believe our universe is either one of many, or a previous universe contracted and re-expanded, possibly as a cycle continuing today." How can you explain our universe through the production of another? How did that universe get there and the one before? At one point the original organism would have to have been made or created which means this statement is just a self contradicting paradox which is not the only one in evolution. Fossils are dated by the rock there in and the rock by the fossils. How can one say the world is hundreds of thousands of years old with this? Where did the original date come from to see any of this?
I have seen allot of question where people are called stupid because they believe in creationism. Is it wrong for us to believe something other than you? Although i agree many people are not properly educated and tend to say things in a manner that shows little intelligence but that doesn't make there ideas and beliefs stupid.
I respect opinions and i respect different viewpoints. Please do not post remakes calling this thread stupid or ridiculous i am asking for your view points and thoughts on the manner not for trolls so please be respectful in your responses.
want to add a few things
This assignment was chosen by me we have to create an argumentative paper for class and we were able to chose our own topics. So this has nothing to do with my teacher.
The probability was not chosen at random you can look up "1 in 10 ^(4,478,296) evolution" and find tons of websites with it included.
The only mention of the big bang theory was from a quote from another yahoo question. I do not care about the big bang theory and its not what i am looking at either.
I realize that evolution does not deal with the original instance of single cell organisms, but why? they had to come from something right?
(Sorry "I" has been said allot in this, but I'm not to sure how to phrase things without it. Not trying to be conceited just lack the skills in writing that is all.)
i never said what i had was solid just it was things i have found which is why i posted it to see what others had to say.
- 9 years agoBest Answer
Look, you are on the losing side. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for creationism. All the promoters of creationism do is resort to misrepresentation, falsehoods, and outright lies in their attempts to refute evolution. And they can get away with it because their audience is ignorant of the facts.
There is a massive amount of evidence for evolution and there is none that prohibits it, despite the lies you may come up with in your biased research.
But if you do not believe that, take a look at what CREATIONIST Todd C. Wood, a Research/Associate Professor of Science at the Christian-based Bryon College, says about evolution. And I am providing this because perhaps it will make you rethink what you are doing.
"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
"I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)
"Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory."
But, of course, since he is a creationist, he then he goes on to say:
"That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution."
So there you have it. The Bible is the word of god, period, and the facts be damned. And that is the attitude of most creationists regardless of whether they are aware of the evidence for evolution or not. And that is why the promoters of creationism are forced to resort to lies in their attempts to refute evolution.
So, again, please do some serious thinking about what you are doing.
OK! Take a look at my answers to these questions.
And your probability argument is mostly from creationist sources. And it is also wrong because it is a result of false assumptions. The most likely origin of life was in the deep sea near "smokers" and other places where chemicals are injected into the sea water from the earth's interior. So ultra-violet light would have been no problem. Besides, the argument also makes a false assumption about how the first cells formed.
And you can ignore @CRR's list of books. They are nothing but creationist crap.
Try reading Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth. It is straight forward and provides a lot of evidence for evolution.
- Anonymous9 years ago
I agree that calling anyone stupid for their beliefs is petty. However, I would like to touch on a couple points. I have heard a lot of the theories out there on evolution and radioactive dating and the origins of the universe. As far as the way we date things. I have gotten in debates with people about that a lot. You really need to know the chemistry behind the methods in order to understand why it is so useful. It is not an exact science (in that the farther you look back, the higher the margin of error), but with the science behind it, you can determine with statistical significance that the Earth is incredibly old and which layers are about how old... this leads to the idea that if I see a bunch of bones in rock that is determined to be a million years old that it is very plausible that that was when the animal died. As far as the creation of the universe, creationists have about as much say as anyone else. while you cannot prove that God created Earth, you cannot prove anything else about the universe's origin, only form hypotheses that seem viable. My take on the formation of life is torn though. While it is statistically more likely that it was created somehow (nonrandomly) you must also realize that there are organisms out there that are incredibly basic (ie viruses, prions, and even some bacteria). Is it not plausible that a prion evolved into a virus and that a virus evolved into a bacteria and so on and so on? Earth is ideal for the creation of life (more earlier than now), but on these matters I am torn between being a Christian and a scientist.
- SteveLv 46 years ago
I know I am 3 years late to enter in to this fray, but maybe someone may chance upon my comment and it do some good for helping many to think logically, ask the right questions. I will comment by asking two questions on the subject.
Why is it that evolutionists are so frenetic in their insistence that nobody study or say anything to do with God having created everything, and that anyone who does is an illogical idiot?
If "evolution" were an actual science (not a speculation nor myth) then (a). why is there not a single fossil nor living life form that is an intermediary life form that is between two actual species, for the "theory" depends on this (b). why is there no demonstrable method by which life itself began from non-living materials, but instead, it has been proved mathematically that it could never happen by chance no matter how long a period of time was allowed (if it didn't happen by chance, only purpose can fill the demand for explanation of how life came to be) (c). why is the mechanism of this mythical explanation (evolution) unknown and not experimentally demonstrable (d). if it were something that only happened in the past, and it no longer occurs today (which it obviously doesn't) why did it stop (e). what made the laws of genetics change, because those laws prevent any changes in a specie that would come from breeding???
There could be more, but those are unanswerable enough. One point is all that is necessary to overturn false reasoning. When an evolutionist starts to explain his "theory" he/she generally starts with, "Imagine, if you will..."
Pipe dreams are not science.
- Anonymous9 years ago
"Single celled organisms contain thousands of protein cells to just exist in evolution they just happened to have been created.How?"
strawman argument. posing a question to evolution is not evidence for creationism.
A) single celled organisms are SINGLE cells, how do they have "thousands of protein cells"
B) single celled organisms don't "just happen" to have the proteins they do, they have been selected for over billions of years of evolution. even the single celled organisms of today are a product of billions of years of selection.
"Due to ultraviolet light there life span would only be a few hours so in order for them to actually produce any kind of living organism they would have to be created simultaneously which is a 1 in 10 ^(4,478,296) chance of that happening."
A) produce some citation to verify the claim that it's a 1 : 10^4,478,296 chance... baseless claims make arguments weak and easy to defeat.
B) many bacterium's lifespans are already only hours long, yet they easily reproduce and their descendants show variation, supporting evolution
"I noticed on another yahoo question this statement "The big bang was not the beginning of everything. If you research quantum physics, you will find that many scientists believe our universe is either one of many, or a previous universe contracted and re-expanded, possibly as a cycle continuing today." How can you explain our universe through the production of another?"
has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. that's cosmology, evolution is biology.
not recognizing the difference between completely unrelated fields of science does horrible things to your attempt to establish credibility and good will, two keys to persuasive success
"How did that universe get there and the one before? At one point the original organism would have to have been made or created which means this statement is just a self contradicting paradox which is not the only one in evolution."
again, anything that addresses the universe as a whole has nothing to do with evolution. but that's besides the point. the first organism ever, created or not, does NOT affect in any way, our theories on the origin of the universe... again, that whole ignorance =/= good argument thing...
"Fossils are dated by the rock there in and the rock by the fossils. How can one say the world is hundreds of thousands of years old with this? Where did the original date come from to see any of this?"
this is a common creationist... well... lie. fossils are initially dated (in the field, for a rough estimation) by their position relative to other fossils and fossil strata. the are later, objectively, dated using radiometric dating techniques.
before you look it up and come back with that:
carbon dating isn't used to dater fossils. carbon-14 dating is only reliable to about 60,000 years. things like lead polonium dating or potassium dating ids used for older samples.
"I have seen allot of question where people are called stupid because they believe in creationism. Is it wrong for us to believe something other than you? Although i agree many people are not properly educated and tend to say things in a manner that shows little intelligence but that doesn't make there ideas and beliefs stupid."
so, beliefs that are not based on reality, or the observations of reality, or evidence supporting them, or even a leg of their own to stand on... SHOULDN'T be called stupid?
especially when they intentionally misrepresent facts and tell outright lies in an attempt to further their agenda?
to be frank, you're on the losing side of this farce of a "debate".
if you're teacher is grading you, at all, on the QUALITY of your argument... you're setting yourself up for failure by choosing creationism.
the only thing they have is deceit, logical fallacies, and outright lies...
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- secretsauceLv 79 years ago
I agree that calling someone stupid because of their beliefs is wrong.
But you have to at least TRY to understand what evolution is before you reject it!
Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origins of the first life forms. Evolution is about how life CHANGES over time ... not how life BEGAN.
And evolution certainly has NOTHING to do with the Big Bang or the origins of the universe. These are concepts of *astronomy* ... evolution is about *biology*.
>"Due to ultraviolet light there life span would only be a few hours so in order for them to actually produce any kind of living organism they would have to be created simultaneously which is a 1 in 10 ^(4,478,296) chance of that happening."
That is a meaningless argument until you describe HOW you arrived at that huge number!
You don't just get to pull a big number out of a hat and call it a "fact."
>"How can you explain our universe through the production of another? "
You can't. The reason people bring that up is that it answers the argument that the Big Bang is improbable. We have no way of knowing if it is improbable unless we know whether there have been other universes before it.
>"At one point the original organism would have to have been made or created which means this statement is just a self contradicting paradox which is not the only one in evolution. "
Suddenly you switch from the Big Bang back to organisms.
And no, it is no more a "self-contradicting paradox" that an original organism had to be created, than it is a "self-contradicting paradox" that in any snowfall, the first snowflake appeared.
In other words, complex things occur spontaneously in nature *ALL THE TIME*.
>"Fossils are dated by the rock there in and the rock by the fossils."
No they're not.
This is a common lie told on Creationist web sites. Fossils are dated by the rock they are in using radiometry. Then only AFTER a particular species has been associated with rocks of a particular age, then they are called *index fossils*, and are used as an easy way to know the date of the rock.
For example, a specific species of shell-fish called M. subcircularis, has only ever been found in Triassic layers (250 to 200 million years old). So only AFTER this has been confirmed many, many times, and no members have ever been discovered in higher or lower layers, THEN we can be pretty sure that when we find an M. subcircularis, we can be pretty sure we're looking at Triassic rocks ... BUT WE CAN ALWAYS CONFIRM IT USING NORMAL MEANS.
That Creationist literature distorts this argument and calls it "circular" proves absolutely nothing except that Creationism is built from LIES.
>"How can one say the world is hundreds of thousands of years old with this? Where did the original date come from to see any of this?"
The number is 4.56 *billion* years old. That is a generally accepted number among geologists using methods that have absolutely nothing to do with fossils. NOTHING.
This is based on the oldest rocks we have found on the earth, dated using *several* different techniques based on the radioactive decay of different kinds of atoms. That one of them might be inaccurate is possible. That SEVERAL different techniques using different atoms would ALL produce the same number of 4.56 billion years old, is highly unlikely. That this is further confirmed with meteors ... and with rocks brought back from the moon ... all make the number more and more likely.
It has NOTHING to do with fossils. NOTHING. Fossils don't exist in rocks that old.
It is not you that people get angry at. It is the incredibly deceitful, dishonest web sites on which you have gotten your information, that foists outright (and easily provable) LIES on unsuspecting kids who have been told (by irresponsible teachers) to go out and research evolution on the Internet because they are too lazy to TEACH it.
We are angry at the way that Creationism has DESTROYED science education in this country!
- Anonymous9 years ago
Speaking exclusively of evolution, it does not comment on the origin of the original organic matter which became the first cell. Nor does it comment on the origin of the universe. These are entirely different questions in biochemistry and physics, respectively. I personally do not have much knowledge or experience in these areas.
What evolution can do, and can do quite well, is explain how life could quite easily go from a single basic cell consisting of just a few lipid molecules arranged in a micelle and a few RNA ribozymes and turn into all the diverse types of life we see today, given enough time.
Evolution is as close to a certainty as anything comes in science. It has been thoroughly examined and has consistently been shown to be supported by all available evidence. We know as a matter of fact that gene frequencies within populations change over time in response to changes in the environment. We know for a fact that those traits which ensure survival of individual organisms in a particular environment will become fixed in populations living in those environments, and we know that if we split a homogenous population into two separate populations and place them in environments that differ even slightly, they will tend to accumulate different mutations which are better suited to their respective environments. Given enough time we know for a FACT that this will lead to complete reproductive isolation, even if the two populations are allowed to mix. This is a speciation event. Give it a few million years and you can easily start to see how this branching speciation process could produce descendant species which look very much different from their ancestors and even cousins.Source(s): B.S. Degree in biology
- JayMLv 79 years ago
The whole problem with this creation vs. evolution "debate is that you are comparing apples to oranges. Both concepts are ways to explain the universe and world that we see around us. But evolution depends on the scientific process to explain phenomenon, while creationism (or any religion, for that matter) is simply not science. They are different ways of knowing.
Science depends on our ability to make predictions about future results based on what we already know from past experiments. I can predict that if I drop an apple, it will fall down, not up. Physics explains why. But you can't make predictions based on the mind of a Creator. How could you possibly predict what God thinks or will do? Since you can't make testable predictions based on Creationism or Intelligent Design, they are not scientific. You can talk about spiritualism all you want, in Philosophy class, or Religion classes, but not in a science class, because it just ain't science. They can not be reconciled. Pope John Paul II tried to reconcile evolution with Genesis, and he almost got away with it until the very end, when he said that it all comes down to God. Google "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth. Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)". I promise to leave my science texts at the Church door, as long as you promise to leave your Bible at my classroom door. Peace.
- Eliot KLv 79 years ago
Science examines only natural (as opposed to super-natural) phenomena. Any reference to a supernatural creator is, by definition, not scientific.
Also, science requires that any idea/model/theory/explanation be discarded or revised when new information contradicts the existing model.
Creationism requires the opposite: NOTHING that contradicts creationism can be allowed to exist. Contrary facts must be attacked or ignored. This is anti-science or non-science.
Understanding nature (as opposed to the supernatural) has led to space exploration, LCDs, cell phones, computers, anti-biotics, vaccines, light-bulbs, steam-engines and so on. In other words, if you agree that there must be a natural explanation for everything, then you can create and invent too. It works pretty well, doesn't it.
- 9 years ago
Well a lot of the creationism arguments are silly. That doesn't necessarily mean macro evolution is correct.
I'd stay away from young earth theories and dinosaurs in the garden of eden. Try exploiting the holes in abiogenesis, or the fossil record. Where are the transitional fossils?
Which came first, DNA or protein? Also research the limits of beneficial mutations.
- CRRLv 79 years ago
God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith
The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution
Three good books to start with.
I'm sure the Atheists will have plenty of recommendations.