Do you believe in creation or evolution?

[Freedom]

Homo neanderthalensis:




Homo erectus:




Homo rudolfensis:

[Master]

Controversial.

I go with evolution whilst not prefect makes and there are gaps still makes the most sense.

[Freedom]

I believe in evolution and natural selection. However, I also believe in God.

I consider Genesis to be mythology and I don't think it should be taken too seriously. But if people took the teaching of Christ more seriously, the world would be a better place.

[Alpha]

I don't believe in the god or Jesus of the bible, I don't believe in the theory of evolution, but I do believe in some sort of intelligent design. The complexity of even just a single cell or strain of DNA is so amazing that I find it hard to believe it's all random and was created from nothing.

[Gandalf]

I think evolution makes perfect sense and there is plenty of evidence for it. God on the other hand is something for which there is no evidence, but scientifically you can never say never so I would class myself an extreme agnostic in that regard. I think the historical Jesus was likely a very interesting person and any man that walks into a bank and throws coffee on the floor is alright by me.

[Alpha]

Just pointing out, that if there was plenty of 'evidence' it would no longer be a theory.

If there was some much evidence why would they keep trying to fabricate it?

[Gandalf]

Just pointing out, that if there was plenty of 'evidence' it would no longer be a theory.

If there was some much evidence why would they keep trying to fabricate it?

If there was a perfect fossil record, then there would be something truly wrong. It is not as though over hundreds of millions of years the corpses of creatures were archived and kept in perfect underground crypts. If anything we are lucky enough to have the pieces of the jigsaw that we have. Thus it must remain a theory as that is a reasonable and scientific thing to do.

[Alpha]

Just pointing out, that if there was plenty of 'evidence' it would no longer be a theory.

If there was some much evidence why would they keep trying to fabricate it?

If there was a perfect fossil record, then there would be something truly wrong. It is not as though over hundreds of millions of years the corpses of creatures were archived and kept in perfect underground crypts. If anything we are lucky enough to have the pieces of the jigsaw that we have. Thus it must remain a theory as that is a reasonable and scientific thing to do.

There would be millions of these in between/ transitional fossils.

Evolution doesn't even hold up to the scientific method of being able to be observed, measured and repeated.

[walrus]

Just pointing out, that if there was plenty of 'evidence' it would no longer be a theory.

If there was some much evidence why would they keep trying to fabricate it?

If there was a perfect fossil record, then there would be something truly wrong. It is not as though over hundreds of millions of years the corpses of creatures were archived and kept in perfect underground crypts. If anything we are lucky enough to have the pieces of the jigsaw that we have. Thus it must remain a theory as that is a reasonable and scientific thing to do.

People use that but the fact that fossils of 200 million year old fossils of sponges exist show most things can remain

[Spicoli]

A man has to know his limits and this may be above my paygrade . But I'm much more of a evolution kinda guy. Can someone give me the quick..real quick..definition of creationism and when it was God is said to have snapped his fingers, the big bang?

[Fenster]

Just pointing out, that if there was plenty of 'evidence' it would no longer be a theory.

Semantics. You did this with the word "kinds" too.

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Think of how a detective solves a crime without observing it.

[Gandalf]

True, that we can find such things Walrus. However, most living things will leave no trace several million years down the line. Should we dig up the entire planet to attempt the impossible task of the perfect puzzle? You have to operate within reasonable parameters. Most actual will simply break down within a relatively short space of time. Thus you are lucky to have the records that we do. We see them weaken in our own lifetimes within our bodies. It only accelerates post death with nothing to feed them.

[Gandalf]

Damn phone always deletes my words.....missing link....bones....

[goti71]

Just pointing out, that if there was plenty of 'evidence' it would no longer be a theory.

If there was some much evidence why would they keep trying to fabricate it?

If there was a perfect fossil record, then there would be something truly wrong. It is not as though over hundreds of millions of years the corpses of creatures were archived and kept in perfect underground crypts. If anything we are lucky enough to have the pieces of the jigsaw that we have. Thus it must remain a theory as that is a reasonable and scientific thing to do.

There would be millions of these in between/ transitional fossils.

Evolution doesn't even hold up to the scientific method of being able to be observed, measured and repeated.

A crucial aspect to this matter is that the actual meaning of the word theory in a scientific sense (based on observation and on the scientific method) doesn't have anything to do with its meaning in common parlance; the colloquial meaning of theory would be equivalent to the concept of a mere hypothesis or conjecture in science.

So in science, a theory is formulated precisely because there is evidence to support it.

And it can be observed and measured too; a greater genetic difference is observed between species, the more apart they are .

And repeated; mutation/selective pressure on bacteria and viruses leading to different strains, etc.


So even if the fossil record disappeared in a puff of smoke, the genetic evidence would lead to the same conclusions (branching apart more and more the further apart two species are in evolution).

And all fossils are transitional. Even the bones in the graveyard are transitional.


That's just my basic understanding of it.

[goti71]

Just pointing out, that if there was plenty of 'evidence' it would no longer be a theory.

Semantics. You did this with the word "kinds" too.

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Think of how a detective solves a crime without observing it.

This ^^

Beat me to it with a better explanation.