Can you all agree that their is evidence for Evolution and Creation?

Question

But it is simply a matter of how we interpret it, and that what may be seen as evidence at one point, may later be discovered to be nonsense?

I have my view on things, but i can see from both point of views that certain things are EXTREMELY compelling and in favor for both..

Evolutionists and Creationists alike, can we agree that things can be seen as evidence for both..?

This is a pretty pointless Q now i look at it.. But i'll post it anyway for some amusement =)

I hope i've articulated well what i mean.. But guess i'll find out in regards to answers?

And PLEASE respect each-others beliefs. We ALL have our reasons behind our beliefs, so don't criticize one another for that. It's a personal thing. Ta.

Answer 1

Lets put it simple both evolution and creation have viable points but each on their own has loopholes in their theories. Only by combining both can we hope to understand the truth and find all the evidence we need. Until science and religion combine we will be that much farther from the truth. And most of all one must keep an open mind if you hope to further your own understanding. Saying that one path is absolutley correct and other one is a sure way of asking for trouble. Lets take a good example human evolution/creation. If you are a scientist and believe in evolution I agree but only to a certain point of view. Creationis believe man was made from god and in gods image and that is also true from a certain point of view. But combined both ideas can give a clearer picture. So both ideas are the same just one is complex and the other more simple. Combined we can say that yes we were created since science cannot eloborate on why apes evolved into humans and not some other mammal. Yes we evolved but only once someone had played around with apes to make a humanoid image of himself. (Crazy as it may sound even Darwin would agree with me on this). So both scientific and creationism provide lost clues to what could have happened. So being single minded is asking for trouble.  

Answer 2

well we can't all agree apon one reason that every thing came here because of mayny religous beilfs as well as familt beilfs that others were born and raised on. I personally beilive in both I beilive that god put the world here and one or two micro scopic creatures that evolved in to mamals, fish, reptiles, and birds so I have a so called weird and diffrent way of looking at things but I do respect other peoples opinions.

Answer 3

No, I'm afraid we cannot.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution, and there is zero evidence for existence of a Creator.

What evidence for a evolution are you suggesting can also be seen as evidence for a Creator?

______________________________________...

Edit:

> "You think that a theory believed by millions can have zero evidence?"

Millions of Aztecs used to believe that they needed to perform constant human sacrifice or the sun would fail to rise.

Just because a belief is held doesn't make it true. There needs to be supporting evidence before it can be rationally accepted.

> "You find out that if the amount of salt in the ocean varied by 1% then no life could be sustained in there..

Evolutionist says: Its evolved over 1000s of years to get to the exact point its at etc etc.

Creationist says: It has been designed perfectly for its purpose which it does very well: Supports life."

The "Evolutionist" would say that if the salinity levels in the oceans were different, then life would have evolved to accomodate THOSE salinity levels rather than the current salinity levels.

Camels would have a hard time in the antarctic, and penguins would find life in the sahara difficult. but that doesn't mean that the antarctic was created/designed for the panguins, or the sahara for the camels.

> "If i asked you to make a rat evolve wings. Would you be able to? Because if rats had wings it would surely enable them to thrive."

Only if having wings were an advantage to the rat, and only if there were no other organisms already with wings which the rat would be unable to outcompete.

But nothing "makes" organisms evolve new traits. The traits arise randomly, by mutation, and are then selected for by natural selection.

> "Not linking to natural selection, as evolution is not natural selection"

Natural selection is the main MECHANISM driving evolution.

> "How did no intelligence start life."

This is an interesting question. but it is still not evidence that any intelligence DID spark life.

And the origins of life are not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution describes how life changes with time - not how it began. That is Abiogenesis, an entirely different field of biology.

But even in Abiogenesis, there is no reason to presuppose a Designer or Creator. Chemical mechanisms in pre-life earth can explain all these just fine.

> "And where did the unintelligent things that evolved into intelligent things come from?"

They evolved from other "unintelligent" organisms.

> "That could be seen as evidence as creation, right?"

No. There are entirely materialistic and mechanistic hypotheses which explain all of these observations perfectly well, and without reference to any Creator.

______________________________________...

Edit:

> "Evidence does not have to make something true, but can be used to help prove something to be, even if in essence it is unrelated."

Well - nothing in science is ever "proved". Only demonstrated as possible/likely or impossible.

> "For example: 3 men in a club (names: A,B,C)"

So your suggestion is that because there is evidence of evolution, this could have been placed there by a Creator, and it is therefore evidence that a Creator exists?

I'm sorry, but that is the biggest bunch of baloney I've heard in quite a while.

> "One thing can be seen as evidence for one thing, but at the same time it is for another"

Of course - this is perfectly possible. But you have still failed to point out any evidence for evolution which is also evidence for a Creator.

______________________________________...

Edit:

> "This only proves what I'm getting at.

The evidence (What is in question, ie salinity levels) can be interpreted in more than one way, giving evidence in favor of a creator, and also evolution, depending on how you look at it."

Have you heard of the principle of Parsimony (aka "Occam's Razor"?)

This is the philosophical idea that the explanation that introduces the LEAST complication in order to explain the observed phenomenon is the preferred one. Only if the simplest explanation fails to explain all the observations can a more complicated one be proposed.

Since Creationism introduces a Creator, who must neccessarily be at least as complicated as the thing created, it fails on this important criterion. It requires independent evidence to suppose a Creator, in addition to any evidence which is actually just evidence for evolution.

> "Anyway, thanks for answering my Question with some pretty in depth info."

NP.

Answer 4

As others have said, creationism is supported by no evidence at all.  That wasn't a problem when there wasn't any kind of evidence period, but now there is, and it all points to a worldview that does not include Special Creation.

Hundreds of years ago, science had not advanced to the point that it was possible to defend ideas like evolution and the advanced age of the Earth.  The dominant belief in the Christian world was that God had created everything pretty much in its present form.  Archbishop James Ussher published a chronology in the 17th century in which he used stories from the Bible to place a definitive date on the beginning of the Earth, a date that was only about 6000 years ago.

These early people can be forgiven for believing as they did: they had a steadfast faith and no reason to doubt the literal accuracy of the Bible.  But science progressed as always, and over the next few centuries more and more evidence came to light to suggest that a literal interpretation of the Bible was not accurate.

The evidence for evolution is written in the fossil record (which could NOT have been created by a Great Flood), in the similarities between extant species, and even in our genes.  The science that backs up evolution is immense.  The only reason I can fathom somebody doubting the evidence for evolution, or suggesting that that same evidence also supports creationism, is that they have a vested religious interest in evolution not being real.

Remember that the ideas of evolution and an old Earth were constructed from new evidence.  Creationism existed before there was evidence and now creationists attempt to shoehorn evidence into supporting their myth.  So no, I would not say that there is any evidence for creationism, and I don't believe you can honestly say otherwise unless you are willing to torture the evidence that DOES exist.

I hope that helps.  Good luck!

Answer 5

I agree with gribbling's answers, but I wanted to elaborate on one thing...

"For example: 3 men in a club (names: A,B,C)

Man A shoots man B with a gun, killing him.

Man A used a gun that belonged to Man C, using gloves, leaving no trace of his fingerprints, just the innocent Man C's fingerprints were on the gun.

In court, Man A's attorney is using the fact that Man C's prints are the only ones on the deadly weapon, and he was in the same nightclub at the time of the killing. Man C's fingerprints are EVIDENCE to the case of Man A, in which they argue Man C is the murderer, when he is in fact not guilty.

Even though that it is not true, it can be interpreted in a certain way, in essence, evidence."

What you are talking about here is a set up.  Man A sets up the situation to make it look as if man C is responsible.  But you are looking at only one piece of evidence--the fingerprints.  In a court of law, very rarely is only one piece of evidence enough to convict a person.  And very rarely, if ever, in science, is one piece of evidence enough to make a scientific theory acceptable.

In your situation, there has to be more evidence.  Gun shot residue on the body and clothing of the man firing the gun.  Eye witness accounts--if the incident happened in a bar, there is likely someone who saw the event, or saw man A enter the bar, etc.  Past history can indicate intent.  And so on.

And so it is in science, for a theory to be accepted.  There has to be numerous lines of evidence that indicate the same thing.  And we find that with the theory of evolution.  We DON'T find that with the idea of creation.  For the most part, the lined of evidence that have been found lead away from the idea of creationism.

Answer 6

whoa. suprisingly a balanced thesis and yet you're still getting a third degree from both sides. how annoying.

frankly i believe that you made a grave error in posting this question. whilst an incredible expmple of how many ways the beginning can be written and still sound the same, im afraid your singing to a deaf audience (appart from the few openminded that i didnt get to thorouly read). you see, christians and athiests are very much alike: both think they are generally mightier than thou art and both deaf to the possibilities that the oppositions of each respectable faction could be correct. so for you to spout a well balanced idea that they could be one and the same is to the two major parties HERESY.

remember where you are: civilised society. they dont take kindly to new ideas about existentialism.

but.

keep hammering this thesis into their foreheads and they wont be able to ignore it. who knows. you might change the world.

Answer 7

The problem with your 'idea' is that it ignores the basic foundation of knowledge and understanding as we know it even now.

What I mean is this: the question of whether or not something is true is not based upon whether or not it is actually true (such a point was determined long before) but whether or not we have the capability of finding out, and thus knowing, if said thing is true.

An example: the 'roundness' of the Earth. The earth was round long before the notion of such was even accepted as fact, long before anyone even thought up the question "I wonder what shape this 'thing' we are standing on is? Is it flat or round or square or whatnot?" The question is not whether such a thing is true but whether or not we can know if such a thing is true.

To say that the beliefs of a zillion people, or a billion people, or a million people, or a thousand people, or a hundred people, or a dozen people, or even the beliefs of a single person 'validate' such beliefs is erroneous. A single person, or a zillion, can believe in a flat or cubed shape Earth all they want, that does not make their beliefs fact or truth. And this is why there is so much heated debate between Evolutionists and Creationists. Everybody is trying to pick the 'right' side based upon whatever selective evidence is presented to them, and using such evidence ('the older, the better theory', which is ludicrous, since many old beliefs were also wrong too) to 'conclude' that they are right.

Where Creationists are going to 'lose' this arguement, much more so than the scientist in this regard, is that the Creationists cannot divorce their 'as is' mentality from their religion. If the Universe Is, ipso facto, our 'truth' must be right and not just some of it, all of it. If there is a God, it must be OUR God, which is kinda like saying 'if there is a car parked outside my house, it MUST be a Toyota, and not just any Toyota but a Toyota Riteous.' Creationists will lose because they tie their truths into an all-or-nothing package. They cannot even begin to imagine that a God that could create a Jew could also create a Chinese or a Mongol or a African or something else, and that if such a God could create so many diverse cultures, then the God is not of a single culture either (giraffes only create giraffes, they don't create penguins.) Therefore, to believe that a single book answers every question and is the only 'holy' book out there (not one holy book among many holy books) can only lead to being corrected later on, often by the very same people whom one has aligned themselves with in the first place.

This does not mean that science (which is where the theory of evolution falls under) is blameless in that regard either. Just as a creationist can categorically state that something is true, or maybe true (when it is false) so too can a scientist get too caught up in their theories and formulae and whatnot and fail to see how belief systems also function correctly under their scientific principal. To say that the 'miracles' found in the bible are impossible due to the laws of physics is, quite frankly, a poor reading and understanding of the laws of physics.

Take the whole walking on water example. If we assume, for the moment and sake of arguement, that Jesus did walk on water, that is not 'breaking' the laws of physics. And I say that because the only thing the laws of physics state is that due to the force of gravity's pull towards the center of the Earth, and the density of water, and the amount of pressure the human body places normally when upright, the law states that a person who steps into water steps through it. However, there is nothing that says that if a person could alter (and the means by which they could alter are inconsequential, since the result would be the same) the amount of pressure they put into their step, say equal to or less than the pressure a leaf exerts when it lands on the 'surface' of water, then that person would not, according to the laws of physics, step through the water but simply step onto it. The reason why people don't walk on water is not because it is impossible according to the laws of physics but because we simply do not know, or have the ability or learned, how to.

The theory of human flight follows the same pattern. We do not fly not because it is impossible but because we do not know how to create and harness enough energy within our bodies to overcome the overall pull of gravity against ourselves. We constantly resist the pull of gravity all the time actually, when you walk upright or stand or raise your hand for example, and the law of gravity simply states that if a force brought against the force of gravity is less than the force that gravity exerts, then that object will 'sink' but if the force used against is greater than the force gravity exerts, that object will rise. Who is to say that Jesus wasn't 'taught' to harness the forces of his body in such a way that would allow him to perform these actions, and thus be considered 'normal' and fully in compliance with the laws of physics?

But walking on water, like answering a single question correctly on a test, does not thusly validate every assertion or belief held by every creationist. There are many ways Jesus could be considered the 'son' of God in a very proper and correct manner (think of his parable of the 'Good Samaritan' as being the parable equivalent of a litmus test) without validating every belief or action that preceeded him or followed him. That would mean that yes, Jesus is the son of God, but many creationists are still wrong.

Think about this arguement in one final example: My name is Michael Brazil, I was born on November 12 1793, I have brown hair and green eyes, I am 5'8" and weight 2,000 lbs. As you can clearly see, I have deliberately mixed truth and fact repeatedly in the above statements. However, just because I have said some things that are true (my first name, the month of my birth, the color of my hair and my height) does not validate or make true everything I have said. Thus, what is true remains true, and what is false remains false. Mixing truth and falseness, whether conscious or not, does not change what is true and what isn't. That is not an interpretation, that is what is.

Answer 8

Where we came from is less important than where we are collectively headed.

I see success and failure in the world. The successful will linger just as the failures will vanish. Most people that try to be kind only do so because they think they'll be rewarded for it later (in this life or "the next").

I sweepingly deny everything that interferes with my own lack of faith. Furthermore, I'm one of the few that can actually admit that I hope there is no existence beyond physical death. I'm tired, and I derive very little pleasure from life. I'm never more content than in a dreamless sleep.

Of course I might be wrong, but it's not worth the trouble to act accordingly.