Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

Just wondering.. anyone here know the definition of a theory?

Since both creationism and evolution are theories.. not facts I thought I'd mention this.

I do have to point out that there is very little credibly evidence for the Creationist theory that the world is 6,000 years old. If only for the fact that even with the failings of Carbon dating, we can easily find examples that are 30,000 years old.

If you think that a God would place on this earth fossils and other such evidence for the sole purpose of misleading. I'd say you've lost more than a few screws. That or God is just insane. Ohh and also, go up to any.. I repeat any Catholic Priest and ask them about the existence of Satan. Then ask them to explain who and/or what Satan is. If you've studied western philosophy and have read many of the writings of Saints and other religious thinkers you would know (like the priest does) that there is only God and the absence of God. To think that there are omnipotent and omniscient beings that are somehow limited by "rules" is plain nonsense.

After reading through many of these posts here, I do wonder what has happened in this country. It seems to me that too many of us do not understand what critical thinking is. If you want to take a course about creationism great, it will probably be done in about 3 hours tops.. maybe 20 if you're really really desperate for every little detail. On the other hand, you can take years to study the evidence that exists for evolution. And while it may be wrong, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of evidence pionts to evolution. And yes, many of the tests to date things have been proven wrong however, the great thing here about science is that it requires REPEATABLE results.

And while your articles pointing to individual failures are nice and well appreciated there exists thousands more expirements out there that are fact. The New York Times as a guide?? that is good, a bunch of liberal unscientific minds writing about the scientific process. Wonderful credentials there, I find them TOTALLY trustworthy. Just like I find the rest of the news COMPLETELY factual and unbiased. Remember cold fusion??? the uproar that caused and all the "Reports" in supposed credible new sources. It was also shown how poorly the experiment had been conducted in the first place. BECAUSE science require repeatable results for something to become a fact.

So while both theories may be in fact correct or incorrect when you look at the total evidence for each. On one side creationism with it's anthill of evidence and on the other the Mount Everest of evidence, I'd say I think I'll follow the Mount Everest side and believe in evolution(with reservation, it is after all a theory).

A perfect example that everyone should remember from high school biology class. In the late 1800's to early 1900's the White moth in britain had almost totally disappeared. While the Moths with the recessive gene(remember those???) for being black almost completely took over. This was due to the dirt and pollution accumulating on the trees turning them black. The white moths stood out and the birds feasted on them, while the black moths flourished. Now with the pollution controls and etc. of the modern world, the white moth (with the dominant gene) has returned and the Black moth has almost disappeared. Think on that one.