neoanime.forumsdot.com

That's right, it's the classic ideological battle of the 21st Century, the simple argument between the theory of evolution and the theory of creation. It's sort of one small part of a massive worldwide division between two halves. The days of multiple perspectives and allegiences seems to of died out, and now all things have been replaced by two dominant sides. This can be seen in all things - the US election battles between Democrats and Republicans, the west versus the east in the War, and perhaps most interestingly the now heated debate between evolution and creation.

As debates go, this is certainly a unique one, partly because never before have both members of the religious and scientific community been so divided amongst themselves, but also by the battleground that the majority of this war is fought over, through the media, literature and, of course, the front line: the internet.

I've been doing a lot of research into this conflict, and have dodged many bullets at the front lines, and I would now like to dig myself a trench and throw up a flag to announce the coming of this conflict to Neo-Anime, and hope that once the dust has settled and members of both side have reached a cease-fire we can all feel as though we have learned something.

Seriously, though, enough with the war metaphors.

I have been raised to side with the theory of evolution, and that is where I continue to stand today, but I am finding both saints and sinners are on both sides in this debate. While I agree with their opinions, the evolutionists seem to have a near-fanatical dedication to their chosen ideology, and often criticize creationists for the very things that they themselves are guilty of. The comments on a blog that is pro-evolution, for example, will contain mostly just the opinions of other evolutionists quoting books and reinforcing the initial point, rather than attempting to advance it. There is an intellectual snobbery about most evolutionists which makes me uneasy about them, as if proving the creationists wrong is actually more important that the actual theory itself.

That being said, I would still like to level many accusations of misinformation and, dare I say it, deceit at the creationist camp. While neither side may be capable of casting the first stone, it is almost always the creationist camp whose opinions of evolution seem ill-informed or just plain incorrect. I've lost count of the number of times creatonists have misquoted the second law of thermodynamics, and then claimed that it proves evolution could not occur. What makes it worse is that, upon following up their claims, I found that their initial misquotation was actually taken from a creationist scientist who himself claims to be an expert on the subject. Creationists are more willing to believe misinformation or just plain lies told to them, as long as it makes them feel that their opinion is validated.

But what is most interesting about this battle is the way that it is forcing a more scientific approach to religion. Terms like "creationist science" would never of even been dreamed of at the dawn of Christianity, and yet such phrases are bounded around no end upon both sides. Many books have been written, attempting to prove such events in the Bible (most commonly the story of the flood) as scientific fact, not just by studying the texts themselves and taking the word for granted, but by actual study of rock formations and layers in the earth. Such research would of been deemed heresy no longer than a couple of centuries ago, and would of been deemed eccentric and pointless only a couple of decades ago. While I disagree with a lot of methods and results in these creationist experiments, I cannot help but feel that religion and science have at last reached some kind of mutual understanding - even if it is just to try and prove science itself wrong.

So, where do you stand in the debate and why? What are your opinions of the opposing side, and what are your opinions of the conflict itself? Can evolution and creation fit together, or do the two completely contradict? Can they co-exist or must one come out superior?

I've started this thread in order to examine views on both sides, but feel free to lay into each other as well. Or you can ask questions about anything you're not sure on. It would be easy for me to say that I don't want this to turn into another raging battle, but that would be a bit of a lie. I'm hoping that debate here gets heated. Really heated. As heated as an Angry Whopper covered in Tabasco and roasted over the erupting summit of Mount Etna. I want to wade through opinions both cloudy and pure and raise up a chalice full of crystal-clear truth only to have the wind knocked out of me by a wave of objectivity.

But still, that doesn't mean we can't be civil.

Point is, have a good time, say everything you want to, and try to learn something.

Come on, somebody here must have some kind of opinion on this debate.

Anybody?

hmm, a very interesting subject, old as I can remember and long before that. Personally, I believe in evolution over creation. Now I'm not saying I'm some Atheist, techno nerd but I just dont think that all the planets and the universe could pop out of nowhere. I see God as more of an eternal guide than a creator really.(baptist) I also think that thinking we're the only life out there because god created us is not only arrogant, but stupid. The Vatican itself announced that is is not a sin to believe that there is other life out there. If that's inclination, let me know.

Well adding to what Duamma said, yea it is kind of ignorant to believe that we are the only life in the universe. It's been proven that life once existed on Mars, way before we came here. Also, if God created all things then I'm pretty sure that He made other's besides just us. NOW, as far as evolution goes, I believe this. God made animals before He made humans. We all know that. What we don't know is how ling they stayed on the planet. NOW, how do we know that when Christian's say God made the world in 7 days(6 then rested on 7), that it was actually 7, 24hour days. We don't know that. A day for God might be 200,000years for humans. We don't know. So in all....uh....well....I'm not sure but all I know is, I'm here! lmao

Well, at least it's refreshing to see people who believe that evolution and religion can be reconciled. Still, shame we can't get any other views up on here - I was looking forward to a lively debate. I, personally, have always held the belief that god and evolution are perfectly reconcilable, it's just a shame that soo many people believe so absolutely in the Bible that they would willingly ignore facts rather than admit that any part of the Bible is untrue (or, at least, interpretable).

There are a lot of interesting debates going on throughout the internet on the subject of evolution, but perhaps my favourite is the dispute on YouTube between VenomFangX (creationist) and RabidApe (evolutionist). To me, their arguments typify the type of attitudes going on in creationist and evolutionist debates - with VenomFangX making ungrounded assertions and RabidApe completely destroying his argument in every video.

A personal favourite video of mine is this one, in which RabidApe responds to several points made by VenomFangX. partly because of the references he makes at the end of the video. I'm currently looking for a copy of Letter To A Christian Nation myself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV8otvD3 ... re=related

Okay, so everyone on here knows I am a Christian. The way I see it, and I am not going to bash anyones beliefs, is: the ONLY reason I do not believe in life on other planets, is because if you look at the differences in atmospheres there is no possible way life could be there. Though, I don't know. Also, not every Creationist bashes those beliefs that Evolutionists have. Everyone has their own opinion and everyone is entitled to it; but it is ignorant to completely throw down someones beliefs and to think they wont retaliate. But also, it isn't ignorant for a Christian to go by the Bible and to live by it. It is God's book to us, and the Ten Commandments were left for us to live in harmony with God.


The simple fact is, I am going to sound stupid in a Evolutionists eyes; and it's fine if you think I'm stupid. But, if you want to question my beliefs go ahead; I will give you the answers I have gotten when I asked those questions.

A different atmosphere does not necesarilly mean that life cannot grow upon a different planet, just that the type of life that can be found on Earth cannot grow on a planet with a different atmosphere to Earth. There's no reason why life couldn't thrive on a planet with a completely different atmosphere to our own, nor is there any reason that Earth's environment is the only one that could produce life. It's kind of like believing that there is no life in the sea because nothing can breathe in the sea - life thrives on the environment that is given to it, not on one single particular environment.


I am aware with the fact that not every Creationist bashes evolution, just as not ever evolutionist bashes Creation, but that's not really what this thread is about. What I want to study is the conflict between the two itself, and how each side reacts to the evidence and opinions of others. I don't, nor have any evolutionists I've ever met, believed that it is ignorant to simply believe in the Bible, but we do believe it is ignorant to dispute science on unjust ground. My argument isn't with religion, but with people who use religion in order to subvert certain points about evolution (again, this doesn't apply to all Christians - or even anything more than a tiny percentage).


I don't want to just question your beliefs (partly because you haven't actually made them known to me yet), I just want to hear your opinions on the issue of evolution and, if possible, see if I can respond to them in a way that is perhaps enlightening for both of us.

I didn't start this thread to laugh at people who believe different things than I do, but to try and understand their opinions and hopefully spread some understanding about my point of view as well. Also, arguments are healthy. If there is no conflict between ideologies, then ideas do not resolve or move forward. The truth does not, in my opinion, come from a single source, but from the mixing of as many ideas as possible and attempting to reconcile them with eachother.

Has anyone else got anything they want to share?

I really want to keep this thread alive. It's a subject that's very important to me.

That's the thing Onyx, the vatican: the virtually only respected interpreters of the bible have said it is not sinful to believe in other life in the universe, they've said god made the universe, not that we were the only ones in it. Im not trying to dash your beliefs but that to me says that if they can believe it, the reconciliation is not impossible. And some creationists do not provide any lee way into believing even one theory of evolutionists, but somehow still follow the vatican. It's getting to that pont now where the lines blur and the one certain side is not as clear as it once was.

I actually do get what you are saying. I mean, I don't know much about life on other planets, and honestly it's kind of weird to think about it. But; maybe I'm wrong! I don't know everything and I don't claim to so yeah. Also, yeah I agree that some creationists aren't the most accepting people; which is wrong. It bothers me that people can be like that..But, I guess we will never know what is actually true until we die. Ya know? Either you guys are right, and there is no life after death; or Christians are and we go to Heaven. The alternatives are something to think about..But yeah, I get where you are coming from Duama. And ChazD I wasn't trying to come across as defensive. Sorry if you took some stuff I said the wrong way. My sarcasm isn't great on internet sites.

So, back on to the subject of evolution.

Any arguments / issues / questions?

Yeah, all these urban legend creatures (loch ness, big foot, chupacabra) any guesses as to where they fall on the evolution chart?

Difficult question.

I would say the Loch Ness monster would of evolved (or rather, mutated) by sheer chance. Unless it is a survivor from the age of dinosaurs, there's really nothing even remotely similar to descriptions of it, especially in the area of Loch Ness. In order for it to fit on the tree, we would first have to catch it and disect it, and see if there would be any clues in it's skeletal structure.

Considering Big Foot's habitat (usually the forests of America), I would say that he (or they) may be remnants of Homo Neanderthalensis, judging from their similarities to humans, but larger stature. This is unlikely, of course, considering they vanished totally from the world around 45,000 years ago.

Chupacabra is almost impossible to place because there have been so many varying descriptions of him. The most common artist's depiction is like a small, bi-pedal creature covered in scales with large eyes. Other descriptions make him out to be more rodent-like and covered in hair, and others simply liken him to a very large dog.

*Uses defibrillator on thread*

Live! Liiiiiiiive!

Just thought I'd bring to your attention two people on You Tube who have been having epic discussions and arguments about evolution and creation. If you want more information about the arguments on both sides, I suggest you check out RabidApe and VenomFangX on YouTube.

Well, since not many people have given their opinions on this, I might as well argue with myself. Here are some common misconceptions about evolution, and a Q & A session addressing what many people consider flaws in the theory.


Human beings evolved from monkeys.
Never in the history of evolutionary theory has any authority on the subject ever said that human beings evolved from monkeys. It would be more correct to say that humans evolved from apes, but even this is not really true. What evolution states is that "human beings and apes share a common ancestor". What this means is that both humans and apes came from the same land animal, or a "human-like ape". As this animal spread throughout the word, the various environments slowly altered their shapes, and the inevitable variations in living style also altered their individual evolutionary paths.

If human beings evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
Well, as stated above, human beings did not evolve from apes, but alongside them. But even if this were the case, there is no reason a species would not remain roughly the same for hundreds of thousands of years provided it's well enough suited to a particular environment. If a species is successful enough in a given environment, natural selection is less focused as larged numbers of variants of that species survive, being that the animal does not evolve in a focused and obvious way. All it can do is become even better are living in it's current environment.

Why have we never found any transitional species?
This is a question I hear a lot, and it also happens to be the easiest to answer. Firstly, because we actually have found thousands of fossils of transitional animals. This is usually followed by asking why there are no living transitional animals around today, which in itself is a fallacy. Evolution states that all creatures are transitional creatures - you are a transition between your parents and your children, your children are a transition between you and your grandchildren, etc. To say that humans are the end result of evolution shows very little knowledge of the theory itself, which states that all things are a link in chain.

Evolution is racist: it says that white people evolved from black people, and thereofore implies that black people are less evolved.
This was an idea I read in a creationist comic that attempted to explain the holes in the theory of evolution to kids. Like the above, it shows absolutely zero understanding of what evolution actually is, and makes claims about it that have never been made in the past. Evolution is not simply a process of a particular species becoming better, it is simply environmental adaptation. The fact that black people were the first people, and that white people evolved from them, is in no way implying that they are "less evolved" (whatever that means) or inferior in any way, just that they are more adapted to their own particular environment. Furthermore, evolution is not just a straigh line between species that goes from "worse" to "better", it is a branching tree that grows simultaniously in all directions, allowing for all things to evolve side by side, not all things simply getting "better".

Evolution happens randomly.
Natural selection is the opposite of random. The best scientific definition of evolution is: the non-random survival of randomly varying individuals. In other words, individuals of a species vary due to mutation. All you need to do to see this in action is look at me and my twin brother. I have thick, curly dark hair, slightly dark white skin and hazel eyes. My twin has straight, ginger hair, freckles, pale skin, blue eyes and glasses. All living things are born with individual mutations, in spite of their genetic stock. This is as "random" as evolution gets, as we cannot predict with what traits a child will be born. However, it is the non-random survival which is more important. If a hedgehog is born with longer spikes than it's brother, it has a larger chance to survive. It stands to reason that a hedgehog with spikes would therefore live in larger numbers and grow up and mate, producing similar large-spiked offspring who also carry within themselves variations on that same gene.

Carbon dating is inaccurate. They tested it on lava that had formed 200 years ago, and it said it was 164 million years old!
This is a common example brought to me by creationists to argue against evolution, and is yet another example of how facts, twisted to fit a point of view, are willingly deceiving people due to their own inability to explore the subject. The Hawaiian "lava flows" that were carbon dated were, for a start, not lava. Scientists were carbon dating a particular rock that could be found in the lava. And the reason they were dating it was because they wanted to see if that particular rock could be dated using the carbon dating method. They discovered that it couldn't, and so they never used it again in a scientific study. This is an example, if anything, that carbon dating is more accurate, as scientists are willing to consider variables that can distort the end result, and are able to accept that carbon dating does not work on all forms of minerals, and so should not be applied as such.

I'll post some more when I think of them.