Evolution vs. Creation

I think this is the place for an Evolution vs. Creation debate. What do you think?

Certainly is.

------------------
The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The distinction is
yours to draw...

Omniscient; BAG

Just so long as you realize that this is also a religion vs. science debate.

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

These are not mutually exclusive concepts.

------------------
"Anything is peaceful from one thousand, three hundred and fifty-three feet."

That's an interesting issue in itself. I've found the more I look the more I see people fully able and willing to accept totally contradictory ideas at the same time. Orwell's 1984 is a drastic example of what many of us do all the time--for example, I've debated this question with a number of people who said they thought the Bible to be literal and absolute truth, but when I probed further, it turned out there were quite a few rules in the old book they didn't agree with and didn't think were true. But this sort of debate very rarely enlightens anyone and usually just makes everyone mad at each other.

So, (depending on what you define "science" as), even if the two concepts are contradictory, I'm sure most of us would have no problem believing in both.


------------------
http://www.theshrubbery.prohosting.com
humor, reviews, and more

I, for one, do my best to try to believe six impossible things before breakfast.

I side with El Mariachi. The evolution vs creation debate is only a debate if one insists the answer can only be one or the other. It is entirely possible that in a logical progression both are correct.

"If faced with a contradiction, check your premises. More than likely you will find one of them is wrong" - Fransisco D'Anaconia

------------------
To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion.

BurnMeUp said:

I side with El Mariachi. The evolution vs creation debate is only a debate if one insists the answer can only be one or the other. It is entirely possible that in a logical progression both are correct.

That depends on what is meant by "creation."

Is it possible to believe that God created the universe (through, for example, a Big Bang) and then used evolution to move us along to where we are now? Yes, of course. Many scientists who are also believers in God feel this way.

But that isn't usually what is meant when one is talking about "Evolution vs. Creation." Usually, one is talking about special creation, or a young earth according to Biblical literalism (even some of those creationists who favor an old earth still fight against evolution).

So before we decide if somebody can believe "both are correct," we have to define exactly what it is that the person is believing.

------------------
"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand."
-- Neil Peart, RUSH, "Witch Hunt"

I think that creationism and evolution are one in the same only describe from different points of view.

Darwin describe creation from scientific observation

The Bible described evolution from a point of view that the people who would be reading the bible (at the time it was written)(and yes i know it was written over a peroid of time but it was a time before the masses were educated) were mainly incapable of understanding scientific ideas and thus was written in terms that could be better understood by ignorant masses.

But if you do a quasi side by side comparison of the creation story in Genisis and the basic prinicples of evolution that are (in my mind) amazingly parallel. I dont have the bible in front of my so I'll be paraphrasing.
The numbers being the bible the letter being evolution


1. In the beginning there was a great void of vast nothingness
A. There was nothing

2. God seperated the light from the dark
B. The BIG BANG

3. God created the heavens and the earth and the stars above
C. The Universe forms (and is still forming to this day)

4. God seperated the waters from the land
D. Planet cooled and watervapor forms and rain starts and voilia the oceans.

5. God sperates teh day from the night and "creates" the sun and moon and names teh sky and land etc
E. results of the forming of the solar system etc...


6. God creates the fishies in the sea and the animals on the land
F. Now here you have to take into account that evolutionist say that life mostly likely started in the oceans and evolved from there. Although in the bible it doesnt tell of the order in which the animals were created the two theories could be one in the same if you bear in mind again the educational level of the people the bible was originally written for)

7. God made the plants
G. evolution says that plants evolved as well
we assume simultanously with animals evolution. There is no time seperation in the bible just the events sequence so here again you have to suppose that in the bible god was listing in a general order to show events that were occuring at the same time.

8. Then God makes us....as you'll notice we are teh last in the list of thing...and in my opinion the last in a series of evolving. were we differ here is that i dont believe we evolved from apes although i do believe we have similar ancestry. I believe that a speicies of mamals was given divine interference in its evolution to allow it to become intelligent and thus in the image of God.
H. man evolved from apes

Humans ARE apes.

Really smart, really bitchen apes. But apes.

------------------
Stoidela

Actually organically we're much more similar to pigs.

Which raises the question to those of you who don't eat pork, but we'll just leave that one alone

------------------
To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion.

currysteph:

You got the order of things a bit mixed up:

4. God seperated the waters from the land
D. Planet cooled and watervapor forms and rain starts and voilia the oceans.

5. God sperates teh day from the night and "creates" the sun and moon and names teh sky and land etc
E. results of the forming of the solar system etc...


6. God creates the fishies in the sea and the animals on the land
F. Now here you have to take into account that evolutionist say that life mostly likely started in the oceans and evolved from there. Although in the bible it doesnt tell of the order in which the animals were created the two theories could be one in the same if you bear in mind again the educational level of the people the bible was originally written for)

7. God made the plants
G. evolution says that plants evolved as well
we assume simultanously with animals evolution. There is no time seperation in the bible just the events sequence so here again you have to suppose that in the bible god was listing in a general order to show events that were occuring at the same time.

The Biblical order of creation has the plants before the sun and moon, i.e., between 4 and 5, not at 7.

Also, the Bible does claim a time separation of "it was evening, it was morning, day n". Of course, if one wishes, he or she could consider "day" to be allegorical, especially since our definition of day is dependent on Earth's rotation, which couldn't have been the basis prior to the fourth "day" according to the Biblical description of creation.

------------------
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com

"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective

Who says that science and religion cannot coexist? Evolution has been proven to a certain degree (i.e. humans are apes etc.)but the story of creation isn't meant to be taken literally in the first place. Besides, a step-by-step account of evolution in the bible would take FOREVER!!

As much as I'd love to debate such a fun topic, I know it'd be for naught. I can't change your mind, only you can do that. That's a general you, not a specific you, BTW.

Instead, I just want to respond to a statement:

i dont believe we evolved from apes although i do believe we have similar ancestry -- currysteph

Good, currysteph. There's no need for worry, since your beliefs coincide exactly with general scientific agreement.

Although the phrase "humans evolved from apes" is a common phrase used even in scientific discourse, it is a misnomer; it is just a shorthand way of saying the more accurate, "humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor."

So, regardless of your beliefs on god and creation, know that no serious person is asking you to believe that homo sapiens came directly from apes.

------------------
~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~

Jack thinks we have common ancestors with apes. Jill thinks the world was created in a few days right as the Bible says. here's the difference: Jack, if he's come to his belief through the scientific method, will change his mind if he finds enough verifiable evidence to the contrary. Jill, assuming she's religious, has faith, therefore her worldview is not so flexible (weak?) as Jack's--she can ignore new evidence, look for ways to twist some of it to her beliefs, or even think two contradictory things to be true at the same time--but she is never required to change. Jack must, if he's to be a scientist.

That's why I have a problem with just saying, "which one do you believe in, creation or evolution?" Putting aside the fact that creation can have many different forms, "believeing" is like apples to oranges.

If God himself came down tomorrow and started demonstarting his clay-to-person approach, real scientists would have to investigate and eventually change their models. No matter how many fossils we dig up or genes we trace, someone with religious faith is by definition stuck.

Personally, I prefer the scientific way. Is it wishy-washy? A bit, but it requires a great deal more work to "proove" something than a religious proof. But there still is room for faith--science is good at saing what, but not why. That's where I see god.

But I could be wrong.


------------------
http://www.theshrubbery.prohosting.com
humor, reviews, and more

Existence itself is inherently illogical. Human logic fails at the boundaries. What was before the Universe? What is after death? How can something not exist, then exist, then not exist? What forces of nature govern this? This is the unknowable.

I believe in science. I also believe in God. Together they mesh to answer all my questions. And, ahhh..., some questions I have given up trying to know.



------------------
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ

Burned says: << Actually organically we're much more similar to pigs.
Which raises the question to those of you who don't eat pork, but we'll just leave that one alone >>

Well, actually, I'd say it raises the question to those who DO eat pork... question about cannibobblism.

There are some really strange things in biology.For instance the clotting factors in blood. It's such a comlicated system (like 10 or so factors) that it's hard to see how it evolved.
Not everything will ever have an explanation. But it doesn't need to. You be the jury and decide what evidence to accept.

I don't believe in creationism, it answers too many questions.

An interesting irony of evolution is that there is no "smoking gun". Scientists haven't found the missing link, which means that to believe in evolution, it takes a bit of a leap of faith.
There is really no proof of macroevolution, only micro. After all, when they caught the coelacanth, it hadn't changed in 100 million years.

(these ideas are paraphrase from Lloyd Pye)

There is really no proof of macroevolution, only micro.

I've always loved this arguement.

Let's apply it to a different concept:

I say that walking's impossible.

'Nonsense!' you say. And take a step.

That's only a 'step' also called 'micro-walking'. It doesn't prove that 'macro-walking' is possible.

'Bull!' you say. You wak across the floor.

That's not walking. That's just a series of 'steps'.

Using it as an arguement against evolution falls down the same way.


------------------
---
'They couldn't hit an Elephant from this dist...!'

Last words of General John Sedgwick

Using it as an arguement against evolution falls down the same way.

Funny I don't see the argument. Walking is defined as a continuous series of steps. If you got here and missed a step, then you didn't actually walk here.



------------------
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ

Sunbear said:

There are some really strange things in biology.For instance the clotting factors in blood. It's such a comlicated system (like 10 or so factors) that it's hard to see how it evolved.

Might I suggest you read some of Richard Dawkins' work? I believe he discusses issues like this (don't know if he mentions this one in particular) in Climbing Mount Improbable (I haven't actually read it yet, but I've read almost all his other books and have read about this one). In other works (and I presume in this one), he basically explains how it may seem that a system is so complicated that it would be impossible to come about through evolution, but then when you look at it one step at a time, it makes a lot more sense.

------------------
"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand."
-- Neil Peart, RUSH, "Witch Hunt"

Roksez regurgitated, without apparent understanding:

An interesting irony of evolution is that there is no "smoking gun". Scientists haven't found the missing link, which means that to believe in evolution, it takes a bit of a leap of faith.
There is really no proof of macroevolution, only micro. After all, when they caught the coelacanth, it hadn't changed in 100 million years.
(these ideas are paraphrase from Lloyd Pye)

Standard creationist babble -- and completely meaningless.

What "missing link" are you looking for? I've seen so many creationists make this statement, and not one of them has actually known what they meant (the more knowledgeable creationists don't make such a claim).

Evolution requires no leap of faith -- just use of the scientific method. Do you understand the scientific method?

As far as "macroevolution" having no "proof" (by which I presume you mean "evidence"), what is your source for that claim? How can you sit there and ignore all the evidence in favor of evolution? Unless, of course, you are ignorant of it (which is what I suspect, considering your use of these silly non-arguments).

------------------
"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand."
-- Neil Peart, RUSH, "Witch Hunt"

[q]Funny I don't see the argument. Walking is defined as a continuous series of steps. If you got here and missed a step, then you didn't actually walk here.[/q]

'Missed a step'?

You seem to have an absurd idea of walking and evolution.

If I'm walking towards you and either step twice with the same foot, or stumble, I can be said to have missed a step.

If something changes in a different way than what you consider the 'logical' linear way you think it should it can be said it missed a step.

The fact is, though, that in neither case has a step been missed. The order just wasn't what you expected. There might be intermediate steps that we don't know about (there probably are, fossilization is a finicky thing), but even if they do not exsist, this means nothing.



------------------
'They couldn't hit an Elephant from this dist...!'

Last words of General John Sedgwick

I'm going to reply to this without reading anything anybody else has to say on the topic.

I feel the evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive.
I see simiarities in the biblical account of creation to the scientific model of how the universe and planets were formed, and how life developed and grew on Earth.
I see, in the biblical account, how a scientifically primitive person might perceive the creation/evolution of the cosmos, as told to them by some higher power/mystical vision or whatever.
I find it amusing that modern, educated people want to literally interpret the bible, considering it was written in various stages over thousands of years, then compiled, then translated, then edited, the added to, then commented on and interpreted by others thousands of years later, then translated again, then re-compiled...you get my point.
Not that I ardently, hardly even passingly, consider myself a christian, but I take the bible metaphorically, when I even take it at all.

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
"And now I'll read what others have to say..."

Having now read through the thread, the only thing I can add to my first post is this:

Dex: when you've done the seventh impossible thing, tell how the food was, and let me borrow your car.

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
"They say he has the Heart of Gold."
<FONT COLOR="BLUE">"EAT AT MILLIWAYS"</FONT>

re: "Missing Links"

Of course we don't have any "missing links." Once we find a fossil of an animal which is related to two or more modern forms, it is no longer missing. Sheesh.

The fossil record is the weakest line of evidense for common descent. Genetics and other branches of molecular biology are far more important peices to the puzzle. All that the fossil record can tell us is what an ancestral species actually looked like and when it lived. That all life is related is an inescapable conclusion from the observed twin heirarchies of morphology and molecular biology, the fossil record just gives us the clues to recreate specific family histories for living organisms.

The popular press often makes a big deal out of new discoveries that "promise to re-write the story of human evolution." If anyone were to read the reports these accounts are based upon they would know that all the "re-writing" is about timing and location, not about the fact that Homo sap shares a common ancestor with the other Great Apes.

Occasionally what we have learned about our family history needs to be revised. This is to be expected in an on-going investigation. Expectations and estimates must always be modified to conform with observations and specimens.


------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
"You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason."

I believe in evolution, however some people have problems with it beacuse it's not really a science. There is almost no predictive value to evolution. Being a molecular biologist I hear a lot of people say things like "this gene probably evolved from that one". This may be true but ultimately we'll never know. It can never be proven. (Yeah, I know no theory can ever be proven, but you get my point) Regardless, evolution is a pretty keen model.

It should also be noted that "highly evolved" does not necessitate "complex". In fact many organisms evolve into simpler creatures. Naked mole rats are considered highly evolved creatures (complex social structure and all that) yet they have actually lost anatomical features that their ancestors had such as functional eyes. Viruses are highly evolved too. So highly evolved that they discard just about every single nucleotide in their genome that doesn't serve a vital purpose.

roksez is right, the coelocanth hasn't changed much at all in a huge period of time. Neither has the shark, or E. coli for that matter. That doesn't mean evolution forgot about it. It just that it hasn't been exposed to a lot of evolutionary pressure in its niche over that time.

You seem to have an absurd idea of walking and evolution.

And I thought I was talking about walking.

If something changes in a different way than what you consider the 'logical' linear way you think it should it can be said it missed a step.

So, if I walked to work, but caught the bus midway, then 'logically' I walked to work.



------------------
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ

So, if I walked to work, but caught the bus midway, then 'logically' I walked to work.

Make up your mind, are you missing a step, or are you stopping walking?

'Macro-Evolution' is not separate from 'micro-evolution', any more than 'walking' is separate from 'stepping'.

The bus ride is, if we continue the analogy of walking/evolution a time of no change.

You still have to walk off the bus. If a geneline doesn't change it can start again (assuming it doesn't die out). If you stop walking, you can start again.

That you haven't walked all the way from home to work has no bearing on the analogy. Trying to dodge the question like that speaks of a dishonesty.



------------------
'They couldn't hit an Elephant from this dist...!'

Last words of General John Sedgwick

<hr>
Jack thinks we have common ancestors with apes. Jill thinks the world was created in a few days right as the Bible says. here's the difference: Jack, if he's come to his belief through the scientific method, will change his mind if he finds enough verifiable evidence to the contrary. Jill, assuming she's religious, has faith, therefore her worldview is not so flexible (weak?) as Jack's--she can ignore new evidence, look for ways to twist some of it to her beliefs, or even think two contradictory things to be true at the same time--but she is never required to change. Jack must, if he's to be a scientist.
That's why I have a problem with just saying, "which one do you believe in, creation or evolution?" Putting aside the fact that creation can have many different forms, "believeing" is like apples to oranges.

If God himself came down tomorrow and started demonstarting his clay-to-person approach, real scientists would have to investigate and eventually change their models. No matter how many fossils we dig up or genes we trace, someone with religious faith is by definition stuck.

Personally, I prefer the scientific way. Is it wishy-washy? A bit, but it requires a great deal more work to "proove" something than a religious proof. But there still is room for faith--science is good at saing what, but not why. That's where I see god.
<hr>

amen

I was actually just trying to open up the conversation a little, I was accused of being anti-creation on another board.
My true beliefs are that we were the product of a supreme creator, but that the earth is not 5000 yrs old. That is ridiculous.
Try reading the first verse like this:
In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. (and everything in it.)
(then, there was at least one global catastrophe, wiping out much of civilization, and many species) And the earth was void, and without form. And God said, let there be light. etc..
I can't bring myself to believe evolution, or how a consciousness could evolve, but I know the earth is older than 5000 yrs.
Much of the Bible can not be read literally(at least in our English form). In the actual Hebrew, the Bible says "In the beginning, the gods created the heavens and the earth." It is plural. I don't know how to reconcile that either. Well, now I'm sure I've ticked off creationists and evolutionists, so let me have it.

Roksez:

If you are going to throw in a completely un-Biblical "horrible world-destroying disaster" in between the first two verses of Genesis, what is keeping you from simply reading the entire chapter as a parable? I mean, if you want to read things into the text you might as well add "Here's a nice metaphorical tale to enlighten you" before the first verse...


------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
"You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason."

Wow! This is heavy stuff... and without trying to be rude, it seems to me that the most qualified people in this forum are DrFidelius, David B, and Tengu.
Let them teach us!

------------------
Men will cease to commit atrocities only when they cease to believe absurdities.
-Voltaire

Roksez,
I'm a Christian and I don't have a problem with "the gods created the heavens and the earth. I've heard that before. There are two basic explainations. One is that while there is only one God,you can describe God in the plural sort of like the "royal we". Another possibility is that references to "gods" are just early references to the trinity, since if God is eternal and unchanging the trinity has been around forever. The pillar of fire or smoke that the Israelites followed from Egypt is sometimes used as a sighting of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. (And just so you know, I tend to interpret Genesis 1 and 2 literally, and therfore believe that the earth was created in 6 days. I don't think this is provable in a scientific sense, and I'm not really interested in trying to deprove evolution.)

roksez:

In the actual Hebrew, the Bible says "In the beginning, the gods created the heavens and the earth." It is plural.

Absolutely not true. The Hebrew word used can denote either the singular or the plural; considering the context of the entire rest of the Bible, its use there is obviously singular.

------------------
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com

"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective

One is that while there is only one God,you can describe God in the plural sort of like the "royal we".

:::snort:::

You want to discuss the different words used for "god" throughout the OT, and how they imply different people.

Another possibility is that references to "gods" are just early references to the trinity,

Not bloody likely.

since if God is eternal and unchanging the trinity has been around forever.

Then why is there no trinity in Hebrew theology, keeping in mind that they wrote the thing?

The pillar of fire or smoke that the Israelites followed from Egypt is sometimes used as a sighting of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament.

Not by the Hebrews who, again, wrote it.

E1skeptic said:

without trying to be rude, it seems to me that the most qualified people in this forum are DrFidelius, David B, and Tengu.

I can't speak for the others, but I don't find the above rude.

------------------
"The best medicine for misery is neither myth nor miracle, but naked truth."
-- Richard Walker, The Running Dogs of Loyalty: Honest Reflections on a Magical Zoo

I would like to thank the Academy...

it seems to me that the most qualified people in this forum are DrFidelius, David B, and Tengu.

Wow....I feel so loved!

Let them teach us!

Hmmm....are we gonna get payed for this?


------------------
'They couldn't hit an Elephant from this dist...!'

Last words of General John Sedgwick

Alphagene:

There are two kinds of prediction in science. The first is to predict what hasn't happened yet. I look at the data, infer a hypothesis, then test it by observing subsequent behavior of the universe.

The second is to predict what I haven't observed yet. To use a specific example, I look at all the data, and infer that the continents are drifting. I do NOT then wait for the continents to drift some more to prove it. In THAT sense, the hypothesis has no practical predictive value. But I can predict what other sorts of evidence might already exist that I haven't seen, IF my hypothesis is true. If I then find that evidence, I have made SUCCESSFUL predictions, even though I am in a sense "predicting" a past event. It is the fact that it is an undisclosed past when I make my hypothesis that make the process valid.

This idea is central to the science of evolution. The language is often shorthanded to "explanatory power", but what we are talking about is the ability to explain the stuff we haven't seen yet. This is why evolution is a powerful and valid science. Every time we dig up a new fossil or analyze gene distibutions - things that haven't been done before - they are compatible with evolution, and often "predictable". Granted this idea is more explicit in paleontology than molecular biology, but it still underlies (or should underlie) the thinking.

You were right (by which, of course, I really mean that I agree with you) about "highly evolved" not being synonymous with "complex" (although they are USUALLY correlated). But the specific example of a shark is probably a bad one. The reason we say shark morphology hasn't changed for millions of years is that shark fossils show the same structures as modern shark skeletons. Of course modern shark skeletons are made of cartilage, which doesn't fossilize - so clearly SOMETHING has significantly changed. The bone formation process has been lost. Morphology is basically identical, but physiology is not.

Now, I'm no genius, but some things are just logical.

One can not interpret the Bible in a literal sense, especially Genesis. Six days of Creation does not allow for millenia of prehistory.

[roksez: I can't bring myself to believe ...how a consciousness could evolve]
It happens on a daily basis, my friend. Try teaching the quadratic formula to an embryo...

I can concede that existence as we know it was created by a higher power, what I find difficult to accept is the personification of that power. It is necessary to illustrate God in a way that makes the idea comprehensible: a person. But something with that kind of power is certainly beyond human comprehension, thus invoking fear, and the need to bring it down to a lower level.

Evolution, unfortunately, is governed by the same limitations. Whereas it might be able to offer us ideas about how we got to this point in time, it can never determine where time began. Why? Because time is a human concept, used to measure something which can not be measured: infinity.

If you believe the Bible, you are offered eternal Life. If you follow evolution, you must accept the existence of eternity (it can be illustrated by a simple geometric shape.) Thus, in either circumstance, there can be no end, and therefore no beginning, yes?

Both can only reach back so far, but neither can determine the true beginning, because there can be none.

------------------
Satch
Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid.

Satchalen said:

One can not interpret the Bible in a literal sense, especially Genesis. Six days of Creation does not allow for millenia of prehistory.

Which is why creationists ignore the millenia of prehistory. <sigh>

------------------
"The best medicine for misery is neither myth nor miracle, but naked truth."
-- Richard Walker, The Running Dogs of Loyalty: Honest Reflections on a Magical Zoo

Okay, I've been reluctant to get into this debate. I've been reading the Great God thread, and evolution consequently comes up.

I admit I don't know the theory of evolution completely, but I do understand it's hypothesis. It's just all this talk of evidence. "Evidence in your face" and what not. As much as I've searched, I haven't seen but a few shreds of ambiguous evidence. Can someone show me this evidence?



------------------
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ

Beeruser asked:

I admit I don't know the theory of evolution completely, but I do understand it's hypothesis. It's just all this talk of evidence. "Evidence in your face" and what not. As much as I've searched, I haven't seen but a few shreds of ambiguous evidence. Can someone show me this evidence?

Jeez, where to begin? How about a basic biology textbook?

I'm fairly serious here. Where have you "searched" that you can't find evidence?

Well, if not a biology textbook, how about starting with the talk.origins archive. Here is a link to a bunch of FAQs: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html . Within those links are some that I think might be particularly helpful to your search for evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evol...efinition.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses.html and especially http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html .

That should keep you reading for a while.

------------------
"The best medicine for misery is neither myth nor miracle, but naked truth."
-- Richard Walker, The Running Dogs of Loyalty: Honest Reflections on a Magical Zoo

Beeruser:

The talk.origins FAQs are a good start, but I have to ask one thing. What were you looking for evidence on? Are you looking for the observations that support the conclusion of common descent, or the calculations of how quickly mutations can spread through a population, or the newest speculations about the phylogeny of a specific species?

All of these and more are available, but I would recommend starting with a basic course in biology. You will see that the relationships among living organisms follow lines which are most parsimoniously explained as family relationships. Everything else follows from this conclusion.


------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
"You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason."

Archimedes said:

I tend to interpret
Genesis 1 and 2 literally, and therfore believe that the earth was created in 6 days. I
don't think this is provable in a scientific sense

Tell me A., is this [b]provable[b] in a religious way?

You call yourself a CHRISTIAN (my capitals) but it seems to me that you haven't read your bible.

And let me say that I'm glad to see that there's more qualified people participating in this debate. I won't say who I think they are this time (you guys tend to get hyper, even want to get paid! he, he, he...), but I'm learning lots!

------------------
Men will cease to commit atrocities only when they cease to believe absurdities.
-Voltaire

This debate is not a Religion vs. Science debate, mainly because evolution is not science. It will be much better to be titles a Evolution vs. Science debate. Anyway, I belive in the creation my main reason for this is evolution has been disproven so many times, by both scientific law and common sense. First let me start with a man named Louis Pasteur, in the 19th century he proved spontaneous generation was impossible, This resulted in the scientific law of Biogenesis stating that living thins can only come from other living things. It is impossible for nonliving substances to change into even simple living things. Pasteur was praised for his discovery, and his work was hailed as a triumph of reason and experimentation over superstition. But even after that evolutionist, formed a new term for spontaneous generation called "abiogenesis". Though it has a new name its the same idea of living things coming from nonliving substances. Eugene H. Cordes and Riley Schaeffer in their book Chemistry (New York: Harper and Row, 1972, p. 529) states " ... an act of Spontaneous Generation must have occured".

In one second we are told that spontaneous generation is impossible and then we are told that , since life had to occur somewhere and god is ruled out, spontaneous generation must have occured dispite the evidence to the contrary. Experiments have been performed which attempted to reproduce abiogenesis(also called chemical evolution), all of which failed. No living matter has ever been produced from nonliving substances in the laboratory.
Some philosophers of science think that science is in danger because it is leaving its roots and returning to superstition.

Now lets look at Charles Darwin and his book Origin of species by natural selection. Darwins idea of "survival of the fittest shows his inability to reason clearly. One of his chief quarrels with the bible stemmed from his misunderstanding of gods justice ,holiness, and love. He said that the God of the bible was a cruel tyrant because he allowed people to suffer. Alot of people think of god as a loving person with a long beard who wouldnt let anyone good get hurt, well if you read the bible you know Gods ways are mysteries to us and to try to understand them is like a ant trying to understand the concept of human thought. If he gave us what we really deserve , none of us will be here. But back to Darwin, His quarrel with the bible was that God allowed people to suffer, so he was cruel. But darwin's survival of the fittest idea is perhaps the cruelest idea that any man has imagined. According to it animals struggled against each other in order to survive as a species, and only the "fittest"- the ones with superior adaptations- survived.(scientist have since found that the fittest are not the ones most likely to survie and that variations within species serve to conserve species and keep them from changing rather than to make new kinds of things)

One of the great writers on scientific though in that day was William Whewell, professor of science and college master of Trinity College, a part of Cambridge, and author of History of Inductive Sciences. His analysis of Darwin's work was so sharp that he would not even allow the book in the college library. Many others disagreed with Darwin, even his former teacher and evolutionist himself Adem Sedgwick, denounced natural selection as "a dish of rank materialism cleverly cooked and served up merely to make us independent of a creator." Two of the world greatest physicist, James Clerk Maxwell and Lord Kelvin, strongly opposed Darwinism and developed mathematical refutations of evolution.

Ok now lets look a the mathematical analogy. Say we take a billion monkeys, and sit them infront of a type writer(or computer, take your pick) and have people to keep the paper and typewriter reels going, how long do you think it will take for the monkeys to type the simple bible verse, "In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth." This problem is much simpler evolution problem. in the first year the monkeys will have used up enough paper to go to the moon and back several times, but not come anywhere close to typing the Genesis 1:1. According to mathematicians using the laws of probability, the billion monkeys will have to pound on their typewriters for 120,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. Even then there is no garuntee they will type the verse, so it certainly could no have happened with in the 30 billion year time frame evolutionist propose.

Now lets go on to more evidence, The earths magnetic field , the absence of meteoritic dust accumulations on earth, the scarcity of helium in the earth's atmosphere, the lack of certain chemical concentrations in the oceans ,etc.(take your pick), indicate the earth is relativly young.A scientist who accepts the bible would predict that creation has ceased and is, in fact ,"running down". A scientist who rejects the bible would predict that Energy and Matter must be being created "somewhere" or the Universe would have already "run down". Modern Science has uncovered the fact that the total matter and energy of the universe is constant- None is being created nor destroyed. The laws of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is running down.

Those of you involed in science must have heard of Entropy. It is a measure of the order or disorder in a system such as the universe or solar system. A system left to itself with no energy flowing into it increases in Entropy, that is, its disorder increases. Scientist refer to the increasing disorder of the universe as the law of increasing entropy. In the universe entropy does seem to be increasing . Energy concentrations even out as entropy increases. For example; if we place a hot object so that it touchs a cold object it will warm up until both are the same temperature. we can say that the Universe is doing this; it is moving towards a eventual "heat death". That means the Universe will eventually cool until all its parts are the same low temperature; its energy concentration will have evened out. When this occurs , all processes of the universe will have stopped and the universe as we know it will have come to an end. It will then be at maximum entropy. The bible indicates this process is now taking place: the heavens are the work of thy(god's) hands... yea all of them(the works of thy hands)shall wax old like a garment-psalm 102:25-26.
Evolution is really the opposite of entropy. The law of entropy says that the world left to itself will become more disordered; evolution says it is becoming more ordily or organized. In other words , evolutionist picture the universe as becomeing more complex and highly orderd than it was originally. If a scientist accepts the law of entropy , how can he logically accept evolution.

I have just posted a minute piece of evidence disproving evolution, there is plenty more. I have tried to refute evolution with just scientific laws, mainly because if I get to much onto the bible people for some reason get more angry and ignorant. Evolution is not science, it is philosophy at best.

All science begins with some sort of observation. The scientist must observe carfully and accurately if he is to gain useful scientific knowledge. Scientific observation may be of two types: diract observation, and indirect observation. Indirect observation imployes a variety of scientific instruments, direct observation is just the scientist using his own sensory abilities. All good scientific observations whether direct or indirect , share the following characteristics:
1- An observation , to be scientific ,must be repeatable. Any event that occurs only one time (the creation ,for example), is beyond the realm of science.( let me clear this up a little because i know some is going to respond with spontaneous generation occured only one time, firt creation has never been disproved, while evolution and spontaneous generation has been disproved plenty of times, therefore the theoretical speculation of evolution was blown to shre

Please fogive my S&P, I am very tired at the moment, and was in kind of a rush to finish the post.