# Creation vs. Evolution **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2003, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854 "2003-06-27T21:22:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/141 "2003-07-21T01:47:22Z")
These Creationists don’t understand the Arrow of Time, either. If they did, they couldn’t imagine that blood clotting couldn’t have evolved. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/142 "2003-07-21T03:38:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Alien2022 \* > \*\*Yes, thats exactly the problem. I already pointed the guy towards talkorigins, but he came back and said, ok but where are the transitions between those species. > > \*\* That response reminds me of Gish’s Law. The “Gish” is Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research, a mighty finder of gaps in the fossil record, and Gish’s Law was proposed by a University of Arizona professor whose name escapes me but can be found in _Science and Earth History_ by Arthur Strahler. Anyway it goes like this, if we have related fossils A and D there is one gap. If intermediate fossil C is subsequently found the sequence is now A - C - D and there are two gaps. Finding B continues the process and we now have A - B - C - D with three gaps. This leads to Gish’s Law: “The number of gaps increases as the fossil record becomes more complete.” ---
**Author:** ![Nomadic\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/858c86/32.png) [@Nomadic\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nomadic_One)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/143 "2003-07-21T03:56:11Z")
Well while this thread is now ressurected. CJ I was thinking about your question as to can someone be a christian and be an evolutionist: > [@](#): > > I repeat my questions to you. Does your friend believe that one cannot be a Christian and accept evolution? If so, why? I think if someone truely saw God in their lives and in His word. Why would they need evolution? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/144 "2003-07-21T04:09:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nomadic\_One \* > \*\* > I think if someone truely saw God in their lives and in His word. Why would they need evolution? \*\* No one needs evolution. But perhaps someone looked at the evidence, and was convinced that evolution is the way species came to be? And perhaps they saw no reason to stop believing in whichever god they believe in? Do you think only those who believe in the inerrant Bible are real Christians by some chance? ---
**Author:** ![Nomadic\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/858c86/32.png) [@Nomadic\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nomadic_One)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/145 "2003-07-21T04:14:32Z")
Voyager can I ask your source behind calling the bible “inerrant”. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/146 "2003-07-21T04:16:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Why would they need evolution? Because they have an interest in science? And aren’t you glad there are scientists who can invent stuff like transistors or discover stuff like penicillin? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/147 "2003-07-21T04:20:52Z")
**Nomadic\_One** , how does evolution _conflict_ with a belief in God? Do you think it’s possible that evolution is true _and_ there is a God? ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/148 "2003-07-21T04:23:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nomadic\_One \* > \*\*I think if someone truely saw God in their lives and in His word. Why would they need evolution? \*\* Big words indeed. Have you forgotten that you lost this debate? Present some real evidence, and then you can talk like that about evolution. Because quite frankly, the reason someone would “need” evolution is because they need the truth, and are willing to look honestly at the evidence instead of spreading lies. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/149 "2003-07-21T06:23:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nomadic\_One \* > I think if someone truely saw God in their lives and in His word. Why would they need evolution? That is firstly not an answer to the question. To repeat: > [@](#): > > can someone be a christian and be an evolutionist You attempt to skirt the issue by asking why they would need evolution. This is a separate issue. The question remains if you think someone can be Christian and believe in evolution. And if so, why, and if not, why not. Now, why would someone “need” evolution? Because The Bible isn’t a science book. You can learn just as much about the scientific evolution of life from that book as you can about the Krebs Cycle from that book. It is a religious text, not a scientific one. In every single science class I have ever taken in Catholic school, not ONCE was the Bible used because it is not a scientific text. Similarly nobody took out their science book in Christian Doctrine class because a science book is not a religious text. And you need evolution because absent it, you are a single-celled organism incapable of non-essential (i.e. “does God exist?”) function. That means you can’t read your Bible or pray or anything like that. All you do is intake food, process said food (along with other functions of cells I won’t bring up here inthe interest of brevity), excrete waste, move and reproduce asexually. ---
**Author:** ![johnny\_miles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/65b543/32.png) [@johnny\_miles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnny_miles)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/150 "2003-07-21T07:44:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Meatros \* > \*\*Evolution is only a religious doctrine in creationists eyes, no serious scientist believes this. Evolution also doesn’t say _anything_ about faith or an almighty creator, this is just _your_ empty rhetoric. > > Also, once again, evolution is not a substitute for faith; it’s not a belief system, no matter how red in the face you get screaming it. People who accept the fact of evolution can be (and many are) theistic. \*\* Please, you need to read. Evolution is so a religious belief. Ever heard of “secular humanism”? It most certainly is an acknowledged religion, and evolution is most certainly one of it’s beliefs. You really should read before you go spouting off, cause you just end up sounding ignorant. ---
**Author:** ![johnny\_miles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/65b543/32.png) [@johnny\_miles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnny_miles)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/151 "2003-07-21T07:49:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\ ***Nomadic\_One** , > how does evolution _conflict_ with a belief in God? > > Do you think it’s possible that evolution is true _and_ there is a God? \*\* Evolution does not conflict with a belief in god(if the god happens to be a false god). And no, it’s not possible that evolution is true. But yes, thank God, there is a God. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/152 "2003-07-21T07:54:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by johnny miles \* > **And no, it’s not possible that evolution is true.** Cite? Or even an attempt at elaboration? ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/153 "2003-07-21T08:11:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > **edwino** , re: difficulties or excess of ease in clotting, is there any evidence that either of those two indicates any other problem with the genetic formula of the person affected such that a reduced life span or expectancy is usual? If this is being put in a confusing way, I’m basically asking if there’s any evidence that too little or too much clotting is tied to any other abnormality/condition/etc. Too little clotting is a syndrome by itself, which ranges from barely noticeable (Factor XI deficiency) to incredibly debilitating (hemophilia A and B). It would be rare (in nature) for a hemophiliac to breed at full potential. I have heard estimates that a reduction in fitness on the order of 1/10000 offspring per generation is sufficient for selection on an evolutionary time scale. So even the mildest disorders are heavily selected against. Hemophilia usually is seen from novel mutations (hemophilia A and B are X linked, so you only need one new mutation to see the syndrome in males), or from consanguinuity (inbreeding, the famous case being the royal houses of Europe). Other disorders usually are seen in limited gene pools (Ashkenazi Jews) or by inbreeding or genetic drift. Rereading your question, I’m not sure that is really what you were getting at. Let me attempt another answer if this is the case. There are a number of multifactorial medical conditions with very long names which involve too much or too little clotting. There is certainly a genetic component to these. Three which come to mind with too much clotting are hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). These are all very, very bad things. ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/154 "2003-07-21T11:10:07Z")
Allow me to submit Johnny’s reply and save him the trouble: _1)The population increases by about one billion or more every ten years!If humans had been around for millions of years then our combined mass would be greater than the sun! 2)Look around you!This earth…every tree, every ocean, the stars…all of this working together in perfect harmony.When you see a watch lieing on the ground you would be a fool to think it just put itself together like that!Evolution is like a tornado teasring through a junkyard and leaving a perfectly functional 747 in it’s wake from the junk it picked up and tossed aorund! 3)Humans and dinosaurs co-existed.As noted scientist Dr. kent Hoving details, human footprints have been found alongside the skeletal remains of a T-rex near the Paluxi river! 4)If man came from monkeys why are there still monkeys around? 5)Look at the human eyeball.it is an absolutely perfect organ which only careful design could produce! 6)You skeptics can believe what you want(the devil certainly encourages this ;D) but I hope you are wearing asbestos underwear when you die LOL!_ I would reply to your arguments Johhny but I am tired from posting them for you and there are better qualified people here to do that anyway. ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/155 "2003-07-21T11:13:08Z")
Johhny needs to woirk on his spelling.ABove should read "Dr. Kent Hovin **d** …not Hoving. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c37758/32.png) [@Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Owes_Bess)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/156 "2003-07-21T12:52:14Z")
Johnny Miles, Re your claim of: “Look at the human eyeball.it is an absolutely perfect organ which only careful design could produce!” Actually, for us mammals, it started up as a total cock up and ended up with a 99% effective pair of organs with which to observe outer reality. Compensatory evolution fixed up, as best it could, the wrong turn that gave us what is commonly known to us sentient mammals as the “Blind Spot”. Like winged flight, the evolution of eyes has happened far more often than is appreciated, based on what has been found in the fossil record. For sight, at least 24 times, but those who make the estimates emphasise that this is probably an underestimate. Only an exceedingly tiny percentage of living creatures are ever likely to have their remains end up in a form sufficiently intact as to provide any useful information to science10 M or 1000 M years hence. As the evolution of the mammalian eye would seem to indicate, evolution does not require that the best possible answer must always result in the optimum solution within the context of evolutionary theory. I agree that contingency does play a large role (no, I am not a follower of the late Jay S. Gould. His belief in contingency was too absolute to be plausible.) ---
**Author:** ![Gest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9d8465/32.png) [@Gest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gest)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/157 "2003-07-21T12:54:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by johnny miles \* > \*\*But yes, thank God, there is a God. \*\* So, are you saying there was a time _before_ God and that he brought himself into existence _or_ do you mean that he has always existed and he is to be thanked for not willing himself out of existence? Or neither of the above? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/158 "2003-07-21T12:58:36Z")
Just in case someone misunderstands: **GodlessSkeptic** posted not the actual arguments of **johnny miles** but the arguments that **GodlessSkeptic** expects **johnny miles** to post. **Alan Owes Bess** ’s refutation of the eyeball argument is therefore not, despite the attribution, directed to **johnny miles** but rather to a “generic creationist” trademarked by **GodlessSkeptic**. All clear? Just doing my bit to avoid another Pit thread, folks. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c37758/32.png) [@Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Owes_Bess)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/159 "2003-07-21T13:05:40Z")
Priceguy, Thanks for the clarification. I definitely appear to have lost track of the plot there. All is now clear. Sort of. No Matter. My apologies to Johnny Miles. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854/160 "2003-07-21T13:21:02Z")
> [@](#): > > You really should read before you go spouting off, cause you just end up sounding ignorant. Would that you had taken your own advice, since we have a thread right here which points out the lies used by many anti-evolutionists. > [@](#): > > And no, it’s not possible that evolution is true. If only there was a place where it had already been discussed why evolution is true. Oh, wait. There is. This thread! Unless you actually have something to contribute to the discussion, or at least make an attempt at some form of debate, nobody here is going to take you seriously. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creation-vs-evolution/184854.md?page=9)