# evolution vs creation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 3, 2003, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231 "2003-11-03T23:09:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/61 "2003-11-13T11:18:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by prisoner6655321 \* > **Uh oh. I meant to say… > Wait, are you confusing belief in Creation with belief in The Flood.** As **Darwin’s Finch** says, the two very often go hand in hand because: a) They are both rooted in the same assumptions of literal veracity of scripture. b) An alternative explanation for the geologic column is required (not that the flood is a plausible one) if you don’t accept the standard explanation. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/62 "2003-11-13T11:20:30Z")
**stuffusbus** specifically asked for convincing evidence, not mere potshots at Young Earthism. I propose starting with the simplest: The fossil record is not random. Fossils of humans, birds, and large mammals are never, repeat never, found with or below those of dinosaurs. Fossils of dinosaurs are never, repeat _never_, found with or below those of early amphibians. Fossils of early amphibians are never, repeat _never_, found with or below those of early plants. It is \*\*incontrovertible \*\* that these different types of creatures lived in \*\*different \*\* ages \*\*separated by millions of years \*\*. This is called “evolution”, and it is a **fact**. The Theory of Evolution proposes mechanisms for this speciation. You can choose to disbelieve this well-supported and rigorously tested Theory, but you cannot “not believe in evolution”. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/63 "2003-11-13T12:13:06Z")
stuffusbus, I don’t think that creationism excludes evolution. God really didn’t give a lot of details, time didn’t have meaning yet or it looks that way and I’m guessing it was supposed to be kind of a symbolic story. Here is a verse from a book that used to be in the Bible before it was deemed as unworthy by the Catholic church in either 3 or 16 a.d.(I think). _On the fifth day I commanded the sea, that it should bring forth fishes and feathered birds of many varieties and all animals creeping over thee earth, going forth over the earth on four legs and soaring in the air, male sex and female and every soul breathing the spirit of life._ Goes on later to say he created man from seven consistancies. Keep in mind when he commanded the sea, it sounds like he was just putting the evolutionary process in motion and it could have been billions of our years before(if) he came back and it sounds like he did some finish work on Adam.🙂 Anyway, I don’t know if there is any truth in this and I’m okay with not knowing. It’s pretty hard, no impossible to deny there was some sort of evolutionary process and for a book written a couple thousand years ago, the concept that everything came from the sea was too controversial. As the story has it, first the plants, then the fish, then birds, then four legged animals, then man. Even if you don’t believe in God, this writer seems to have thoughts that were ahead of his time. IWLN ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/64 "2003-11-13T12:48:03Z")
Incidentally, even if the timescale on the “seven days” is flexible, the _order_ is very definitely wrong: _eg._ grass did not come **before** the sun, moon and stars. ---
**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:** [November 13, 2003, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/65 "2003-11-13T16:26:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stuffusbus \* > \*\*i" “Creation science” is not science at all but religion masquerading as science." how is creation science not science, because creation scientists believe life was created by “a higher being” of some kind doesnt mean they believe the earth is square. \*\* You got semi-answered on this, but it deserves more. Creation science is not science because it claims to have the answer already. At least one creationist institute requires members to sign an oath that they believe in the infallible Bible and creationism. Their goal is to “prove” creationism, not find the truth. Two hundred years ago most scientists were creationists. However discoveries in geology showed that the Earth was a lot older than the Bible said, and these scientists abandoned belief in a literal Genesis. By Darwin’s time no reputable scientist believed in a flood or a 6,000 year old earth. A cold fusion society, whose members believe in cold fusion as a matter of faith, and refused to accept evidence against it, would be just as unscientific as creationism. Pons and Fleisman’s sin was not being wrong, and not botching an experiment, and not even announcing outside of referreed journals, but in not accepting the evidence that they made a mistake. ---
**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:** [November 13, 2003, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/66 "2003-11-13T16:31:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*Nope. One says “it **was** done by some entity”, and the other says “it might have been done by some enitity, but it might have happened all by itself”. One is active, the other admits the possibility of no action. \*\* True. but the functional distinction is that if you say Goddidit, the story is over, but if you say “We don’t know” you jolly well start figuring out what to do so that we do know. But the best thing about science is that even if you do know, you are open to the possibility that you might find evidence that you really don’t. **stuffusbus** - ask a Creationist what it would take to convince him or her that creationsm is not true. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/67 "2003-11-13T16:40:18Z")
I would imagine an act of God. ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/68 "2003-11-13T16:56:07Z")
But when the wind blows southerly, I can tell a hawk from a [handsaw.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=223155) ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/69 "2003-11-13T20:15:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SentientMeat \* > **Fossils of…birds…are never, repeat never, found with…those of dinosaurs.** Just a quick nit to pick: true birds were, in fact, co-existent with non-avian dinosaurs during the Cretaceous. They generally don’t get much press because the press tends to focus more on the _earliest_ birds, rather than those that came after. ---
**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:** [November 13, 2003, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/70 "2003-11-13T20:17:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Grey \* > \*\*I would imagine an act of God. \*\* Probably not. If god created the world, he created all the rocks and fossils therein, and thus the evidence for evolution. Creationists would rather believe the Bible, written by man, rather than the evidence they would say is directly written by god. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/71 "2003-11-13T21:42:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SentientMeat \* > \*\*Incidentally, even if the timescale on the “seven days” is flexible, the _order_ is very definitely wrong: _eg._ grass did not come **before** the sun, moon and stars. \*\* Hey, so I left them out, that was the fourth day. Didn’t want to quote the whole book. I just find it kind of ironic that the church has had some fairly specific information on evolution for a few thousand years, but still having a tough time with it. I never did particularly think God pulled a rabbit right out of his hat. It’s more likely than he just got the ball rolling and here we are. Evolution cannot be disputed, there are no pertinent parts missing that could affect its existence, only details. How Creationism fits in with it could be the only question, not the other way around. As a believer, I was never dismayed to think I came from dirt, so a little moisture added to the mix isn’t a big deal. I still wonder if the believers who have a problem with it just are uncomfortable with accepting GGGGGGGG, etc. Grandfather chimp. Relatives can be a little disconcerting at times.🙂 IWLN ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/72 "2003-11-14T00:38:49Z")
[hijack] > [@](#): > > Here is a verse from a book that used to be in the Bible before it was deemed as unworthy by the Catholic church in either 3 or 16 a.d.(I think). I’d be really curious as to what book was removed from the bible by the Catholic Church 30 or 17 years before Jesus even sent his apostles out to preach to the world. [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/73 "2003-11-14T01:30:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SentientMeat \* > \*\*Incidentally, even if the timescale on the “seven days” is flexible, the _order_ is very definitely wrong: _eg._ grass did not come **before** the sun, moon and stars. \*\* True, as is the order in which the plants and animals occupy the sea/land/air. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/74 "2003-11-14T01:42:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SentientMeat \* > \*\*Incidentally, even if the timescale on the “seven days” is flexible, the _order_ is very definitely wrong: _eg._ grass did not come **before** the sun, moon and stars. \*\* For that matter, grass did not come before " fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." ---
**Author:** ![stuffusbus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@stuffusbus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stuffusbus)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/75 "2003-11-14T02:04:56Z")
this is a quote from Diogenes the Cynic :— “The central fact of common descent has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Evolution, as a whole theory, does not run into “unknown” snags or puzzles. There are some unanswered questions about some minor details but the gaps in current knowledge are not enough to threaten the theory as a whole.” —End qoute… So if there are no unknown snags or puzzels, the fact that no fossils of animals in there transitional stages is only a minor detail? And lacking this evidence cannot threaten the evolutionary theory at all? It seems to me that most of the evolutionists here are very confident that the evolutionary thoery is a proven fact, and the way many of you make it sound is that there isnt a single questionable part of evolution. I would think that if there is anything at all questionable then it would not be referred to as fact. I know that there are loopholes and many unanswered questions in creation science, that is why I do not refer to it as a fact because it is not yet fully proven, and neither is evolution. ---
**Author:** ![stuffusbus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@stuffusbus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stuffusbus)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/76 "2003-11-14T02:17:07Z")
Sorry, it doesnt want to let me edit… It was supposed to be no fossils of animals in there transitional stages have been found yet is only a minor detail? ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/77 "2003-11-14T02:26:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*[hijack]I’d be really curious as to what book was removed from the bible by the Catholic Church 30 or 17 years before Jesus even sent his apostles out to preach to the world. > > [/hijack] \*\* Sorry got my book facts wrong. 41 books including the Secrets of Enoch were removed from the original Bible scriptures in 364 A.D. by the Council of Laodicia. The book disappeared until 1200. There are two parts 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch (Secrets of Enoch). References to Enoch’s writing are made in Genisis. Very different writing than what was left in the Bible. Sounds like part of it was B.C. and part A.D. I don’t know much about it’s validity, but it has a lot more facts, right or wrong about creation, etc. Not trying to prove anything, but I always like to see the literature that was deemed inappropriate for religion. Curiousity killed the brat. [http://reluctant-messenger.com/2enoch01-68.htm](http://reluctant-messenger.com/2enoch01-68.htm) I was only off by three centuries. What is that in time.🙂 IWLN ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/78 "2003-11-14T02:32:44Z")
> [@](#): > > no fossils of animals in there transitional stages have been found yet is only a minor detail? It is an extraordinarily minor detail for several reasons. First _all_ fossils are transitional, since all species are subject to the same forces of selection. Beyond that point, there _are_ fossils of creatures that can be more narrowly defined according to some arbitrary criteria as “transitional.” Most importantly, we have (yet) discovered very few fossils of any sort (relative to the number of species on earth) and the factors required to create a fossil indicate that we are blessedly lucky to have any of them. Setting up some arbitrary criterion to label one fossil or another “transitional” and then pouting when we do not have it is merely silly. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/79 "2003-11-14T02:36:57Z")
prisoner6655321 > [@](#): > > Also, the flood lasted forty days. I expect more from you Mangetout. Read your bible again. The rain lasted 40 days the flood lasted quite a while longer. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231/80 "2003-11-14T02:46:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stuffusbus \* > \*\*Sorry, it doesnt want to let me edit… It was supposed to be no fossils of animals in there transitional stages have been found yet is only a minor detail? \*\* You are making the mistake of thinking that evolution is moving along a path. Nothing is “transitional”. Every species that every existed was a bona fide species in its own right. It wasn’t “going” anywhere. In retrespect, we look back and say species A evloved into species B which evolved into sepcies C. That doesn’t make species B “transitional”. If you look at the fossil record of whales, you will clearly see what you would call “transitional” species. Heck, if you look at a fossil of an Australopithicine, do you not see something that is somewhat ap-like and some-what human like? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-vs-creation/211231.md?page=5)