Do you believe in Evolution/Creationism?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I'm a firm creationist. It could be any number of scenarios of how this event occurred. Even theistic evolution falls in the creationist camp as they believe that God created the universe. However I choose to believe in a literal six-day creation of the universe as spoken of in Genesis. The account of Noah is what convinces me of it.

[AggregateDemand]

Evolution doesn't explain:
Domesticated animals
Selective breeding
Genetically-modified organisms
Artificially synthesized organisms (man-made life)
Clones

If you only accept evolution, you're embracing an intellectually bankrupt form of reactionary secularism. Every day, millions of people are working to genetically-alter the physical world. They are not agents of evolution. They are sentient beings deliberately changing the world around them to achieve an outcome that is often in opposition to the evolutionary status quo and entropy.

What religious deception is required for someone to contemplate the possibility that creativity and consciousness existed before human beings? 

[Joe Republic]

Evolution doesn't explain:
Domesticated animals
Selective breeding
Genetically-modified organisms
Artificially synthesized organisms (man-made life)
Clones

What?  Most of those are examples of evolution.  And all of them are examples of mankind artificially directing the otherwise natural process.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Evolution doesn't explain:
Domesticated animals
Selective breeding
Genetically-modified organisms
Artificially synthesized organisms (man-made life)
Clones

Um, what?  Please explain how any of those things contradict evolution.

[AggregateDemand]

What?  Most of those are examples of evolution.  And all of them are examples of mankind artificially directing the otherwise natural process.

Explain how the domestication of dogs represents natural selection, though domestic dogs are quite obviously inferior to their wild counterparts. Then explain how clones represent descent with modification. Then explain how genetically modified plants, many of which have limited reproductive capability, represent fecundity. Then explain why two giant monocultures of cows, who live on adjacent pastures, have virtually no gene flow.

The humorous secret of evolutionary theory is that Darwin knew about the malleability and changeability of genetics because human beings were already imposing artificial selection and intelligent design upon the physical world. He wanted to prove that genetic changes also occurred naturally.
 
Somehow, scientific culture has devolved from acceptance of artificial selection and intelligent design (because they offer empirical support of natural-selection) to denial and redefinition of both theories. The scientific community is making a mockery of our species, and their doctrine of reactionary secularism is the dumbest cultural trend to come down the pike since medieval Catholicism. 

[Marnetmar]

The one that has evidence to back it up.

[bedstuy]

What?  Most of those are examples of evolution.  And all of them are examples of mankind artificially directing the otherwise natural process.

Explain how the domestication of dogs represents natural selection, though domestic dogs are quite obviously inferior to their wild counterparts. Then explain how clones represent descent with modification. Then explain how genetically modified plants, many of which have limited reproductive capability, represent fecundity. Then explain why two giant monocultures of cows, who live on adjacent pastures, have virtually no gene flow.

The humorous secret of evolutionary theory is that Darwin knew about the malleability and changeability of genetics because human beings were already imposing artificial selection and intelligent design upon the physical world. He wanted to prove that genetic changes also occurred naturally.
 
Somehow, scientific culture has devolved from acceptance of artificial selection and intelligent design (because they offer empirical support of natural-selection) to denial and redefinition of both theories. The scientific community is making a mockery of our species, and their doctrine of reactionary secularism is the dumbest cultural trend to come down the pike since medieval Catholicism. 

By that logic sushi disproves ichthyology, I love it.

[AggregateDemand]

By that logic sushi disproves ichthyology, I love it.

I was not trying to disprove anything. I was pointing out that evolutionary theory, like natural selection, has always been complemented by another body of empirical science (for the obvious reasons I listed above). Darwin named "artificial selection" as the complement to natural selection.

Philosophers, theologians, logicians all try to explain the impact of humanity, consciousness, reason, intelligence or whatever. If any of their hypotheses fall outside of the scope of hard science, many scientists respond by burying their heads in the sand. It is embarrassing.

[MalaspinaGold]

Evolution never says artificial selection doesn't happen... it just says natural descent with modification happens.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

AggregateDemand makes me sick every time he posts.

[AggregateDemand]

Evolution never says artificial selection doesn't happen... it just says natural descent with modification happens.

I never said evolution was wrong. I made it abundantly clear that evolution is incomplete. Philosophy, religion, etc try to explain the phenomenon and meaning of artificial selection.

[AggregateDemand]

AggregateDemand makes me sick every time he posts.

Don't be a sore loser

[Hifly]

This is the age of cheap DNA sequencing. We shouldn't be considering creationism an option at this point.

[Del Tachi]

Solely in creationism.

Intelligent processes can affect biological outcomes, as AggregateDemand earlier stated.  Genetically-modified crops are a prime example of "created" organisms. 

[MalaspinaGold]

Evolution never says artificial selection doesn't happen... it just says natural descent with modification happens.

I never said evolution was wrong. I made it abundantly clear that evolution is incomplete. Philosophy, religion, etc try to explain the phenomenon and meaning of artificial selection.

Artificial selection is us attempting to mimic natural selection by applying pseudo-environmental stresses. Evolution is absolutely complete scientifically. One would not say the natural state of organisms is herbivory simply because we have introduced animal farming. That's what your argument boils down to.

[Bojack Horseman]

I was raised in the Methodist church (I've known since I was about 6 that I'm an atheist) and they always taught us in Sunday School that since Evolution takes the role of a god out of a lot of the picture, that it MUST be a lie from hell despite all the evidence that proves it exists, and that since Psalms says "The fool believes in his heart there is no god," then Evolution is wrong despite all the evidence to the contrary and Creationism is right, despite the facts being against it.

That said, I think evolution and the laws of science completely disprove any possibility of a god existing. Now the more rabid/extreme religious people tell me that I probably believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy because I believe in evolution.

My answer to that is that it takes the same type of logic to believe in Santa as it does to believe in an invisible man who lives in a place where the only way to get there is to die. I base my views on this subject on facts and reasoning and logic, not just the hope that there's some magical deity and something happening after death. I think Stephen Hawking said it best:

"So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for 'god' to make the universe in. It's like asking for directions to the edge of the earth, as the earth is a sphere; it doesn't have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise. We are each free to believe what we want. It's my view that the simplest explanation is there is no god. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization. There is probably no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe. And for that, I am extremely grateful.

[AggregateDemand]

Artificial selection is us attempting to mimic natural selection by applying pseudo-environmental stresses. Evolution is absolutely complete scientifically. One would not say the natural state of organisms is herbivory simply because we have introduced animal farming. That's what your argument boils down to.

The argument is whether or not people recognize the difference between between chaotic random environmental forces and deductive/inductive reasoning by intelligent beings, who can shape life in ways antithetical to natural selection.

Taking the fear and the fight out of the dog didn't mimic natural selection. Cloning has nothing to do with natural selection. There are obviously other forces at work. Darwin knew that.

[Donerail]

Taking the fear and the fight out of the dog didn't mimic natural selection. Cloning has nothing to do with natural selection. There are obviously other forces at work. Darwin knew that.

Humans, yes. Where's the jump from 'humans can harness natural selection to serve our own interests' to creationism?

[AggregateDemand]

Humans, yes. Where's the jump from 'humans can harness natural selection to serve our own interests' to creationism?

As I just said, human beings don't harness the power of natural selection. If anything, we are primarily interested with the subjugation of every species on earth

[anvi]

Evolution. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Evolution. 

Welcome back. 

[MurrayBannerman]

Evolution.

I don't take the Bible to be a literal account, and I say this as a Catholic and a strong believer in God.

[anvi]

Evolution. 

Welcome back. 

Thanks, my friend. 

[MalaspinaGold]

Artificial selection is us attempting to mimic natural selection by applying pseudo-environmental stresses. Evolution is absolutely complete scientifically. One would not say the natural state of organisms is herbivory simply because we have introduced animal farming. That's what your argument boils down to.

The argument is whether or not people recognize the difference between between chaotic random environmental forces and deductive/inductive reasoning by intelligent beings, who can shape life in ways antithetical to natural selection.

Taking the fear and the fight out of the dog didn't mimic natural selection. Cloning has nothing to do with natural selection. There are obviously other forces at work. Darwin knew that.

Yes, it did mimic natural selection because nice, brave dogs were most likely to get handouts from humans. Natural selection.

And yes, cloning helps explain natural selection. Cloning has been going on for a long time- you know that right?

[Repub242]

I am a young earth creationist.