I don't understand why people can't believe in both God and evolution. I do. God can make evolution happen if he wants, might be his plan?

Plus i tried to fit together the old earth (being billions of years old, not thousands) and dinosaurs with the genesis in the bible. And although it says the Earth was created in 7 days, doesn't say how long those days were. It could be metaphorically speaking and have actually taken place over millions/billions of years because it does say, (if it is true of course, for this example lets just say it is) that he created the sea creatures and birds first, before man. Those being the simple creatures that may have evolved into the first dinosaurs and continuing from then.

Now I'm not claiming to be some expert on this or anything, just giving my opinion, maybe the dinosaurs died out (due to whatever) sometime this "day" and so God decided to make some other animals instead, or the "next day" could refer to the next stage in life. What i mean is he says he created the land animals, so what if that means that now the evolution has completed to the point were they are now classes as the animals we see today, and that's the next stage/day.

The "days" might have just been an easy way to tell the "simpler" people of that time, and an easier way to get them to understand what's happened in the past.

And that's only if the Bible is true, which no one can prove or disprove, no matter what your belief is.

I do agree with lllllllllllllll though, the Bible should not be taken literally, as it's been translated lots of times anyway, meaning the meanings may have changed. I think most of the story's in the Bible, never actually took place, just have the meaning behind them to help people to treat their parents better, not to enslave people, live better etc. More of guidelines, then a documented list of events, story's with meanings, not literal happenings.

This is why we have battles between Atheists and Christians today, about the topic of Evolution for example, they take the Bible literally, which in my opinion is a bad idea. There's no proof it was written by God or inspired to be written by him, or even if God exists or not, but it's still good guidelines to live by (no murder, no adultery etc.), whatever your belief is. Plus it was written 2000 years ago, so just have the salt shaker ready when you read.

/Lengthy speech (PS If you did read all of that, well done :D)

Just to sum it up, i believe in God and that Evolution happened, and that the Earth is billions of years old.

I'm wary of using just AnswersinGenesis as a legitimate source of scientific knowledge. You can't use the BIble to cite the Bible as being true (e.g. "The Bible is the word of god. How do you know that? It says so.) They offer no evidence (peer reviewed at that), they just point to some geological or biological phenomenon, claim they can't imagine how that happened, so God must be responsible. Where is their research? Where is the data?

How does all their evidence point specifically to the Judeo-Christian version of god. Perhaps the gods of Ur created everything.


From what I can tell, creationism is based on one book, and no positive evidence. Its all incredulity. ID has no predictive power, its just throwing ones arms up in the air and exclaiming that I can't imagine how this could have happened therefore God did it.

Fine. And as the scientific method of investigation slowly reveals more about hoe nature operates, the gaps that people insert their god into become smaller and smaller. Ofcourse, some people have been burned along the way, ask Bruno.


When I consider religion and science a question comes to mind; Which one has improved the overall condition of man? Science (i.e. medicine) has cured more disease than all the hossanas, hallelujahs, and prayers in the world. Science has done more to reliably explain and describe the natural world than any creation myth. What predictive theories have ever come out of a seminary?

Which philosophy can adapt when new information arises. It may take a generation or two, but science is a self correcting endeavor. Religion is entrenched in dogma. Changes in dogma typically come at a high price. No war was fought over the acceptance of relativity. People died when they questioned whether the solar system was terracentric or heliocentric. Most of the strife in the Middle east is over dogma not data.

Everyone is entitled to their own belief and opinions. That doesn't mean all opinions and beliefs are valid in the public arena.


I don't deny the comfort religion affords certain people, but when it comes to science, religion can't hold a flame to it.



p.s. Conflating religion and science also serves no purpose. Those who claim they "believe" in evolution, but its guided by god, what does that add? It doesn't lend any strength to explanative power. This is paraphrased but I recall a quote where Napoleon asked Antoine Lavoisier why one of his hypotheses didn't include god. Lavoisier replied that it is not required. Lavoisier was eventually guillotined.

You made some very good points there, it is in fact true that creationism is based on the Bible alone and there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the Bible is the word of God or even true at all. However it also can't be proved as false either, but it's more sensible to base theory's of things like evolution on scientific evidence rather than the Bible alone. Scientific evidence like fossils, radio dating rocks etc. or one book with no idea who actually wrote it, and no evidence to back it up.

People who take the Bible literally annoy me, not because they claim it is the truth with no proof. That's fine, i can handle that, it's when they start meddling. (i mean i can't count how many topics on plime alone that have been to do with religion in schools and such.) If i have an idea or belief i share it with people sure, but i don't try and "convert" them to that idea, or annoy anyone else with it. The thing is with belief that not many people seem to get is that it's exactly that, belief, with no evidence you decide to choose to think something is true. That doesn't mean it is though.

The only reason i believe in God is simply blind faith, and really because i want there to be one, so i that i can some faith and hope that there is an afterlife to go after this one, where i can be forever happy with my family and friends. If i am wrong i will be very sad, lets hope I'm not! :)

T1000 said: In the end, it all comes back to what you want to believe. You'll find plenty of evidence and reasonable theories for both. One might be more popular, but we've already established that that means nothing. The truth (whatever it may be) doesn't change with opinion.

*STANDS UP AND APPLAUDS* Thank you!

I'm not a scientist, or a theologian. But, I do believe in God as evidenced by my own life experiences that I cannot explain any other way. And, I believe that the Bible is inspired by Him, and that it was written by human beings who expressed God's concepts in man's words. Therefore, I believe that parts of the Bible are literal, and parts are representational or allegorical.

However, I do believe that evolution can coexist with creationism. Joseph Campbell, in The Power of Myth, cited several examples of religious literature other than the Bible with Creation and flood sagas. Archaeological findings have also supported other Biblical "claims", if you will.

Why belittle each other's beliefs because we don't agree? I don't condemn those who believe differently than I do, and deserve the same respect.

The only hole in the theory of evolution is that there is no good way to explain the ORIGIN of life. Sure we can say that the necessary chemical components were readily available, but even the simplest organism had a slim chance of forming in this hostile environment, and even if it did, if the chemical processes to form it were occurring, the same processes could destroy the organism. Simply put, creationists simply don't believe that life was some freak accident.

(I'm not a creationist, by the way, I just like playing the devil's advocate.)

Exactly. And funny you should mention the devil.

Playing the advocate of ol' Scratch can be fun. ")

Evolutionary theory doesn't address the origin of life. It speaks to the diversity and interrelatedness of life. This is similar to situations where people say evolutionary theory can't be true because it doesn't address issues with the big bang theory.



I can't stress enough that science is not a work based on opinion alone. Opinions have to be backed up with information (data). An opinion based on what "feels right" or what we "wish were (the ought vs. is) carries no scientific weight.



Apologies for harping but as a trained scientist, the misunderstanding and misconceptions held by the general public concerning science can be frustrating. How many people hold personal opinions when it comes to medicine? None that I know of, they refer to an M.D. Yet with most other sciences people tend to think anything goes as far as notions and desires.

Talk of "freak accidents", chaos and such show a lack of understanding of some basic principles of chemistry and biology. It typically takes two lectures to get my students to understand the difference between chaos and randomness.


It never a goal of mine to belittle someone's beliefs. Yet if those beliefs are proffered as scientific evidence, that is what I'll debate.

Ow. My sense of intelligence is on life support.

I'm dedicating my life to studying rocks and science. You're going to have to provide a more credible source - including peer-reviewed research - than some bunk from "Answers in Genesis." You wouldn't necessarily believe anything found in a journal entitled "Evolution is the Way, Baby!!" so why would I even care to read anything from your links?

In addition, there is no evidence anywhere on our dear planet that all stratigraphy was deposited at some great flood. I've been looking at Helikian stratigraphy for the last few weeks, and I can assure you - it didn't all form at once.


Option B, naturally. The best fossil preservation occurred in environments such that scavenging was almost impossible. Rest assured, most dead organisms were scavenged - this is why good preservation is rare. How would you explain "Death Marches" preserved with some fossils if they were laid to rest in a torrent of mud?

The biggest, and most glaring problem with assuming all fossils were deposited in a torrent of mud is that IF the mud were being deposited in a torrent, you wouldn't get the nice, finely bedded mud beds we almost always see - it would be one large mess rife with soft-sediment deformation features. In other words, all the Earths' fossils would have to be deposited in essentially the same environment, and this is not the case - just go out for a walk and look at the rocks!

This is not true. Where are you examples and proofs?

They're estimated, but the dating and other isotopic work yields this information.
The signatures change drastically when there has been alteration to the isotopes involved. This is why scientists must be careful about which minerals and which samples to use. Nobody just takes a rock and shoves it under a mass spec or anything, there is alot of time and effort involved in preparing rock specimens for dating!
If you don't believe that decay rates are constant, then you ought to throw any faith you have in physics (not to mention nuclear power) out the window.

The earth is not an hourlgass. I don't understand this "illustration." Maybe it works for kids or idiots, but not me.

Why don't we observe volcanoes or earthquakes releasing water now? You'd think if this process managed to happen once, it would occur again.

My brain is in pain after reading your blatant misuse of geologic facts. Yes, the continents were together to form the supercontinents of Pangaea, Rodinia,... etc (this happened on a regular basis over the last 4 billion years), but the rest of Earth was covered by oceans!! That's where most of the sedimentological record is found, and that's where most of the fossils were found. To suggest that most secular scientists believe that the continents were together without any oceans IS A LIE AND IS FALSE.

Once again, a credible source is required here. Oh, that's right, one doesn't exist.

Yes, the mechanisms of the theory are debated - punctuated equilibrium vs phyletic gradualism and the rest, but anyone with functioning set of senses doesn't doubt evolution itself.

It doesn't. IF such an outcrop as this existed, I'd gladly throw everything I've learned in life out the window. But I assure you, this has never been observed, and it shouldn't!

I really don't care what other people think or believe, but you, T1000, are trying to use real science in a twisted manner to support your belief and that's unethical - and I have a problem with that.

Off topic, but what do you teach?

evidence of evolution...

I , my dog, and a worm all eat through one hole which is connected to another out of which is expelled the waste of what was eaten. there is near completely ubiquitous bilateral symmetry, and very similar physiological construction. The components of the latter work in almost completely the exact same manner.

The fact is, the commonalities far outweigh any differences. If strict creationists are right, the creator was not terribly creative.

Or...the creator knew the best way for things to work, and used it in all of his creations :)

Why are you able to tell Picasso's works are all Picasso's? Because you can tell it was made from the same person. Would you argue that Picasso is not very creative? Or how about Monet?

What about Apple? Would you say they're not very creative? Their iPod Nano and iPod Classic look very similar...must not be creative

Creationism equals Last Thursdayism.

Why not Creators? It seems to me that it's much more likely multiple creators were involved in the creation of the Universe rather than one, single, infinite creator, using their collective efforts and intelligence in order to bring about this existence.

Or no creator(s) at all.

That's because it's true. One side is science, the other is religious belief posing as science.

First of all, you are misusing the word "theory". A theory in the scientific sense is the exact opposite of what you're talking about. Second, evolution can be tested, as all scientific theories are, and it is tested by observing the relationships between fossils in the fossil record, in accordance with radiometric dating.

Wrong. Evidence is certainly not "the same" for both "theories" (again, one is a scientific theory, the other is religious belief), and I fear you are misusing the word "theory" again.

That's because Creationists/IDists are using a little thing called "common sense", whereas so-called "evolutionists" are using a thing called science.

Wrong. Creationists believe no mutation can be beneficial, and there are only adaptations in a micro-evolutionary sense.

Again, false. We only scream "closed system" to you because you probably refuse to accept any other answer other than what you want to believe.

in a way, that was the point. we choose to view much of the same evidence, but have each created our own idea/story structure into which we must fit what we have observed.

I was aware the same set of evidence was just as suitable for 'the other side.' That doesn't effect the positive value I attribute to it as evidence for my purposes.

Reasons for believing something cannot be invalidated. Beliefs cannot be invalidated. Beliefs only die with the people who believe in them. That is why racism still exists; that is why "the world is flat" was dead, but has arisen thanks to some astro-physicists who are trying to be very clever.

For me, I am not at all interested in going to all the trouble of trying to destroy people who believe this or that. So, I wish our society would focus on more important problems...there are dozens.

I am simply amazed at the zero-sum game some folks play on both sides. It is as though the two can't be related or coexistent. That should be a decent and rational enough compromise for anybody. It is hard not to look back on those that tried to silence Galileo without thinking of them as ignorant and lacking in credibility.

How is the ever popular strawman argument concerning the 2nd law of thermodynaimcs a "major" flaw for evolutionary theory? (If that were the case, reproduction would be impossible since growth and development imply increasing complexity).

The law PLAINLY states that entropy increase in a "closed system". That is, a system with no in flow of enrgy.

The Sun supplies the Earth that energy. The Earth is an open system.

To accuse anyone of "screaming" about closed systems in relation to this 2nd law is akin to complaining that peolpe keep pointing out the fact that that water is wet. They are basic facts of nature. Water is wet, and entropy increases in closed systems.


To assert that evolutionist only talk about closed systems when it behooves them is dishonest at best.

I just want to get a few things straight (at least in my head)

The evidence for creationists and evolutionists is *NOT* the same. This is NOT a perspective thing - this is a selective observation (and in some points creative observation) thing.

Creationists are claiming things that are just contrary to the evidence out there - rather than just interpreting the data in their own way.

IDers and soft creationists are happy enough with the evolutionary theroy (which is great), but creationists who believe that the world is 6000 (or so) years old and that God created all the animals on the earth pretty much as-is are doing the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and humming "lalalalala - I can't hear you".

Is this a zero-sum game? Perhaps, but only because it may be not-so-obvious that minds are getting changed. I know that there are FAR more lurkers in here than contributors, so if my opinion is shedding light and understanding on a reader, this is not a zero-sum game.


And as to the "2nd law of thermodynamics" - that bastion of "reason" for creationists - if the argument was correct, how do you explain baking? I put the high-entropy raw ingredients into an oven and strangely enough, a well organized cake comes out.
<sarcasm>It's either magic, blasphemy or the 2nd law of thermodynamics is just fatally flawed. </sarcasm>


*edit* oh, also apparently Mt. Vesuvius didn't erupt and destroy Pompeii either as nobody alive today actually witnessed it, nor is it recreatable in a lab.

As the thread seems to have died off, and because it adds nothing to nor detracts anything from your argument I shall just jack it briefly to say that yes, I would say that Apple are not very creative. Further I'd say that they are extremely derivative indeed.

Okay, I think I finally understand your "illustration," though I think it's a terrible analogy. I didn't get it because it's just not a good analogy - but something someone said today reminded me of this. I'll try and explain this from my scientific standpoint as best as I can. I'm not trying to be condescending, but I'm not sure how much you (or many people) know about radiometric dating so I'll provide some solid information here.

As I said earlier, I don't care what you or anyone believes, but I get so frustrated when science is used or described improperly, just as I'm sure you'd get frustrated if I started misquoting scripture or using it far out of context to "prove a point."

I think this website might be useful:


I don't like this analogy since rocks are nothing at all like hourglasses, but initial isotopic conditions are estimated prior to any radiometric dating. It's important to remember that a rock itself isn't dated, but minerals from the rock are. Some minerals will take in parent elements into their crystal lattices but not daughter elements (at the time of formation), so we can assume the initial concentration of the daughter isotope is zero, and therefore any daughter isotope present is a result of radioactive decay.
If it's not possible to obtain one of these minerals, we are able to estimate initial conditions by placing all samples measured on a concordia diagram. To make a long story (or an entire high-level science course) short, once enough samples are obtained it becomes clear as to how present isotopic ratios differ from the original ones present at rock formation, and whether the ratios may have been altered or reset since the mineral's formation.
Why do you assume all rocks are "open-system"? Yes, the system is open prior to rock formation, but once, say, a zircon crystal is formed it essentially is a closed system, unless it's subject to conditions which may reset or alter any isotopic ratios (this all goes back to those concordia diagrams). In addition, it's quite easy to identify if a rock or mineral has been "opened" and isotopic ratios altered or reset.

This is one of the reasons I was so offended by your notion that scientists will throw out data (something that never happens, and if a scientist is caught doing it s/he will be shunned from the scientific community) - if the sample yields an anomalous age, it's an indication that the sample may have been altered. I spent an entire semester learning about these techniques, so I'm trying to not go into unnecessary detail, but what we try and do is take as many measurements as possible to identify which minerals may have been altered. In addition, minerals are carefully selected prior to being dated, as those which look ratty and fissured have likely lost (or gained) Pb or any other daughter isotope.

The neat thing is, though, that often these events which "reopen" the minerals are significant and the minerals will sometimes subsequently preserve these dates. This is how we know ages of metamorphism or sometimes even ore genesis. I find it all fascinating.
Once again, I have nothing to add here. All modern science from astronomy to medicine is based on the idea that radioisotopes decay at a constant rate. Out of curiosity, why do you not believe decay rates are constant?