Do you believe in evolution?

[Captain Ben]

how do creationists know dinosaurs lived when humans were around

you disregard evolution but atleast its based on SOME sort of research

creationism is pretty much FUCK THAT LETS SQUASH THE TIMELINE

please note i am muslim

[Demonic]

Since when was evolution a question of belief? It's there. It's here. It's f*cking everywhere.

Please note I am a Christian.

[The Geologist]

The main proof of evolution are fossils. The age of the fossils tell what evolved from this species, and what was it before.

Of course, radiometric dating assumes that the amount of carbon 14 (or whatever element you're using) in the atmosphere is constant, or at least that it is the same as it was thousands of years ago.  If that's NOT the case (which is a possibility that creationism allows for), then carbon dating is ruined.  In other words, if you assume that the earth is millions of years old, carbon dating is accurate, since the amounts in the atmosphere have long since reached equilibrium.  If you assume that it's only a few thousand years old, and certain catastrophes altered the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere, then carbon dating (and other forms of dating that rely on similar assumptions) break down.  In fact, many discrepancies have been uncovered in dated fossils, which are often simply thrown away as "bad measurements."

So what's left? Well, I suppose you COULD just order fossils so that they look like they form a pattern (generally from small to large, or simple to complex).  Of course, you still have the issue where each fossil in that pattern is a distinct species of a creature, and you don't have any TRUE transitional states (such as a whale's teeth midway in the process of evolving to baleen).

The age of the Earth is not determined by carbon dating.  That's just a convenient radiometric tool used for some of the more recent portions of Earths history.  Throwing out data as "bad measurements" isn't something scientists do on the fly just because it doesn't agree with their time line.  I've thrown out a few ages on the basis of isotopic ratios, a testable and reproducible "standard" of sorts.  There are also ways to calibrate for changed in C14 content throughout the years.  Too many creationists harp on that concept.

Also, the Earth being millions of years old was not an assumption.  But rather, the result of calculation and testing of multiple samples from multiple source locals.

Even without carbon dating, the processes necessary to create the stratigraphy throughout which the fossil record is contained take millions upon millions of years.  There are other ways of dating a body of rock (and the fossils therein) besides carbon dating.

[Requiem-]

To me, it's not a case of believing or not. It's true, it's proven, it's a fact, so I believe it.
Creationism doesn't mean a thing for me, it's just a load of bollocks (no offense to Christians though) that people made up for some silly reason. Evolution is a fact, creationism, or faith, for that matter, are fiction, and have no rational proof of anything.

[Biscuiteer]

I think i know why people think evolution is inconceivable, they seem to believe that evolution occurs instantly. Like a monkey bearing a human, or w/e. Evolution occurs over hundreds of thousands of years. Each new generation brings forth a tiny - or essentially sub-micro-microscopic - change. Sure over a few eons you can tell huge differences, but comparing one generation with its subsequent one and you won't find any real differences even though they are technically different. For all we know we are evolving now, from upright humans to technological powerhouses.

As for what i believe in, i am for evolution. I find it slightly more believable than intelligent design, but i do also understand that there is hardly any solid evidence to support either (or in a way that virtually everyone would agree on) . I don't see any traces of some godly force's presence on here, but neither am i able to find evidence for evolution. Darwin's Island is pretty much the only reason i believe in evolution because it's the only thing i can find with believable facts.

..and thats my two cents on this subject.

[Twistkill]

I enjoy watching people assume that science, empirical evidence, proven/disproven theories, and even logic, to an extent, are somehow the end-all solutions to everything in the universe and anything that is not backed up by evidence or theories is wrong and is being completely made up by a bunch of delusional, illogical, controlling, irrational, unreasonable, and condemning nitwits who have imaginary friends. Since when did everything that is empirical or can be observed is the absolute truth, and anything that says otherwise is wrong? It's ironic, considering people take shots at creationism for the exact same issue.

Unexplainable phenomena in terms of being alive or dying, being miraculously cured, spiritual experiences, enlightenment, and faith are all either aspects of religion or are direct or indirect results of it. Once you recognize that these things are not able to be observed from an objective perspective of science and evidence, you will also realize that to truly discover what we babble about, you must experience it yourself. We can't show you God. He will have to show himself to you, and he will do 90% of the work involved in this procedure, but you need to put forth the first 10% of effort.

I'm going to give you a bag. Inside this bag will be a completely disassembled watch. There are also all of the necessary tools to make the watch. Now I want you to start shaking this bag vigorously for millions of years. When you look inside the bag and get a perfectly functioning watch, let me know.

[8th_account]

The main proof of evolution are fossils. The age of the fossils tell what evolved from this species, and what was it before.

Of course, radiometric dating assumes that the amount of carbon 14 (or whatever element you're using) in the atmosphere is constant, or at least that it is the same as it was thousands of years ago.  If that's NOT the case (which is a possibility that creationism allows for), then carbon dating is ruined.  In other words, if you assume that the earth is millions of years old, carbon dating is accurate, since the amounts in the atmosphere have long since reached equilibrium.  If you assume that it's only a few thousand years old, and certain catastrophes altered the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere, then carbon dating (and other forms of dating that rely on similar assumptions) break down.  In fact, many discrepancies have been uncovered in dated fossils, which are often simply thrown away as "bad measurements."

Carbon dating is not used to date fossils. C14 has a maximum accuracy dating up to about 80,000 years. Modern fossil dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age. Another advantage these isotopes have is that they are not at all as easily influenced by variations in, for instance, solar radiation as C14 is. Their natural concentration remains much more constant.

To quote something cool and relevant:
"It has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so."

So what's left? Well, I suppose you COULD just order fossils so that they look like they form a pattern (generally from small to large, or simple to complex).  Of course, you still have the issue where each fossil in that pattern is a distinct species of a creature, and you don't have any TRUE transitional states (such as a whale's teeth midway in the process of evolving to baleen).

Another useful dating instrument would be stratigraphy, which is geology lingo for the fascinating study of rock layering. The principle of stratigraphy is that older rocks lie below younger rocks and that fossils occur in a particular, predictable order.

Also, check these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baleen#Evolution_of_baleen

Jaja, wikipedia cannot be trusted as usual. But at least they cite more sources than you do.

You can be a creationist and say that God put all those dinosaurs down there just to tease us.

No, you only say that if you're an ignorant tool.  Creationists believe that dinosaurs lived a short time ago, at the same time as man.  Incidentally, I wonder if any dinosaur fossils have been carbon dated, or if they just don't do it because "We know that there wouldn't be any carbon 14 left."

There have been plenty of attempted carbon datings of the sort. Many samples have equalized their C14 ratio with the atmosphere, and many have also a slight excess, normally contributed to contamination in the ground, and contamination from the sampling process itself. Though C14 isn't used for dating fossils. The other isotopes I mentioned earlier are used for that task.

As for the whole adaptation/natural selection thing, creationists believe in that too.  That's how we can explain Noah being able to take on two of each type of animal (you only need two dogs, for example; they'll diversify eventually).  We believe a lot of trippy things about the flood, which I'll explain further if you want.

Please do explain further. There are still things I do not understand about that topic... Like how did the animals avoid inbreeding? How were the millions of organisms gathered and distributed back to their habitats? And how were the special dietary needs for the more exotic animals catered for?

Anyway, the thing that makes creationists different from evolutionists is that we recognize that mutations and adaptations can only work with pre-existing data.  If you mutate a fly, it'll lose wings, it'll have curled wings, it'll have different colored eyes, whatever, but it's still a fly.  If you mutate corn, it might change color or size, but it'll still be corn.  If you mutate bacteria, it might become disease resistant, but it will still be the same bacteria and have the same effect on its host.

Heck, let's even use Darwin's finches as an example.  If you relocate them to another island, they'll start adapting to live there.  If you move them back, they'll revert to the original finches.  Sure, the beak is capable of altering its size, but underneath it all, the finch is still a finch.

Mutations stack. The finch will still be a finch because only a few generations have passed. They can accumulate over millions of years before they reach a point where an organism cannot breed successfully with the original ancestor. That is a good indicator of a new species.

The whole "adaption == evolution" argument is a foolish extrapolation.  It's basically saying, "Since we have different hair colors, that proved we all came from a rock millions of years ago."  And that's complete garbage.

It appears that your definition of evolution isn't the one refered to by actual scientists, which would explain your lack of understanding the quoted statement. Evolution is the process of change in any given organism from one generation to the next, not the added sum of generation changes within some range.

Also, life "coming from rocks" has nothing to do with evolution. That falls under abiogenesis - The origin of life.

[The Geologist]

Hey, hey...there's only room for one geologist on these forums.  Damnit.

Nice Thorough explanation though.

[Mangled*]

Wow.. I almost let this topic slip under my radar 

I believe animals and we adapt to our environments but I don't believe in evolution. I decided evolution was false before I heard about creation even. It just sounded too unbelievable.

Woah, hold it right there. What?!

At what age did you first hear about creationism? Please tell me, I'm intrigued.

As for myself... Yes I believe in evolution. Why? Because it's backed up by centuries of research and observations. The fact that I can't think of a single provable argument against it and you probably can't either. The fact that people can get a job as a Paleontologist or Evolutionary Biologist should be indication enough.

[Smegma]

Every time you post you just shoot em out.

[BondJamesBond]

As for myself... Yes I believe in evolution. Why? Because it's backed up by centuries of research and observations. The fact that I can't think of a single provable argument against it and you probably can't either. The fact that people can get a job as a Paleontologist or Evolutionary Biologist should be indication enough.

Failed logic. Again.

---
EDIT: Fine, I'll explain. Do you know how many people observed the death and resurrection of Jesus? There's a simple start.
Oh. Just because it can't be disproved... doesn't mean it exists, right? Isn't that the point that atheists have pushing against religion?

Who are.... Bible Scholars, Pastors, Ministers, Rabbis, Clergys.

[ds dude]

When I read the first post that Fluffy wrote, I was thinking about the appendix.  You don't need an appendix, its a vestigial organ. Eventually, evolution will take place, and when babies are born, they won't have an appendix because they don't need one. Is that how evolution takes place?

[Mangled*]

Failed logic. Again.

Care to elaborate and specify on that? Or are you just going to be like the Bible and not go into the specifics about trivial stuff like the process of the creation of the universe et cetera, et cetera.

Talking snakes?

Rib-made woman?

Tell me about those if you will.

When I read the first post that Fluffy wrote, I was thinking about the appendix.  You don't need an appendix, its a vestigial organ. Eventually, evolution will take place, and when babies are born, they won't have an appendix because they don't need one. Is that how evolution takes place?

No. The appendix will probably stay as part of the human structure. Remember, it's only most healthy people in 1st world countries that have no requirement for it. In the third world it is still a prominent part of the human immune system. It wouldn't just disappear anyway, maybe it might be phased out over a few million years.

[The Geologist]

Scratch that.

Did anyone actually see the man get up and walk out?  I always thought people came back and his body was just gone, with a rather large stone moved away from the entrance.

Additional edit: Once again, we've hit the brick wall of this debate. 

The religious side clings to a belief that cannot be disproved, while eagerly poking holes in science and claiming that these flaws mean the whole of science/evolution is wrong because of such.

Meanwhile, science/evolution has hundreds of years of observation, an extensive fossil record documenting (among other things) vestigial organs, adaptation to specific environments and the like.  But science can't send Steve Irwin (bless his soul) out to catch Jesus, or God, for that matter.  Science can, however, dig around in the dirt and find evidence for increasingly modern forms of humans (and other species) reaching back tens of thousands of years. 

But because of our inability to reach a general consensus on what should be a cut-and-dry subject (ha), this must mean that science is wrong.

...

Yea...no.   

[Graham]

Whoever quoted me the first time adaption and evolution are not the same thing. If you go to a new part of the country and have to adapt to function normal in that temperature.

And Mangled I don't remember. If I kept that much track of my life I would be as anal as Richard Simons.

[BondJamesBond]

Ok. Yeah the tomb and boulder are pretty much the biggest signs. First of all the boulder... As you probably know... Massive. Two tons. The tomb? Guarded by the Romans whose strict military policy specified DEATH to even a minute slip-up on the job.

The boulder was rolled not only to completely reveal the entire 'entrance' but up a slope. The guards? Ran. They ran. (or went missing) Even though a death penalty hung over their heads....

A roman soldier was stripped and burnt alive with all his possessions. If a soldier committed an offense and did not admit to it, several innocent soldiers were killed to make an example.

Christ was seen many times after his death during the 1st Easter. And don't forget Apostle Paul.

--- Edit for Geo:

The religious side clings to a belief that cannot be disproved, while eagerly poking holes in science and claiming that these flaws mean the whole of science/evolution is wrong because of such.

No both sides do it.

Meanwhile, science/evolution has hundreds of years of observation, an extensive fossil record documenting (among other things) vestigial organs, adaptation to specific environments and the like.

Same can be said for religion, right? Like I said, the observers and recollection of Jesus' resurrection is a start.

Of course now. I don't necessarily oppose science and the theory of evolution. I'm just here to punish Mangled*'s idea of "logic". I still think science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

[8th_account]

Whoever quoted me the first time adaption and evolution are not the same thing. If you go to a new part of the country and have to adapt to function normal in that temperature.

If you're talking about an organism changing climate within its lifetime, then you're thinking of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acclimatization

[Lapis Lazuli]

Evolution is very much a fact for me. All I have to do is look at animals that adapt to and survive in bizarre locations and I can understand how evolution works. Look at sea creatures that live at the very bottom most depths of the oceans, or those animals that live within the dark recesses of caves. Most of them are blind (eyes are useless there) and have developed a different way of "visual" perception. This is, in a sense, natural selection (those that couldn't adapt die out, leaving those that could). Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution, in a sense. Couple NS with adverse climates/situations/conditions and you've got evolution (or one very extinct species).

This is all cool with me religiously because I'm pagan, and it fits rather well with my beliefs.

[Captain Ben]

The fact that people can get a job as a Paleontologist or Evolutionary Biologist should be indication enough.

what about people who get jobs as priests and nuns?

[Demonic]

Hol' on there.

What's up with putting the existance of God against evolution?

Creationism is a pathetic attempt to explain our world based on the Bible in a pseudo-scientific way. Same goes for intelligent design. It doesn't cut it. People have some very, very wrong ideas on how evolution works, and thus try to disprove it word by word from the Bible. It's interesting how a lot of atheists do the same with God: they draw a god for themselfes, or rather how they understand it, and then tear the image apart, roaring victory. So much lack of imagination everywhere, and these guys take themselfes way too seriously.

So if we, christians, believe in an omnipotent and omniscent God, how is it not possible for him to create a universe where things work out quite fine. Being God means that he, in all probability can predict the happenings of chaotic dynamics, and as such gave the inital conditions of our universe so everything turns out how he has planned. The same way game designers first make the tools to create flashy graphics and the physics engine, he could very easily just planned out evolution. "It's so simple, it's bound to work out!". Even if it took killing off a bunch of dinosaurs and shit in the process.

Come onnnnnn.