Creation vs. Evolution

[Rich46yo]

I don't see the conflict behind the two, except for those who feel mere humans would have all the answers to everything. The church was always good at that. Who's to say How God created the universe? And who's to say he didn't do it according to scientific law? Who's to say he didn't reach down 6 billion years ago, into that one stinking chemical morass of the cooling Earth, and in touching it create the first living cells? IMO told the Galaxy has 100 Billion stars in it, and the known universe has over 100 Billion galaxies. Boy, it would be a hell of a coincidence if we were the only sentients in such a space eh?

Back on Earth the fossil record is pretty hard to argue with. We can look at animals interact and observe how only the strongest survive and propagate, thus passing their superior genes on. Chimpanzees have a 97% DNA match with the Human animal, so short has it been since our two species diverged from a common ancestor. Higher apes can use tools and have been taught sign language. They can actually communicate with us on a 6yo's level. Chimpanzees hunt other chimps,buy sex with gifts of freshly hunted meat, love to steal human babies to eat, and once a week the males of the troupe go on a patrol of their territory to protect it from other chimps. They follow one strong leader at the head, go in single file with proper tactical spacing, and they don't make a sound! If they catch another chimp on their territory they kill him and eat him.

While there are gaps in the record its been pretty well documented that we evolved from a chimp-like ancestor, successfully adapted to environmental changes, and populated ,from out of Africa, to all corners of the earth. The church still insists on the fable of Adam and Eve. But wheres their proof? And what makes them so smart to think they know all the answers about God anyway?

At the least I'd say they have this one wrong. Physical evidence sways me more then a fable does........................Rich

 

[busyLivin]

I don't have a problem with evolution.. if that's the method, then that's the method. I just currently don't believe that it is.

 

[busyLivin]

It is interesting to note that God did not chose to just "will" that his "word [become spontaneous and instant] flesh" when Jesus came into physical existence on Earth. Rather, for reasons known only to God he had Jesus suffer the humility of being born and grow as a normal human when it was clearly within God's power to directly and immediately manifest him through a simple action of will.

OD

BTW, very good point, OD.

 

[Rich46yo]

I don't have a problem with evolution.. if that's the method, then that's the method. I just currently don't believe that it is.

Busy were all waiting like patience on a monument why, pray tell, you dont believe it is............... ..............Rich

 

[busyLivin]

Busy were all waiting like patience on a monument why, pray tell, you dont believe it is............... ..............Rich

you'll be waiting quite a while

.......Jim

 

[Rich46yo]

So you dont believe in evolution? But you dont know why you dont believe in it?...............................Rich

 

[busyLivin]

So you dont believe in evolution? But you dont know why you dont believe in it?...............................Rich

i never said that. i said i wasn't getting into it.

 

[Luke9583]

Find me somebody with anything more than an associates that doesn't beleive in evolution.

 

[camarosuper6]

Me.

At least not the Darwin crack-headed theory.

 

[camarosuper6]

I know quite a few people with advanced degrees that do not buy the evolution theory.

 

[busyLivin]

Find me somebody with anything more than an associates that doesn't beleive in evolution.

well, in computer science... but you didn't specify

 

[camarosuper6]

One of the big busts for evolutionists happend in 1980 when NASA scientists discovered that primitive Earth never had any methane, ammonia or hydrogen to amount to anything as previously believed. (This environment would have made it very favorable for organic compounds to emerge)Instead, it was water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen.

More studies and experiments have also shown this.

Even the simplist cell at the MOST basic level requires assembling the correct 20 amino acids in perfect order to produce protein molecues.. the ability to "get rid" of the other 60 aminos, and many of these aminos react differently to other aminos... etc. And after all this.. in combination with maybe 100 aminos, you still ONLY have a protein molecule.

THEN you have to assemble those protein molecules accordingly.. etc.

Its so very complicated, that it could not happen without the will of a creator.


This

 

[ZECH]

This is worse than people believing in Kerry

 

[Vieope]

I believe in myself, nothing else matters.

 

[Du]

I believe in Vieope, too.

 

[milliman]

Find me somebody with anything more than an associates that doesn't believe in evolution.

Institute of Creation Research, Santee CA

A whole bunch of Phd types with degrees in all of the physical sciences.
By the way, most of them used to believe in Evolution.

http://www.icr.org/ click on the "scientists " tab for details

Here is another group with a whole bunch of Creation stuff, but I don't know if they are Phd's.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

The ICR guys go around the world and debate evolutionists.
The evolutionists lose every time because there are no transitional forms or follils to support the theory. Nothing to link it all together.

Evolution is not Science.

By definition, Science is the proposal of a theory to explain observed events.
Then you devise a test to support the theory.
You then measure the results to see if they support or deny the theory.
Anybody else should be able to duplicate your results, or it is not true.

Evolution is a theory.
You will never be able to duplicate it in a lab, so it is not provable. (neither is creation)
the best you could do is see if it agrees to the observed events. Darwin proposed "the theory" and said it should be proved by the fossil record. To this date is has never been proved by the fossil record. They have never found the so called "missing link" or links.

 

[milliman]

Creationism is basically believing that the world was created by a God who intelligently designed the whole thing to fit together. Each thing was created for a purpose.

Evolution is basically believing that everything is an accident. Over time, cells mutated and became better than the preceding cell or species.

I personally think the second one is more fantasy than the first one.

Think about this.
If you were walking in the forest and saw some pine needles arranged on the ground that said "BUSH SUCKS", would you think that they accidentally landed that way, or that some intelligent life form had placed them on the ground that way.
We could discuss later whether intelligent life likes Bush or not, but we will save that for a later day.

You would say it was obviously not an accident that they were arranged that way.

Why ? Why would you not think that it had accidentallly fallen off the tree that way ?

Because you would look at it and know that each pine needle was specifically placed in each spot to cummunicate meaning. each needle had to be in a precise place for each letter to make sense. And each group of letters had to be in the right order to make a word. and the two words had to be in the right order to communicate meaning to you.
All of it was intelligently designed to cummunicate with one another.

You could walk around in the forest for the rest of your life and you will never find pine needles forming words on accident.

Imagine yourself on the moon. What would you expect to find by accident ? A rock ? ?
What if you found an arrow head.
Would it be an accident or intelligent design ? remote possibility of an accident
What if you found a paper cup? Definitley intelligent design !
What if you found a shirt? Definitley intelligent design
What about a cell phone? Definitley intelligent design !
How about a space ship? Definitley nto an accident.

But why ? the more complex the thing is, the more you know it was designed by a creator to be that way. So what is the most complex thing on the earth ? ? ?

the human body. Just look at some of its parts. The eye is as incredible as most cameras. It has auto focus, adapts to bright light or night vision by itself, automatically self lubricates and cleans the lens every 10 seconds or so (blinking).
It never grows any algea in the fluid in the eye and it heals itself.

Look at the kidney. Automatically monitors all chemical and fluid levels and filters out what is not needed or retains what it senses it is short on.

How about the hand. Strong enough to pick up huge weights, or supple enough to pick up a wine glass or a piece of paper. Sense hot, cold, texture, wet or dry.
How many robot arms are that versatile.

How about our legs. They still have not designed a robot that can go up and down stairs or a hill yet.

How about the brain. Faster than any computer. Continually monitors heat, cold, temperature, wind, angle of the body. Adjust foot pressure to maintain upright posture whether you are standing or moving. maintains blood pressure, breathing etc.
Filters out all of the irrelevant data and only send important stuff to the brain to act on. ie pain

So why do we look at it and say "oh yeah, an accident" ?
Every little amino acid in your DNA has to be in the exact perfect place, just like the pine needles, to tell it how to function. How did each of those accidentally get there.
That, my brother, takes a lot of faith to believe that it is all an accident.

Science is really cool and very advanced these days, but they can not make anything live. Not one blade of grass or bacteria. Nothing, nada zero.

So do you really believe you are an accident ?
Or intelligently designed by a creator ?

 

[Vieope]

I believe in Vieope, too.

 

[Vieope]

Institute of Creation Research, Santee CA

A whole bunch of Phd types with degrees in Chemistry to Geology.
By the way, most of them used to believe in Evolution.

http://www.icr.org/

Here is another group with a whole bunch of Creation stuff, but I don't know if they are Phd's.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

The ICR guys go around the world and debate evolutionists.
The evolutionists lose every time because there are no transitional forms or follils to support the theory. Nothing to link it all together.

Evolution is not Science.

By definition, Science is the proposal of a theory to explain observed events.
Then you devise a test to support the theory.
You then measure the results to see if they support or deny the theory.
Anybody else should be able to duplicate your results, or it is not true.

Evolution is a theory.
You will never be able to duplicate it in a lab, so it is not provable. (neither is creation)
the best you could do is see if it agrees to the observed events. Darwin proposed "the theory" and said it should be proved by the fossil record. To this date is has never been proved by the fossil record. They have never found the so called "missing link" or links.

That is interesting.

 

[milliman]

Someone brought up the good old chimpanzee too. Supposedly 97 or 99% like us. Right ! . . . . . . . . wrong !

Ponder this.

Evolution is based on a gene mutating and somehow getting better. (lets skip the fact that not one scientist can give you even one example of a mutated gene getting better, they are almost always lethal).

Now that we can do genetic mapping of DNA, we can identify the genes that are responsible for many functions in our body.

for example, gene 1 might be eye color, gene 2 brain size, gene 3 muscle insertion point etcetera .

We could look at the DNA of Mudge, V, people in africa, or anywhere in the world and gene 1, 2, 3 and down the line would be the same on all of them. Maybe we could even anlayze Mudge's gene 3 muscle insertion point to see why his bench is so high. The point is, everybodies genes are in the same spot.

So we should be able to look at the chimpanzee genes and see how they supposedly mutated to get to ours. Right !

Suprisingly, all of the genes are in a totally different place. Not because they just happend to get scrambled, because we are not related at all.

Once someone designed the wheel they used it in all sort of things. bikes, cars, dollies, wheel barrows etcetera. The bike did not evolve into a wheel barrow, the creator just used the good design over and over again since it worked. As did our creator.

 

[milliman]

bump

 

[Vieope]

We could look at the DNA of Mudge, V, people in africa, or anywhere in the world and gene 1, 2, 3 and down the line would be the same on all of them.

Now you went too far.

 

[kbm8795]

The Institute for Creation Research only contends it "wins" every debate with evolutionists, and basically what they can't do is prove their Creation theory. They make the assumption that if evolution can't be proven, then it HAS to be "A" creator and then this is put forward as "intelligent design."

But there are fundamental differences in both creation theory and evolutionary theory - in science, knowledge is flexible and is open to be corrected; in creation, there is only one answer that cannot be questioned. Creation "theory" is not a science; it is more a debunking tool of evolution designed to replace development of critical thinking skills in science with religious texts.

The "debates" they conduct are merely exercises in exposing the gaps in evolution - and yes, in science, theories are developed and discarded as knowledge grows. They promote creationism through the stealth of "intelligent design" although the textbooks they select do not include an endless possibility of ideas on how life formed. While I don't necessarily dispute the possibility of creation (in several different ways) I also don't assume there aren't other answers out there, or that the real "intelligent design" isn't the path mankind has been intentionally placed upon by whatever our origination.

 

[milliman]

The Institute for Creation Research only contends it "wins" every debate with evolutionists, and basically what they can't do is prove their Creation theory. They make the assumption that if evolution can't be proven, then it HAS to be "A" creator and then this is put forward as "intelligent design." /QUOTE]

I guess this is true.
Both are theories and by definition, can not be proven by the scientific method because nobody can create life.
What you have to ask yourself is "Which theory best fits the facts we observe". See post #48 above about the pine needles.

Do you think that life is an accident or designed by a creator ?

But there are fundamental differences in both creation theory and evolutionary theory - in science, knowledge is flexible and is open to be corrected. in creation, there is only one answer that cannot be questioned.

Translated, this means as more facts come out, evolution it is consistently proven wrong.

The Creation story has not had to change since the facts always support the same conclusion.

Creation "theory" is not a science; it is more a debunking tool of evolution designed to replace development of critical thinking skills in science with religious texts. .

Neither evolution nor creation are science. But if you are supporting one theory over the other you must show why the other theory is wrong or problems with it.

The "debates" they conduct are merely exercises in exposing the gaps in evolution - and yes, in science, theories are developed and discarded as knowledge grows. They promote creationism through the stealth of "intelligent design" although the textbooks they select do not include an endless possibility of ideas on how life formed. While I don't necessarily dispute the possibility of creation (in several different ways) I also don't assume there aren't other answers out there, or that the real "intelligent design" isn't the path mankind has been intentionally placed upon by whatever our origination.

Evolution was a way to justify peoples belief that God did not exist and therefore they could do whatever they wanted. They would not need to be held accountable to anyone at the end of their life. Nothing was right or wrong, only what the strongest did was correct.

The problem in schools, is that evolution is taught as fact and they never show you anything that does not support it. If you were to ever bring up creation or intelligent design, you are riduculed and treated like an idiot.

I went thru school as a pre-med student and was fully indoctrinated. It was not until I went to ICR that they show you all of falacies of evolution. Most people who believe in evolution just think of the chart on the wall where the monkey slowly stands up and looks like a man at the end. But it is way more than that. When you actually learn what would have to happen for it to occur it is mind boggeling. And totally out of the realm of possibility. Just like the pine needle example.

Off to work out.

Buenos Noches

 

[kbm8795]

No, actually the facts don't necessarily prove the conclusion for creation theory. It is an idea with possibilities. Creation theorists in the Middle Ages supported the notion that the world was flat - and held onto that belief for a couple hundred years after it was proven wrong. Creation theorists put forth the idea that races were deliberately placed on different continents for a reason, and then held early evolutionist hostage for research funding until they skewed that research to prove the inferiority of other races. These are things that today's creationists tend to quietly sweep under the carpet, pretending that they have gained new creation knowledge independently of other sciences.

One of the issues with "intelligent design" is that, while conceptually it should encourage discussion of MANY different possibilities, it advocates in texts for a particular religious position, as if that alone could be the only alternative. Then they explain that knowledge can grow with the creation approach only if research is confined to that specific singular truth - and have thus contributed very little toward expanding our knowledge. The bulk of their research is only designed to disprove evolutionary work by asserting, when the gaps are found, that there is only one possible alternative answer. They provide nothing new beyond a rhetorical reapproachment to religious education of the 19th century.

Evolution was not considered necessarily contradictory to God - I don't believe it claims that there is no presence of "God" or any possibility of creation. The knowledge that is present is taught as fact, to a degree, but the whole foundation of theory is that while something is testable, it can also be expanded and eventually proven wrong; that is what is taught in schools. For example, in geology, one researcher hypothesized that plates rubbed against each other and that caused earthquakes - but everyone else disagreed with that idea for about 20 more years. Even though it does not explain everything, that is the best knowledge we have at this point - and it is open to being shown to be only a piece of the puzzle.

As in every other academic subject, the knowledge presented is only the information that we, as humans, have explored up to this point, with some emphasis on critical thinking skills. And yes, as part of that process, it is certainly acceptable for students to ponder creation as an explanation. But those are not necessarily the only possibilities. If we accept one as an unchangeable truth, we might prevent ourselves from unlocking many other answers about the world and universe that God or destiny has waiting for us to explore.

In my opinion, these creationist people fall into the category of those who would say "If God had meant Man to fly, he would have given him wings."

 

[myCATpowerlifts]

I have absolutely no problem with the notion of God through force of divine will and command ordering Creation into existence and setting it in motion with a set of consistent rules, Natural Laws and phenomenon. Therefore I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that the mechanism of Evolution can be in perfect agreement with the fundamental view of Creation since God can chose whatever tools, processes and mechanisms he desires. He can just as easily create man from clay as he can create a genius from a donkey (hey don't look at me that way ), or an ape from an amoeba or a woman from a man's rib.


OD

I totally agree

 

[myCATpowerlifts]

Creationism is basically believing that the world was created by a God who intelligently designed the whole thing to fit together. Each thing was created for a purpose.

Evolution is basically believing that everything is an accident. Over time, cells mutated and became better than the preceding cell or species.

I personally think the second one is more fantasy than the first one.

Think about this.
If you were walking in the forest and saw some pine needles arranged on the ground that said "BUSH SUCKS", would you think that they accidentally landed that way, or that some intelligent life form had placed them on the ground that way.
We could discuss later whether intelligent life likes Bush or not, but we will save that for a later day.

You would say it was obviously not an accident that they were arranged that way.

Why ? Why would you not think that it had accidentallly fallen off the tree that way ?

Because you would look at it and know that each pine needle was specifically placed in each spot to cummunicate meaning. each needle had to be in a precise place for each letter to make sense. And each group of letters had to be in the right order to make a word. and the two words had to be in the right order to communicate meaning to you.
All of it was intelligently designed to cummunicate with one another.

You could walk around in the forest for the rest of your life and you will never find pine needles forming words on accident.

Imagine yourself on the moon. What would you expect to find by accident ? A rock ? ?
What if you found an arrow head.
Would it be an accident or intelligent design ? remote possibility of an accident
What if you found a paper cup? Definitley intelligent design !
What if you found a shirt? Definitley intelligent design
What about a cell phone? Definitley intelligent design !
How about a space ship? Definitley nto an accident.

But why ? the more complex the thing is, the more you know it was designed by a creator to be that way. So what is the most complex thing on the earth ? ? ?

the human body. Just look at some of its parts. The eye is as incredible as most cameras. It has auto focus, adapts to bright light or night vision by itself, automatically self lubricates and cleans the lens every 10 seconds or so (blinking).
It never grows any algea in the fluid in the eye and it heals itself.

Look at the kidney. Automatically monitors all chemical and fluid levels and filters out what is not needed or retains what it senses it is short on.

How about the hand. Strong enough to pick up huge weights, or supple enough to pick up a wine glass or a piece of paper. Sense hot, cold, texture, wet or dry.
How many robot arms are that versatile.

How about our legs. They still have not designed a robot that can go up and down stairs or a hill yet.

How about the brain. Faster than any computer. Continually monitors heat, cold, temperature, wind, angle of the body. Adjust foot pressure to maintain upright posture whether you are standing or moving. maintains blood pressure, breathing etc.
Filters out all of the irrelevant data and only send important stuff to the brain to act on. ie pain

So why do we look at it and say "oh yeah, an accident" ?
Every little amino acid in your DNA has to be in the exact perfect place, just like the pine needles, to tell it how to function. How did each of those accidentally get there.
That, my brother, takes a lot of faith to believe that it is all an accident.

Science is really cool and very advanced these days, but they can not make anything live. Not one blade of grass or bacteria. Nothing, nada zero.

So do you really believe you are an accident ?
Or intelligently designed by a creator ?

wow, this is an amazing post

 

[Arnold]

This is worse than people believing in Kerry

I do not think many "believed" in Kerry, we just wanted Bush out of office and Kerry was the only solution.

 

[kbm8795]

You can't put a man out of office if God speaks "through" him.

 

[Rich46yo]

""""""""Evolution is based on a gene mutating and somehow getting better. (lets skip the fact that not one scientist can give you even one example of a mutated gene getting better, they are almost always lethal). """"""""

No it isn't. Its based on living creatures "evolving" and successfully adapting to changing environmental variables. A gene doesn't "mutate", unless you consider a baby of two separate parents a mutation. A living organism does however evolve and there is great scientific evidence that many of the currently animals have done so. There is also great evidence of the many who failed to adopt to a changing environment. Evolutionary theory isn't just based on the human animal.

Part of the problem is most of our evolution happened in Africa. Ever been to Africa? I have! You would think that, after seeing so much fauna of every type imaginable, you'd see a lot of dead ones and various carcasses littering the landscape. Unfortunately Africa is a great disposer of dead stuff. Even the bones get eaten as Africa's just one big disposal chute. Almost all of our evolutionary chain must have surely been 'et in the same way which is why its so hard to dig up the "Lucy's" and other human ancestors. Its remarkable we've found all we have, and we "have" quite a bit. Even the creationists must wonder who these animals were? Why did they look so much like us? Where did they come from and where did they go? And lastly, why is this one so subtly different from that one, and why does carbon dating irrefutably say one is so much older then that one?

Nothing was "mutated". A bolt of lightening didn't hit one animal and suddenly mutate it into another. 6 million years ago a troupe of ape like creatures starting walking upright on the plains of Africa because they needed to in order to survive. The environment was changing, as was their food sources, and they had to start walking upright or face extinction. In another area that same animal found other ways to survive. One became the modern ape and one became Homo Sapien. This all happened over millions of years and there was no sudden "mutation" of one animal into another. Along the way there were many experiments of nature that died out, for instance "Neanderthal".

"My" own people migrated north to ice age Europe and found themselves in a hostile environment that forced them to adopt and improvise. Long,long winter months forced them indoors for extended periods and thus prodded them to develop higher social skills. In this manner "culture" began,as did the first Govt.'s, laws, art, spoken language...ect The large animals they had to hunt for survival forced them to develop better weapons, better tools, better ways to store the meat, to make clothing, and to make and control fire. Did you ever wonder why almost every invention, improvement on, or discovery has been made by someone of European roots?

As to how life first started on Earth? How can we ever truly find the answer to that? You cant "experiment" millions and billions of years. You cant re-create that in a laboratory, nor millions of years of evolution. All you can do is theorize. But theory backed up by sound scientific evidence is a theory on sound footing. Much more so then some childrens fable anyways. Besides its very possible the first primitive life forms, or the precursors needed to make them, came to earth on comets or asteroids anyway. Its very possible the Universe seeds life thru itself in such a way.

In the next 10 to 20 years NASA and Europe's space agency are going to be putting telescopes in space that are so sensitive they will be able to see Earth sized planets orbiting other stars. Not only that but they will be capable of analyzing the light reflected off these planets to determine if they have atmospheres suitable for life to exist. Imagine when we find another Earth orbiting a nearby star? What will the creationists say then?

That the Earth is flat? That its the center of the universe? That everything rotates around us? And that were all going to Hell if we believe otherwise?

I think I'll believe in the science....... ........Rich