Evolution or Creation

Discuss.



Keep the flaming to yourself, Georgie.


Locked: this place went very far downhill. We'll talk further about opening it or starting anew.

 

5,
4,
3,
2,
1
!!!

 

Evolution.

P.S. - And yes, I'm a Christian who believes that the Bible is inspired by God and infallible.

 

Why does it have to be evolution OR creation? ?

Judging from last thread there's clearly a large number of people who believe in both.

 

If you don't take the "seven days and seven nights" bible thing literally, evolution is all the sudden very Christian.

Except that means God looks like a monkey.

Btw, I'm a total Darwin fan. Evolution please.

 

Well, I hope that I may post my response to Darth Vader in full.

1. "Evolution is 100% fact, Creation is not". Actually it's the other way around my friend, Evolutionists DON'T know 100% accuratly the history of the Earth and the Universe, they can only assume.

Actually, the scientific method used by those in historical sciences is called "inference to the best explanation". An inference is reasoning about the past from extant evidence, and it's quite different from an assumption (and I suppose that you use the word assumption for its negative connotation, despite misrepresenting the nature of science while doing it).

Also, another interesting claim that gets in by the back door is that anything that isn't 100% certain is an assumption. This is not true. In an empirical science, nothing can be 100% certain and still meet the falsifiability criterion of science. This is a strange creationist manner of trying to argue two seperate and mutually inconsistent points at once: the creationist both charges that evolution is a faith (see below), which would imply that scientists hold it as 100% certain, all while complaining that it can't be 100% certain. Science is not revelation, and concepts in evolutionary biology (both in history and mechanisms) can be revised with new data. Yes, it's not entirely certain, but that is a trait shared by all forms of empirical science.

Because they don't have no time machine, and nobody lived long enough back then to write down on HOW it happened, accuratly. So Evolutionists can only assume and predict on what happened back then.

Here's another creationist assumption: that the only valid form of scientific investigation is direct observation. This is not true, and hasn't been current in hundreds of years. It stems from a naive Baconian view of science, which has largely been overturned (and not just to make room for evolution). Of course direct observation can be a valuable tool for a scientist, but it is just one tool. Drawing inferences from other extant evidence, like biogeography, genetics, anatomy, developmental biology, etc. is perfectly permissible. Direct observation is not a privledged way of knowing.

Of course they have fossils, land markings and such, but that doesn't 100% on how old these things are. You don't see a Evolutionist Scientist dig in a fossil field and find a fossil that has a tag on it saying "65 billion years old".

If it did, I would believe it to be a hoax (leaving aside the fact that a 65 billion year old fossil would be over four times as old as the universe). The most certain way we have to tell ages is by radiometric dating. Properly done, with care to avoid or remove contamination and using the proper test for the sample, it can yield consistent dates. Possible physical processes that might cause a departure from an accurate date (like extremes of pressure and temperature) have been examined, and the only one that has been discovered to depart from a constant decay rate with any sort of significance is beryllium-7. Its decay rate is pressure dependent, but even under extremes of pressure doesn't change by more than a few percent (the exact figure escapes me, but you can read about it in G. Brent Dalrymple's The Age of the Earth).

However, there was one supernatural being who saw all, and that was the Almighty Lord. He's the ONLY one who saw all of time and even lived before time itself, he created TIME! He used man to write down, with His own Words to say what happened, when, how, why, and etc. It wasn't ONLY just men who decided to have fun by writing fictional stories and myths to screw up the whole Religion of Christianity. If they were to do that, God wouldn't allow it.

This assumes the very existence of a meddler God who dips into human affairs, and presumably works in spite of or against natural laws during the Creation week/age/era, whatever your preference is. This sort of entity cannot be admitted into science not

 

Dangit Radical Fringe, let me print this off and read it when I have to sit on the toilet the next time. Jeez man, keep it short and sweet, nobody wants to take 45 minutes to read a single post, not that it will take me 45 minutes mind you, its just a lot of posting there.

As I said I believe you can't have one without the other. You can't have creation without some sort and form of Evolution. You can't have Evolution with out creation somewhere down the line. You can't make something from nothing. I had someone try to explain to me there was this great nothing (I thought it sounded a bit like the never ending story) and all of a sudden this great nothing rippled, and formed the matter that eventually exploded causing the big bang, amongst the shattered debris of this ripple of nothing came a small planet with a single celled organism, that evolved into a fish, went from a fish to a land dweller, from a small slimy land dweller to a monkey from a tail swinging monkey to a chain of cavemen to modern man.

Ummmmmmmmm Huh? How can nothing ripple, I hold nothing in my hand can it ripple? No cause nothing is there to ripple. If nothing is there to ripple therefore a ripple can't take place and................Ok im confusing myself, but you get the idea. There has to be a supernatural matter to create the something that became the big bang, since we can all agree that nothing can't become something. Most likely a God or Goddess of somesort, Im not endorsing any particular religion here but something had to create the something instead of there being a nothing, it could have been the Force for all we know, maybe George is onto something.

As far as religion goes the King Arthur novels have intresting theories on God/s and or Goddess/s. As long as people believe in them they exist, once people stop believing that particular deity seizes to be, but thats a different thread.

 

Evolution or Creation ?

It's all about both baby. Evolution through Creation.


!snap

 

Hi,

Something really struck me as I was (quickly) reading the other thread on this subject: a lot of people have decided ideas about the Theory of Evolution, yet are mistaken about what this theory says or even what subjet it does and does not address.

Among those misconceptions, the most frequent seems to be that the ToE has anything to do with the origin of the universe or the origin of life. It doesn't. More specifically, the theory that the first life forms were the results of unguided chemical reactions occuring between non-living components (this theory is called abiogenesis) is NOT included in the theory of evolution.

Other (less) frequent misconceptions are the ideas that the mechanisms of evolution rely on pure chance (In fact, chance only plays second fiddle in the whole process), or that evolution occurs within the lifetime of individuals, as shown by this quote:
"If apes were evolving at an extremely slow "rate, then how did they live long enough to evolve succesfully."

Aside from these misunderstandings of the ToE itself, many people don't seems to grasp what science really is, and especially what scientists mean when they say that the ToE (or any other theory) it is very well supported or that there is a lot of evidence in favor of the ToE.

JediGaladriel expressed it very well:
"I think one mistake people make is assuming that by calling evolution "science," people are saying that it's absolutely factual, and therefore if they show one thing that doesn't work, it's all bunk. Science is a process (the scientific method), not a set of never-changing facts. It's the process by which ideas are systematically tested, and rigorous attempts are made to disprove them at every step. In order for something to be scientific at all, it has to be open to this kind of testing. "


As a conclusion, I'd say that a fundamental and basic misunderstanding of what both science and the theory of evolution mean are at the heart of the problem. What I find regrettable is that some people in the United States try their hardest, on purely religious grounds, to spread those misunderstandings and create a controversy over the teaching of evolution, as well as the means they use.

 

I don't see how you can believe in the Bible's account as well as evolution. With the theory of eveolution, things had to die off before other things came to what they are now. In the Bible, by the time everything was created, there was no sin, and thus, no death. Death only came into the world after sin, in which case, according to the Bible, everything was already in it's present state.

 

Radical_fringe: Great post! (It didn't take me 45 minutes to read it, either.) I consider science and religion to be more or less exclusive from each other. Non-Overlapping Magesteria, as Gould would put it. I personally believe that the Universe started with the Big Bang and went from there. I never said where that thimblefull of matter came from.

Biblical Literalism is easily addressed. Whose Bible are we talking about? The King James? Very pretty, but possibly the most poorly translated. The New American (Catholic) version? Doesn't that include some books that the Protestant variations don't? Torah? New Oxford Student version? Aren't all the wording and translations different? Is every single translator out there divinely inspired? Every transcriptionist? What about the books rejected for inclusion when they were assembling the Bible? Did you know the Song of Songs was almost left out as being "dirty poetry?" (Read it, it's pretty racy!) How about the Dead Sea Scrolls? They were lost...does that mean they're not divinely inspired? Anyone who reads the Bible from a scholarly perspective, and makes a serious study of it, will see that it's not consistent within itself, and the more it's translated, the stranger it gets.

Also, if you believe that every word of the Bible is true, are you obeying all the commandments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy? Are you living life EXACTLY as Christ demands? Do you do everything that Paul says, including not marrying because the end is near? (Paul, by the way, meant the end is near then. He believed the world was about to end while he was alive. It didn't. Oops.)

I'm Catholic. But I'm also an Evolutionist, if that's a word. I believe in God, and I believe that He could very well have set the Universe spinning with a Big Bang, and life developing through evolutionary processes.

 

Radical Fringe... An infinite number of monkeys in a room with an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time couldn't have put it better. (BTW, just in case tat was confuzzling, I agree with Radical)

Death only came into the world after sin, in which case, according to the Bible, everything was already in it's present state.

Were animals not created before man, and therefore. before sin? What did the carnivores eat? They cannot chew plant matter, they have no flat grinding teeth.

 

I would just like to say that my brain hurts after reading Radical's post. I hope you cut and pasted some of that -- if not, bravo for spending 2+ hours on that thing. Wow!

Excuse me while I go reread it for the 5th time and hope I actually finally understand it.

 

Read Thessalonians and you can tell Paul knew that it wasn't happening until certain events took place. No doubt Paul hoped he would see it, but would you point to one verse where Paul says "I will see the return of Christ"? I've heard this claim before and I do not know what it is based on (unless someone is refering to Paul writing "we who are still alive" which does not imply himself but rather a group)

 

I've kept my mind open to science and studied evolution. I'm right with those that point out that the bible is not a direct translation, because it is not. A simple course in english Lit would address that point. I've been open to the idea of evolution being God's design also as the bible would seem to indicate that he would work through nature, but do not under any circumstance imply that evolution in it's current form is an answer to the origin of life.

Darwinism is to evolution what the wright brothers are to light speed travel (maybe a poor example but in it's current form it's close enough). Evolution is whatever science can best theorize at the time for the origin of life and species. It's been made into a indisputable theory in science because anytime a better hypothesis comes along it adapts (or evolves if it suits you better) into the new data.

This isn't how a typical theory works because a whole new theory is usually drafted, but possibly at the risk of embarrassment and being overrun by creationists they do not say "Evolution is now inaccurate, quantumtranslution is the new theory" (because to be frank too many in the scientific community do treat evolution as a doctrine of beliefs and to admit a fault would be blasphomy. Say what you will but they hold on to this theory like the world would end if it was disproven) They simply include the new theories and replace the old. Evolution has had many states that have been disproven or found unlikely. It is not the same theory that was around 20 years ago or when I took my science classes in high school 10 years ago. For example many scientists have decided that the first amino acids could not have been formed by random lightning stikes or any other natural explination, and that quantum physics holds a better explination to the origin to the basic building blocks of life here on earth.

I'm fascinated by research and will gobble up data when I come across it, but I do eat up the research and current scientific truths with a grain of salt. Because if you think for one minute that the theory of evolution that you understand and accept as truth will be the same 10 or even 5 years from now I'll chuckle under my breath.

 

Well, if you want to get really specific you can argue: Do you believe in macro-evolution or micro-evolution? I think this is a very important distinction for anyone (including me) who believes in what we call "the theory of evolution"

 

I believe that animals evolved over eons, with those with more advantageous abilities surviving long enough to procreate, thus passing their traits on to their offspring. Humans are part of this process.

 

it saddens me that people believe in creationism

 

it saddens me that people believe in creationism

It saddens me people believe in one and not the other. It also saddens me people don't respect others opinions and think theirs is the ONLY right way. You can't have creation without evolution and you can't have evolution without creation, it is that simple. After all you can't get something from nothing which is where Creation comes in and environments change all the time meaning we have to evolve which is self explaintory.

 

you saddeen me

 

If people not thinking like you saddens you, you must have one sad life. I pity you.

 

you pitying me saddens me.
people thinking that they are holier than thou scare me.


the problem with american society is that people think everyone's opinion is just as valid as everyone elses, even an expert.

anti intellectualism

 

you pitying me saddens me.
people thinking that they are holier than thou scare me.

Thats exactly what your pulling with your "sadness" for people who believe in creation. Its like youre saying your opinion is better because its what you believe.


the problem with american society is that people think everyone's opinion is just as valid as everyone elses, even an expert.

You said the keyword there, expert's OPINION, not fact, just his opinion. How can expert explain the matter that caused the big bang, how was it formed? I have yet to hear that. And Experts can be wrong to, Thomas Edison took on a project of inventing a machine to communicate with the dead, he was one of the most brilliant minds of all time, and he was sure it was possible, yet he was wrong.

anti intellectualism

Yes what you said was, thanks for noticing.

 

I think we should realize that when one dumps on creationism we are talking about Young Earth creationists not the Old Earth version. You know, the type that thinks that the T-Rex was a plant eater at one time and every person that believes in evolution is an evil atheist.

These are the type of people that a few hundred yrs ago would have been arguing that the earth is flat. Young earth creationists have the same amount of evidence that the flat earth people do.

 

It's possible that the Bible God created the earth, but it's also possible his methods were evolution. But, i don't think it's possible that Noah had one of each dinosaur on the ark, or that the universe is 6000 years old. It's important to have an open mind but it's also important to give yourself a reality check now and then.