Evolution or Creation

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by George15, Mar 12, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Neon_Ninja Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 27, 2002
    star 1
    why is it so hard to think of God as a symbol of the timeless, eternal, evolving universe...rather than "humanizing" it and believing that an intelligent entity created everything?

    Because not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken symbolically. If you would devote yourself to discovering the truth about God, you would find that He is a reality.

    "believe in both creation and evolution" -- it's trying to trick reasonable people into believing the occult is reasonable.

    I know God exists. Therefore I believe He created the universe. The exact process by which He did His creating, I haven't the foggiest idea. If the best explanation science has to offer is Big Bang and evolution, I'm okay with that. I am no scientist and therefore am not in a position to disagree. Therefore I, like many in this thread, believe in both creation and evolution. Your assumption that this duality stems from trickery is a very bold and very wrong assumption. I hope my summary of why I believe in both helps alleviate some of the misgivings you have about us "dualists."
  2. Olivier Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 2
    Wow, quite a few posts since I last checked.

    primetime_jedi:

    _ evolution concerns the change of populations and not individuals.

    What exactly do you mean by this? Isn't a population a collection of individuals?


    What I meant by this is that evolution is to be considered over many generations and not over the lifetime of an individual, and that mechanisms of evolution involve not just one individual but a whole population (like natural selection). Yet, many people are still confused and believe that evolution is supposed to change each individual of a population, or other things like this.
    For example, someone on those boards said this:
    "1. If we descended from apes then why haven't other apes become humans?

    2. If apes were evolving at an extremely slow rate, then how did they live long enough to evolve succesfully."



    I had always thought that this was one of the crucial issues of evolution. (...)
    It would seem to me that the origin of life and the development of life are extremely interconnected ideas. How then do scientists account for where life came from?


    There is, indeed, a connection between the origin of life and the development of life, just like there is a connection between the big bang theory and Kepler's law: if the universe did not exist, we could not have been able to calculate the orbits of the Earth. Yet, even if the theory of the Big Bang prooves to be inexact one day, or if we had no such theory for the origin of the universe, this would not challenge our calculation of this orbit.

    Yet some people (like D2R2_pena in this very thread) would have us believe that if we have no accurate theory of the origin of life, then the theory of evolution has no basis and should not be considered valid. By this logic, if you don't agree with a theory for the origin of life, you should abandon all of biology, medecine, etc... this is just poor logic, IMHO.

  3. Nunquam Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2000
    star 1
    I hope my summary of why I believe in both helps alleviate some of the misgivings you have about us "dualists."

    It doesn't, because Christians ("Pentacostal" Christians in particular) are always trying to appropriate things in science, history, society, etc., to show how reasonable and unavoidable their religion is. They prey on college students and on the insecurities, uncertainties and emotional turmoil of young people, attempting to manipulate them into their occultist beliefs, cloaking them with a seemingly harmless title of "ministry."

    I've seen their mind-games countless times and I recognize it in the "dualists" as you call them. It's a tactic used to insinuate Christian beliefs into science by making its occultist tenets seem as perfectly reasonable as science, when right around the corner is the arrogant, judgemental intolerance that has cause so much upheaval and pain in the world.

    But that's just one person's opinion.
  4. Neon_Ninja Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 27, 2002
    star 1
    Nunquam

    Obviously I cannot reply directly to whatever negative personal experiences you've apparently had (perhaps with Pentecostals in particular). But if you are willing to let those experiences speak on behalf of all who hold similar beliefs, then I hope you will grant me the same powers and accept my apology for their deceptive behavior.

    Moving on.

    I will agree with you that it is wrong to conclude that religion is as "reasonable" to believe as science if science is your benchmark on what is reasonable. And don't get me wrong; there's certainly nothing wrong with that. But science is not the only vehicle by which people draw reasonable conclusions.

    For example, belief in God is not generated by science. It is based on a willingness to believe should sufficient evidence be provided through personal experience and experimentation. (By the way, I believe this sort of "reasonability" is lacking in many if not in most Christians which is why so many of us have such a deplorable personal testimony.) In this light, while belief in God may lack the same sort of reasonability science has, it does have a reasonability more closely akin to believing your mother loves you--a conclusion no doubt many scientists have drawn without applying their mothers to rigorous scientific testing.
  5. Neon_Ninja Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 27, 2002
    star 1
    Darth Snowdog and other evolutionists,

    If you wouldn't mind, I would like some specifics on how exactly evolution has been witnessed. No need to get defensive with this post. This is me just trying to gather information. At least a couple of you have corrected me on this point but I consider the correction incomplete until I know a little more about where you're coming from. At the very least I don't want to repeat the same mistake. Thanks.
  6. Peez Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    Neon_Ninja:
    Darth Snowdog and other evolutionists,
    I am not sure what an "evolutionist" is (am I a gravitist? an atomist? a heliocentrist?), but I do accept that life on this planet evolved from a common ancestor.
    If you wouldn't mind, I would like some specifics on how exactly evolution has been witnessed. No need to get defensive with this post. This is me just trying to gather information. At least a couple of you have corrected me on this point but I consider the correction incomplete until I know a little more about where you're coming from. At the very least I don't want to repeat the same mistake. Thanks.
    I would be happy to provide more specific information. It is often frustrating to see individuals who lecture everyone on evolution without even knowing what it is, but I have no problem at all with people who realize that they have a limited understanding of it. There are many areas in which I know little, and I don't generally try to tell experts in these areas that they have got it all wrong. Of course, this does not mean that we should blindly accept everything that an expert tells us, but neither should we be so arrogant as to presume a better knowledge and understanding of a field than an expert when we have no more than the most basic ideas (or not even that). I guess that this is just a long-winded way of saying that your question is quite reasonable and I do not feel defensive. :)

    First, we need to define "evolution." This is a term which tends to be used to cover a number of different, though related, things. Creationists often throw the origin of the universe, the formation of the solar system, and the emergence of life in with evolution, but these are different issues from biological evolution. Many people (including creationists) think that evolution is the history of life on earth: the common descent of the many species of organisms that are found on the planet today, having changed slowly over time. This is not incorrect, but it is separate from the proposed mechanism for this pattern of evolution (the theory of evolution), and it is not how "evolution" is defined by evolutionary biologists. Biological evolution may be defined as:

    An inheritable change, from one generation to the next, in characteristics of individuals in a population.

    Next, we need to be clear on what is meant by "witnessed." Typically, we think of witnessing something as seeing it, or perhaps detecting it by some other sense (hearing, smell, touch, etc.). In fact, such witnessing is indirect. Even if we ignore the issue of how real our universe, as we perceive it, is, we are relying on the interpretation of phenomena that we assume to be associated with what we have "witnessed." For example, you "see" the computer in front of you. How? The parts of your brain concerned with consciousness are interpreting data from the visual cortex as an image of a computer, the visual cortex is processing signals that come from the eyes, the eyes are responding to photons that impact certain parts of certain cells in the retina, these photons have entered the eyes and been focused on the retina (in a reversed image), and those photons traveled from the computer to your eyes. In a very literal sense, you "see" things as they were in the past (albeit, the very recent past), and only after a great deal of processing and interpretation. The time factor is more obvious when we look at the sun (and see it as it was about 8 minutes ago), or a star (seen as it was years ago). The processing aspect is more obvious when we look at certain optical illusions (when the processing messes up), or cases in which someone "sees" something that is not there at all (hallucinations, wishful thinking, just plain mistakes).

    In the same sense, we can "witness" something by receiving data from rocks rather than photons. We had to assume that the photons actually came from the star and traveled to us following the usual laws of physics, and we have to assume that the rock
  7. Nunquam Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2000
    star 1
    ...it does have a reasonability more closely akin to believing your mother loves you--a conclusion no doubt many scientists have drawn without applying their mothers to rigorous scientific testing...

    No...that's not a good comparison. A more accurate one would be living with the belief that there is a "soul mate" for you in the world somewhere who has loved you all your life, whom you've never met and may never meet except in "another life" or an afterlife. Or, pretending you have an imaginary spouse who loves you as much as you love him/her/it.

    The comparison with a mother's love is not a good one, because nearly all of us have had direct experience of our mothers' love...hearing and seeing them say the actual words "I love you," our direct experience of their care and concern for us during childhood and even after childhood, their continued physical prescence in our lives, our observations of similar actions she performs for our siblings, etc.

    You don't have that with supernatural beings.

    (Whether you intended it or not, using "a mother's love" is an example of the tactic of using a powerful emotional symbol to sell Christianity).
  8. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Neon_Ninja: Because not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken symbolically. If you would devote yourself to discovering the truth about God, you would find that He is a reality.

    Says who? One religion out of thousands? The Hindus don't say anything about the Bible's definition of God, except our scripture implies that description is incorrect. The Buddhists don't believe in God in the way the Bible describes it. Atheists don't believe in God at all. And so on... So, when there are a variety of religions which also find evolution theory a plausible explanation for how we evolved, on what basis, if any at all, are the rest of us to accept Creation theory over the sum total of other scientific and religious viewpoints?

    If you want evidence of how we have witnessed evolution, read back through every one of my posts on evolution... I have made consistent reference to evidence, and almost all of the time cited my sources. If what I've already posted isn't enough for you, do your own homework... don't be shy... read all the source material I listed. I'm not going to repost it all.

    The two most recent findings I've noted were studies by UCSD (and I know researchers elsewhere have conducted similar studies with similar findings, this is just one example) demonstrating in living organisms how macroevolution happens, and a NASA study which has managed to duplicate cell membrane-like structures in a simulated deep-space environment. In addition, it may have been the same study done at the Ames Research Center which managed to create amino acids in a deep space-like environment.

    Here are the links:

    Cell Membranes

    Amino Acids

    Macroevolution

    The findings, combined with the sum total of astrobiology's multidisciplinary knowledge base suggest very strongly that life formed on earth 3.8-4 billion years ago because of electrochemical/biochemical reactions that occurred between the elements formed originally out of the earth, which itself was formed from interstellar dust, and other components that could have formed in space and found their way to earth through one of the many meteorites that bombarded the earth's atmosphere. In addition, doesn't it seem too unlikely to be just a coincidence that at the same time, about 3.6 billion years ago, it's now known that microbial life existed on Mars?

    That life may have died out for hundreds of reasons... the most obvious being that Earth is closer to the Sun and the atmospheric components that developed here provided better environments for microbial life to flourish. Think of all the near-misses nature may have had... the many false starts that could have happened in the first 600-700 million years of earth's existence!

    The link on macrobiology shows that scientists have demonstrated with living organisms how significant leaps are made in short spans of time of evolution through what are called Hox genes, master genes that act as on/off switches for subsets of tens, maybe even hundreds of genes each. When one Hox gene is mutated, it causes a change in development so radical because hundreds of other definition genes are altered by that singular mutation.
  9. Neon_Ninja Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 27, 2002
    star 1
    So, when there are a variety of religions which also find evolution theory a plausible explanation for how we evolved, on what basis, if any at all, are the rest of us to accept Creation theory over the sum total of other scientific and religious viewpoints?

    Darth Snowdog: I'm not sure why this is being addressed to me. Perhaps it?s because of my rant on Gish and evolution that some have come to the conclusion that I don't believe in it. That's wrong. I believe in creation insofar as I know God exists. And because He exists I believe that He did indeed create the universe and everything in it. Do not draw any additional conclusions from the above statement. I don't know how he did it. I have no idea how long it took. I don't know what it would look like to witness God in the act of creating. I don?t know if He is still creating. Etc.

    I freely admit that there are other people much smarter than I am and are much more gifted in the sciences. If these people as a community concludes that evolution/big bang are the best explanations for how we got to where we are, I can accept that.

    Because not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken symbolically. If you would devote yourself to discovering the truth about God, you would find that He is a reality.

    This was not in reference to Genesis 1 and says nothing about creation. I was responding to a suggestion that, if some Biblical passages are to be taken symbolically why not treat the word "God" as a symbol for all that is--known and unknown?

    As mentioned above, I know God exists and therefore cannot treat the word symbolically.

    As far as I'm concerned, I don't know how anyone who claims to have an ounce of common sense can look at Genesis 1 and read it literally if for no other reason than God didn't create the sun and moon until the 4th day, and until you have these you don't have a 24 hour day.

    As for your references, thank you. I am looking for specific instances where we see evolution happening. Maybe I just missed this in your previous posts or maybe I don't "see" things evolving in your arguments because I lack the proper optics (education). Anyway, thanks again.
  10. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    As mentioned above, I know God exists and therefore cannot treat the word symbolically.

    The word "god" is a word... it's a symbol. It represents a construct. Example: I am a person, but I am not the word "person"... by whatever name you call me, it does not change what I am. What nunquam was getting at, I think, is the fact that the anthropomorphization of god itself is a symbolic gesture that has no basis in anything observable or provable. So, Nunquam's assertion was that if the rest of the Bible can be taken symbolically, how is it that the definition of God is the one area in which the Bible's descriptives are absolute and not symbolic? On what basis are we to believe that the Bible is absolutely correct about God, and only symbolic about everything else?

    Instead of giving god these specifics, knowing that god is, by most religious accounts, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent... if that is the only detail of god that is agreed upon by all religions... then why bother to anthropomorphize? Why not simply acknowledge that god is formless, timeless, limitless? Otherwise, what's the point of defining god as anything but that? It may make the story more interesting and easier to relate to... but it doesn't mean that's how god works. Ever hear of poetic license?

    My response to your statement was precisely that it makes no sense to me on what logic you make your assertions about God when they are clearly based on a Biblically-influenced idea of what god is. That idea itself is symbology... because it's words describing god, not god itself. You may not see your image of god as being Bible-specific... but I do, because I come from a different religious background. Just because you believe that's what god is, doesn't make it so... even if 3 billion other Christians believe it, it still doesn't mean the other 3.5 billion non-Christians take that definition for granted.

    The Bible's idea of god may not have been intended to be symbolic... but in the face of all the other religions and sciences that attempt to find god, how can one think theirs is the absolute definition of god... especially without having awareness or understanding of the other definitions of god?

    Discovering "the truth of god" isn't limited to reading Biblical passages... so I don't understand how the Biblical passages that attempt in one small book to describe his infinte nature can be anything but "God: The Abridged Version".

    If that isn't symbology, what is?
  11. Palpazzar Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2000
    star 4
    The Bible doesn't attempt to explain to any complete degree the nature of God. In fact, it really only gives us small pictures of his character. And if you would take the time to understand what the Bible says you would know that even it proclaims that the fullness of God is way beyond the ability of humans to perceive.

    God has let us know some but not all of himself.

    But 'god' is a generic word. Of course when you think of it, every word and idea is merely a symbol for what is real so what is the point of worrying about that?
  12. Neon_Ninja Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 27, 2002
    star 1
    My response to your statement was precisely that it makes no sense to me on what logic you make your assertions about God when they are clearly based on a Biblically-influenced idea of what god is.

    Snowdog, when did I even give my belief about what God is? You are right in assuming that because I am Christian the core components of my religion come from the Bible. But God is not religion. I would not have the picture of God that I have today had I not studied, explored, and most importantly experimented with other religions like Hinduism, Taoism, and Native American spiritualism. Personally, I think the best definition of God I've ever heard comes from the Tao Te Ching which does not even acknowledge the Tao as God.

    As for symbols and what not, maybe I misunderstood, but I don't think so. This is exactly what I was responding to:

    then why is it so hard to think of God as a symbol of the timeless, eternal, evolving universe...rather than "humanizing" it and believing that an intelligent entity created everything?

    Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seemed to think that what Nunquam was talking about was "the word "god" is a word... it's a symbol. It represents a construct."

    If you want to get into a linguistic discussion over signifiers and signifieds, fine. But I really doubt Nunquam was complaining out the inadequacy of words to completely describe the tangibles and intangibles for which they stand.

    Rather, he was suggesting that the word "God" act as a symbol of the limitlessness of the universe instead of the spiritual entity actively and consciously at work in His creation. Because I have personally encountered this entity, I cannot treat the word "God" as a symbol for anything other than this entity.

    This does not mean I completely understand the nature of God or that I have all the answers concerning Him. I simply know that I have encountered something that I can only describe as God. Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, etc. have done the same but use different vocabulary to describe their experiences. Mind you, I am only talking about the act of experiencing God. I am well aware that theologies, traditions, and rituals differ from here to the moon.

    but in the face of all the other religions and sciences that attempt to find god, how can one think theirs is the absolute definition of god... especially without having awareness or understanding of the other definitions of god?

    I have no idea. But I do know that I am probably more critical on Christians on this particular point than you are. Christianity today is an ugly broken reflection of what Biblical Christianity was intended to be. By today's standards of Christianity, Christ Himself was probably more Buddhist than Christian.

    Now this is turning into another thread. If you'd like to know more about how I truly feel on the subject look over my posts on the thread "Many Paths to God" or private message me.

    Nunquam

    You make my point for me:

    nearly all of us have had direct experience of our mothers' love...hearing and seeing them say the actual words "I love you," our direct experience of their care and concern for us during childhood and even after childhood, their continued physical presence in our lives, our observations of similar actions she performs for our siblings, etc.

    If you omit the word "mother" and insert "God" then you have a good description of what my spiritual life has been like. This is why I made the comparison. Perhaps I should have been more specific and qualified it as my belief in God, although I know others have had experiences similar to mine.

    The analogy of the "soul mate" is not entirely wrong though. There are many many many "Christians" out there who may apathetically or fervently believe in Someone (or Something) they've never encountered. From the laity to clergy, these people have no basis for their faith which makes it transparent and fake to others. This is why I get so irritated wi
  13. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Neon_Ninja: One last digression before we return to the topic...

    ...but I really doubt Nunquam was complaining out the inadequacy of words to completely describe the tangibles and intangibles for which they stand.

    Rather, he was suggesting that the word "God" act as a symbol of the limitlessness of the universe instead of the spiritual entity actively and consciously at work in His creation. Because I have personally encountered this entity, I cannot treat the word "God" as a symbol for anything other than this entity.


    EDIT: If Nunquam is suggesting that this entity is limitless... How would your impression of the way in which god manifested in your experience be somehow outside the spectrum of limitlessness? That's a logical impossibility due to the very definition of "limitlessness".

    ...your first paragraph and second paragraph are, unmistakably, saying the same thing. Either way you put it, Nunquam's point, and he can correct me if I'm wrong... is that to picture god either way, it makes little sense to fix that construct to one particular definition when all other constructs in the Bible are allegedly flexible in meaning. I'm using the word "construct" in place of "symbol" to lessen the confusion here. Whether you call it one or the other...

    The irritation I have, and I think that Nunquam shares with me, is with people who acknowledge that the rest of the Bible may be metaphorical, yet base their impression of God on a Biblical definition that, despite the metaphors everywhere else in the Bible, is fixed in their minds.

    That being said, I can't begin to understand the impression of god that you have if you don't tell me about this personal experience of yours. If you want, PM me with it... so we can keep the discussion in this thread on track.

    What are your thoughts after having looked at the resources I gave you a few posts ago? Any questions, comments? Anything you don't understand?
  14. Nunquam Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2000
    star 1
    "...people who acknowledge that the rest of the Bible may be metaphorical, yet base their impression of God on a Biblical definition that, despite the metaphors everywhere else in the Bible, is fixed in their minds..."

    Yes, that's what I meant. There's always a great deal of earthly picking-and-choosing about what will and won't be accepted from the Bible in their daily lives (note the countless Christian sects in existence), about what will be ignored and what will be followed strictly.
  15. cydonia Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 6, 2001
    star 5
    I've noticed that in discussions here with many Christians, the things that they feel are metaphorical become metaphorical, and the things that the faith really hinge on, namely the actual ressurection of Christ, are absolutely 100% fact. It's weird. If they can pick and choose what's a metaphor and what's fact, why can't i? Birds fly over the rainbow.
  16. Palpazzar Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2000
    star 4
    Not all are like that.
  17. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Our ability to understand where life came from may have just exploded into a new dimension... Chlorophyll molecules on Mars have been discovered in a re-examination of the 1997 expedition's findings.

    The implications are absolutely mind-boggling. Not only could we understand how life may have begun to evolve on our planet, but how the diversity of life could have been seeded with additional components from, as mentioned in previous posts, precursors of life such as amino acids forming in interstellar space and chlorophyll molecules that may have found their way to earth via stray planetoids/meteorites that could have picked them up while passing through Mars' atmosphere.

    Even more startling is the potential that plant life may still exist on Mars. Given the presence of chlorophyll, complex, multicellular plant life may very well exist in places we have not yet been able to excavate.

    I do sincerely hope that this launches an interest in a full, manned, archaeological expedition to Mars within the next 20 years as NASA has long been hoping. Combined with the latest in propulsion systems, the trip could take less than 120 days.

    Now the creationists have a lot of explaining to do... because Creation Theory says absolutely zilch about interplanetary life... and it offers no explanation whatsoever for the presence of and similarity to some of earth's life-sustaining components, chlorophyll and water (found abundantly present by the 2001 Mars Odyssey mission), as well as evidence previously found of microbial life having once existed there.
  18. cydonia Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 6, 2001
    star 5
    Well, they might not talk about the planets and outer space, but there's probably a reason for that: The most important thing in the universe is the planet earth, and our obligation to Jesus Christ. The heavens may be pretty to look at, but they are just wasted space. Who cares what's out there? A bunch of dead rocks?

    Anyway if God had wanted us to go to outer space he would have given us wings and the ability to survive outside the earth's atmosphere, but he didn't. So there.
  19. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Wow, how can I possibly argue with that?

    [face_mischief]
  20. Fat_Fett Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 24, 2001
    star 4
    I am a VERY strict Creationist, and I have it backed by scientific facts....a whole ton of them.

    The main thing is, Creation is true and so is Evolution....but not "evolution" as we know it. Things do not evolve into totally different forms, they develop what they already have (organs, etc) to their own environment. The best example I can give of this is: look at us ("us" being the people of the USA) and observe how much oxygen our lungs can contain, and how our bodies use up the oxygen. Now, look at the people of the Himalayan Mountains. Observe how they use the same God-given lungs that we have to use the limited oxygen in their air much more effectively than we ever could. Because these people have lived their for thousands of years, their lungs have addapted.

    Now, if some group of people and all of that group's descendants just swam around in the water for all of their lives, they wouldn't develop gills and flippers to more effectively swim. The most they would develop is bigger muscles in the shoulders and legs, so they could swim better.


    I'll explain this all better in my next LLOOONNNNGGGGG post. :D
  21. Fat_Fett Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 24, 2001
    star 4
    I typed this about 4 months ago for a debate on Evolution vs. Creation. It took me forever (2 weeks), so enjoy! :D






    The Search for Truth: Creationism vs. Evolution

    There has been a question that has been continuously asked over the last 150 years: ?What is the answer to the origin all of things- Creation or evolution?? My answer to this question is that everything we see and cannot see was made by the Creator, known as God. In my essay I will reveal amazing true facts that prove the theory of evolution to be completely false. I will start by pointing out the main ideas of each theory.

    According to the theory of evolution, the universe was once a small, subatomic particle. Suddenly, rapid motions occurred in the particle hundreds of billions of years ago, causing it to expand very rapidly. This ?Big Bang? theory allegedly explains the beginnings of the universe. After the explosions, particles gathered at random to form chance objects (Emporium Int). The chance objects formed include the stars, the planets, and all other universal phenomena. The Earth was one of these planets, and was at first uninhabitable and a hostile environment.
    According to the theory, the Earth was covered in a ?Primordial Soup,? out of which came the first cell. This cell soon evolved independently into a life form. Slowly it evolved, changing from a cell, to a blob, then an invertebrate, next to an underwater creature, into an amphibious creature, then a land-dwelling creature, and finally, a flying creature. While these cells were changing over the process of millions and perhaps billions of years, other cells ceased to change at all over this huge span of time. This is how scientists ?know? the millions of life forms alive today came to exist. The theory of evolution is supposed to be supported by the fossil record, which scientists say contains millions of fossils that have accumulated over millions of years (Library Int).

    The most controversial section of the theory of evolution is that man evolved from apes. As different creatures evolved into primates, the primates continued to evolve, themselves becoming smarter and beginning to walk upright. Over hundreds of thousands of years, through the process of ?survival of the fittest,? pre-historic man appeared on the Earth. Apes somehow still exist even today, even though they all should have evolved out of their species like the other apes, because according to the theory of evolution, the evolutionary cycle continues even today (Emporium Int). Eventually pre-historic man became modern man, but only after making a long series of improvements, including the discovery of fire, blacksmithing, and culture (Library Int).
    Now, the Theory of Creation states that in the beginning, before time itself even existed, an omni powerful, omni present God (the Creator) created the universe from the words that came from His mouth, and did it all in six 24-hour days (Library Int). He created the entire universe, the galaxies, and all of the planets about 10,000 years ago (Emporium Int). When He created Earth, He created all of the bodies of water on the first day. Then, on the second day, He made dry land appear, and soon after He made the plants, trees, and grasses. On the third day, to separate between the night and the day, He created the sun and the moon, and all of the stars. After doing this He made all of the underwater creatures and all flying animals on the fourth day. On the fifth day of his creation, God created all of the land animals and mammals. Finally, on the sixth day of His creation, God created man. He said that He would make man in His own image (it?s kind of hard to picture God as a monkey). He made man out of the dust, and breathed life into him. God told Adam, the first man, that he would rule over all the creatures, and he was to name all of the creatures as well. On the seventh day, after completing all of His creation, God rested.

    God saw that His creation was good, and He was pleased by it. Soon, though, God saw that Adam, the m
  22. Nunquam Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2000
    star 1
    What grade did you get?

    As far as I'm concerned there is no debate, because the entire Creationist argument rests on the belief that intelligent, supernatural beings performed feats of magic to create and shape the world -- allegedly, they can create and destroy anything, at any time, for any reason or no reason at all beyond a whim. Curiously, like childhood "imaginary friends," these beings refuse to reveal themselves to "non-believers" -- the very people who need convincing.

    But that's not all -- it's not just any supernatural being, no, it is specifically the one called Yahweh, created a few thousand years ago by an obscure, Bronze Age Semitic tribe living in the Near East. Christians will entertain no other possibility, no room for other beings or other possibilities. (I wonder how arguments for Christian/Jewish Creation hold up in Japan or India or China.)

    Evolution is a theory. It's not complete, it doesn't purport to be the one, true, unchanging explanation of how the world came to be. Unlike religion, the evidence supporting or refuting this theory will not be revealed in a blinding flash of light -- nor will it be burned into metal or stone tablets, spoken by a disembodied voice, written on a wall by a disembodied finger, dictated by winged people bathed in light and harp music.

    No, it will come through collection and examination of hard evidence, through re-evaluation of previous assumptions and adjustments to the theory, through deduction based on what is already known to be true. There will be speculation, and people will endeavor to prove the speculation or the speculation will be discarded or placed aside. The theory itself evolves and becomes more and more complete, more accurate.

    Let's turn the tables a bit -- what evidence could disprove Creationism? What would have to happen? Those questions can be answered for those who believe Evolutionary Theory -- how about Creationism?
  23. Fat_Fett Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 24, 2001
    star 4
    Oh, I got an A.... everything that I proved wrong in my paper was in my opponents paper, who couldn't find anything to say to defend evolution after I had given my report. He was left speechless.

    Creationism is based on FAITH, and it proves the FAITH that Creationists believe in to be TRUE by proving the Evolutionary theory (the only "opposite view" theory") FALSE, through scientific process, that as.
  24. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Now, if some group of people and all of that group's descendants just swam around in the water for all of their lives, they wouldn't develop gills and flippers to more effectively swim. The most they would develop is bigger muscles in the shoulders and legs, so they could swim better.

    Actually, what you're describing is Lamarckian evolution. Lamarck argued that evolutionary changes occur solely as a result of environmental needs... A prime example was his assertion that because giraffes needed to stretch their necks to reach the trees, they grew longer necks, and successive generations carried this trait. Lamarck's theory of evolution has been dismissed for at least 100 years.

    According to the theory of evolution, the universe was once a small, subatomic particle.

    No, the origins of the universe aren't dealt with in evolutionary science. Evolutionary science is, however, a subset of the multidisciplinary field Astrobiology. I'd already described astrobiology in a previous post, so you might want to take a look at that.

    According to the theory of evolution, the universe was once a small, subatomic particle. Suddenly, rapid motions occurred in the particle hundreds of billions of years ago, causing it to expand very rapidly. This ?Big Bang? theory allegedly explains the beginnings of the universe. After the explosions, particles gathered at random to form chance objects (Emporium Int). The chance objects formed include the stars, the planets, and all other universal phenomena. The Earth was one of these planets, and was at first uninhabitable and a hostile environment.

    This is an interesting, if not pointless, deviation into astrophysics. The problem with this shallow interpretation of Big Bang theory (which, by the way, is only one of several theories as to the origin of the universe... all of which are still being studied and scrutinized and debated within the scientific community itself... Unlike Creation theory, which has no basis for scientific scrutiny, and therefore no basis upon which it can be scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt. For that matter, Creation theory isn't even accepted unanimously by the theologians of the world... much less the myriad Christian denominations which themselves can't seem to agree on the supposedly inarguable specifics and accuracy (or lack thereof) of Biblical scripture. The problem with your incorporation of this digression is that you barely understand evolutionary science, much less astrobiology, and you're attempting to make very shallow the gap between the Universe which is estimated as being 15 billion years old, and the earth, estimated at 4.6 billion years of age. This is a classical tactic used by crackpots within the Creationist community to distract us from the gargantuan spans of time it took for galaxies, planetary systems and biospheres to develop. It's as if the presenter wants us to perceive evolution and Big Bang theory as completely impossible, so they create an optical illusion of words to distract us from the gargantuan spans of time within which these developments took place... with many successes but even many more failures.

    Fat_Fett, I have a challenge for you... count to three billion, six hundred million. Now imagine that each one of those numbers you count is a year. My point is that the egocentrism of Creationists can't fathom a planet of 4.6 billion years age, much less 6000. If it's beyond their understanding, they refuse to acknowledge the possibility. This is not just arrogance, but ignorance, of man to think that our history doesn't extend beyond that of the recorded history of the Hebrews... I've argued about this before, and I've presented data on radiocarbon dated paintings in caves of France that age more than 40,000 years... the world's oldest man-recorded history.

    Also, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry and nuclide aging are techniques that are widely accepted by the scientific community for dating a variety of compounds. Presently, no respected Biblical scholar r
  25. cydonia Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 6, 2001
    star 5
    Good god, that's the longest post i've ever seen in my entire life! Should i read it? I'll try. Non scentists come around here occasionally, too. ;)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.