***The Great Debate: Creation vs Evolution***

There's no evidence of macroevolution. So it doesn't contradict the Genesis account.

 

Careful, stating things as fact in this thread could get you crucified. Which unlike stating that creation is fact is not wrong because it has been proven...oh wait, no it hasn't, sorry people! My mistake.


to: Lord_Iskander

 

Alright, microevolution, yes. Macroevolution, no.

Exactly how does evolution not exist? It simply means, and I quote, change over time. Evolution is a fact. It occurs. The only debate is to what extent or how it does such. Natural selection isn't the only method of changing over time.

We share most of our dna with lesser organisms, so it's safe to assume we are related to them in some way. Otherwise, theoretically, each creature might have a unique DNA structure if it just 'arrived' there.

Now, far be it from me to strengthen a Christian's belief in Christianity, but doesn't the Bible say God is infinately complex and infinately superior in thinking ability?

Taking this into account, would it not be safe to assume that evolution is God's work and his creation? I doubt any human living could come up with a method to survive as complex as evolution in nature. And again, we haven't a clue HOW nature/life KNOWS how to change -- it just does.

Now while I believe this is something programmed into nature, God could very well be guiding this development through a complex process that He put in place to keep life thriving on this little rock we call Earth.

To deny evolution, or rather to embrace creationism, is to deny that God has the ability, power, and intelligence in which to create a logical, perfectally thought out staircase-like base for all life to exist on Earth so that it will continue till the end of this planet. That sounds much better than, "Well, God waved his hand and it just appeared here!" The former makes God out to be a true supreme being, the latter sounds like a child who dumped sand from one sand box, to another without any prior thought in how history, basis for life, ect. would come into play.

Just because a book states the Earth was created in 6 days, doesn't mean it LITERALLY meant 6 days and everything is to be taken LITERALLY. Keep also in mind, that the book just MIGHT be wrong. After all, it has no references of empiracle experiements/observations to back its' assertion: evolution does. Not to mention the Bible has multiple creation stories and mistranslations.

Wow, I mean, it's totally impossible the Bible could have ever been changed/edited/corrupted/mistranslated/ect. in the 3000 years all of it's books have been around. It's got to be right, because it says it is! Screw evidence, proof, experiments, observations, thousands of these so called 'scientists' and their research to come up with explainations of how God's universe works! That single-faced, shallow, meaningless creation story supercedes it all!





....See how silly it sounds? I don't even know why there's a debate. The explaination of evolution is just another step in understanding how God's universe works..how SHE created it.

To accept God, is to accept the natural universe and its' workings as a part of the infinitely complex and benevolent plan of the One we call God. To deny nature and all of its' glory, is to deny God and Her creations.

To me, the natural world provides more than enough proof, reason, evidence, dogma, ect. for belief in my Creator than any book or man-made theory could ever. Just think of which came first.

-GAT

 

There's no evidence of macroevolution. So it doesn't contradict the Genesis account.

Macroevolution is simply micro-evolution viewed in the larger context. You cannot have micro-evolution without macro-evolution. It's like having micro-biology without macro-biology.

It's like saying that you accept that a drop of water is made of H20 but that you don't accept that an ocean is made up H20.

 

Robert Russell, Professor of Theology and Science; Graduate Theological Union, said it best when, "I think if you really push intelligent design, it'll implode on itself." I think he's right, just this very board shows the lengths the religious go through to prove creationism/intelligent design, to be correct. And keep in mind that this guy teaches at a Church.

 

Careful, stating things as fact in this thread could get you crucified. Which unlike stating that creation is fact is not wrong because it has been proven...oh wait, no it hasn't, sorry people! My mistake.


to: Lord_Iskander

are you refering to me stating as fact that evolution occurs?

Anyone disaproves? They need to take a refreshment course in biology.

PS: I was not stating that Creation did NOT
occur.

Read my previous post. The last post on page 4.

EDIT: Robert Russell, Professor of Theology and Science; Graduate Theological Union, said it best when, "I think if you really push intelligent design, it'll implode on itself." I think he's right, just this very board shows the lengths the religious go through to prove creationism/intelligent design, to be correct. And keep in mind that this guy teaches at a Church.

I seem to be very stupid, cause I have no Ideea as to wich side are advocating by this. Could you please elaborate for me? What exactly does inteligent design mean?

 

It was meant to be sarcastic/ironic. A little jab at those who believe in creation, because quite a few of them state that creation is a fact. Nevermind though, the whole point was wasted.

 

Well, I never said it was fact. I don't remember anyone saying that.

 

Not to weigh in on this discussion either way, but not everything scales, TheOzhaggis. For instance, an individual carbon atom does not behave the same way a large diamond behaves; there's a gap between quantum and Newtonian mechanics.

There are problems that arise in macroevolution that do not arise in microevolution: the leap from single-celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms, the leap from asexual to sexual reproduction, and the leap from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells.

The theory doesn't simply scale up. It may be the case that macroevolution is as valid as micro-, but the theory needs to stand on its own. It's sloppy to do otherwise.

 

Implying is the same as stating it's fact, IMO.


Also, Bubba, you say leap like it's some sort of sudden thing. It takes many generations to evolve. Just as a horse used to be the size of a cat. I think leap is not the term you're looking for.

 

There are problems that arise in macroevolution that do not arise in microevolution: the leap from single-celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms, the leap from asexual to sexual reproduction, and the leap from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells.

The theory doesn't simply scale up. It may be the case that macroevolution is as valid as micro-, but the theory needs to stand on its own. It's sloppy to do otherwise.

I agree,Bubba.

It is refreshing to read your posts, btw.

 

Also, Bubba, you say leap like it's some sort of sudden thing. It takes many generations to evolve. Just as a horse used to be the size of a cat. I think leap is not the term you're looking for.

"Leap" may be apropos in that the result is so different from what was there at the beginning.

Think of it this way: going from coal to a diamond is not a leap in that, in the end, we're still dealing with carbon. Going from iron ore to a diamond would be a leap because the change would require altering the nuclear structure of each atom. Even if that took a very long time, it's still a more difficult thing to pull off than merely arranging carbon atoms that already exist.

(I'm using the word "leap" not to denote speed but to denote difficulty.)

And changing sizes may seem to be a dramatic example of macroevolution, but compare a chihuahua to a Saint Bernard.

Going from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells is such a dramatic change that I don't think an appeal to the scaleability of microevolution suffices.

Again, I'm not saying whether this makes the theory right or wrong; I'm just saying that there are certain things that macroevolution needs to address, things that aren't problems for micro-.


And thank you, Iskander.

 

Bubba, forgive me for over-simplifying. I never intended to reduce macro-evolution to nothing-but micro-evolution. I realise that systems have emergent properties at the macro-scale that cannot be reduced to properties of the system at the micro-scale (eg, the Lotka-Volterra system in chemistry).

But it does not follow that they are separable. Micro- and macro- evolution are not separate systems, but different organisational levels of the same system.

The micro-scale behaviour of the atoms in boiling water is not the same as the macro-scale behaviour of boiling water - but that does not mean they are independent. You cannot separate them and say the behaviour of atoms is valid while the behaviour of boiling water is not valid.

 

Gradually evolve would be more apt. Since it does implies what actually occurs. Remember, we were all a single-celled organism in our mothers, at one point. Is it so illogical that we could've evolved from a single-celled organism?

 

on a side note:
Bubba did you have a chance to read your PM?




Edited for clarity

 

Something I noticed: is it me or is this debate actually between fence-sitters that are slightly swaying more to one side or the other, rather than hardcore fundamentalists (on either side)?

Or is it just diplomacy?

 

Something I noticed: is it me or is this debate actually between fence-sitters that are slightly swaying more to one side or the other, rather than hardcore fundamentalists (on either side)?

Or is it just diplomacy?

Hmmm...TheOzhaggis did you read the rest of the thread?

I dunno if Bubba leans towards my possition or not, He didn't take me up on my challange. As for me I've stated my beliefs more than once on this thread.

I dunno If I'm core fundamentalist (I probably ain't). However I believe in Evolutionism over Creationism.

Does that answer your question?

 

Totally off the point.

You refer to the development of each person from a single-celled organism to adult organism ... ?

It's hardly off the point. In fact it's right in the middle of the point.

Reproduction and development is simply the successful realisation of the processes necessary to evolve a single-cell to a multi-cellular organism.


Hmmm...TheOzhaggis did you read the rest of the thread?

No - sorry to say I didn't. I take it I've entered the debate during a calm before the storm ?

 

Totally off the point.

You refer to the development of each person from a single-celled organism to adult organism ... ?


no I was asking Bubba question. Obviously he is no longer reading the thread.

 

No worries.

 

Iskander, I did read your IM and mulling over the reply.

 

I have to say I am a believer in both. It nevers states in the Bible that Adam and Eve were hairless

 

Oh I think Genesis and the scientific evidence can definately be reconciled. Evolution and Creation don't have to opposed to eachother.

But the spiritual and religious aspect of it has no place in a science class.

 

I know you guys will say "Where did you come from," but i just saw this and have one simple thing to say:

Who is more foolish, the man who believes that everything came from nothing, or the man who believes that an inteligent being created everything

Both set of beliefs require faith, but which one makes more sense?

 

"But the spiritula and religious aspect of it has no place in a science class"

I actually agree with that. I think the parents ought to teach that concept to their kids at home.I also believe that you should just avoid the subject in school and let the parents tell the kids what they want to.