Creation vs. Evolution

[SeaYoda]

I really tried to read all of this thread but it kept repeating the same old tired arguments on both sides so I didn't make it. If I repeat something that someone else has said - sorry. Definitions seem to be some of the difficulty in a discussion of this topic. I'll do my best to be clear in what I'm about to say - sorry if I'm not. Science is a lot like religion - each has many who disagree within its ranks as to particulars. Each is a system of faith - some based in truth others error. A discussion like this could never answer for all facets of either of these faiths, I don't claim to be able to either.

To start, here is some food for thought:

1. If God exists and is supreme, could he not have the power to create the universe in 6 days?

2. If God created the universe in 6 days, would it have to look brand new?

I'm a Christian who believes that the Bible is literal in the 6 days of creation and the true age of the Earth is less than 10,000 years. In the days of creation, according to Genesis, God made all things in a complete form and set the laws for the continuance of all things. How old did Adam look to be 2 seconds after his creation? There must have been "apparent age" present in Adam and all creation. Why would God mislead us with such a "false looking" creation? If you read the scriptures it is evident that God intends to give us the choice to believe in him or not. We can take him at his word or not. If the world looked 6000 years old, would we have any choice but to believe in God? Everything in "evolution" and "science" does not contradict or disprove God's existence. You and I are free to interpret the "facts" and in the end we will account for our actions. This is faith and will NEVER be replaced by sight in this world.

"Science" makes a mistake when it discounts plausible theories such as creationism or intelligent design. "Science" has always had a difficult time getting at the truth due to biases of pet theories. Look at how long some of the true scientific facts have taken to gain approval in scientific circles. Facts are nothing when they are taken out of context. "Science" learns as it understands the context better. Look at all the changing theories over time and ask why something that was once believed as fact could be totally wrong today. The fact that there is mutation and micro-evolution can be just a part of intelligent design. The fact that many animals share characteristics and are closely related genetically and are made of mostly the same stuff can be because they were created to be suited to this world. The age of rocks and the distance/time light has taken to reach the Earth may be part of a created functioning universe. To discount what we have no proof for or against is pretty arrogant and sets us up for failure. Unfortunately our children are taught in school only the faith of evolution without the balance of the other faith. I would not want my children taught a specific religion, but being taught a plausible alternative theory to evolution from a scientific point of view would be very welcome. There are scientists who can match point for point what evolutionists claim as facts and claim them as proof of intelligent design. To discount these theories is going against scientific method and should bring the same fate on evolution theory as creationism - don't teach it on my tax dollar.

How did I do?

 

[Lovin_sum_Bubbles]

He also believes that "hexagonal" water or creation water is capable of healing.

If he has the faith for that...then he has the faith for that. If you are making fun of him for believing something, then I guess everyone could make fun of you for believe in your own life.

 

[Lovin_sum_Bubbles]

that expands to creationism... wupidu if God created you... but who created those that don't believe in God?

If you want to get biblical then God created everyone. We are formed in his image. God sent His son, Jesus, to be a light to the lost.

 

[Lost_At_Sea]

Damn, should have jumped on this last night when there was only two pages of replies. Oh well...

Firstly, I should point out that I'm a biologist by training and a scientist by profession, so I'm pretty familiar with evolution.

To "Lost at sea", if your planning on pursuing a degree in marine biology you're going to run into problems. Evolution is to biology what relativity & QED is to physics - it explains every biological phenomena we've ever encountered. Without evolution biology is just a collection of interesting facts; with evolution all of those facts become interlinked and form a single, concrete continuum of life.

If you don't at least understand the basic principals of evolution you are going to have a great deal of trouble understanding many of the concepts they are going to try and teach you - genetics, population dynamics, ecology, physiology, even biochemistry - they all have evolutionary underpinnings. The fact you don't seem to know the difference between the definitions of "adaptation" and "evolution" tells me you have a long ways to go.

As for evolution in general, it occurs, and you pretty much have to have had your head in the sand since 1905 to have not seen this - 1905 being the first time the evolution of a new species was observed. And it isn't some obscure speciation event either; many of us have the offspring of that speciation event in our gardens - the evening primrose. And that's just one of ~2000 speciation events observed & recorded so far. Right now I'm monitoring a student who is using evolution to identify forms of a pathogen resistant to our immune responses. We even use our knowledge of evolution to design the next years flu vaccine (how else could we predict what the next years flu virus is going to look like in advance?).

The last thing I'd like to comment on is the theme of "evolution vs religion", or for that matter "science vs. religion" which so often comes up in these discussion. Many people - creationists in particular - like to cast evolution/science as some form of atheism. This is an out-and-out lie of the part of those people. I've known dozens of scientists, of many different faiths, who believed in their god, their religion and evolution, all at the same time. Why people want to exclude evolution (or the big bang, or theories of abiogenesis) as ways god could have created us is a mystery to me. Who are we to put limits on god, to say what god can do?

Bryan

Listen, I understand evolution!! I am not stupid. I use to strongly believe in Evolution., but after researching it and studying both sides, which not many people do, I came to my own opinion. Just because I am going to study marine biology does not mean I have to believe in Evolution. Have you ever looked at Creation from a non-biased view. (I doubt it!) If you did, you would not put down Creation. "Science" has facts, but it is everyones different views about the facts that makes "Science"..."Science"

 

[Diver Dennis]

Listen, I understand evolution!!

Well, you did get the definition of evolution and adaptation mixed up...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost_At_Sea
When a population changes due to genetics, it isn't evolution. It is adaptation. Not evolution!!!! Something changes for the better to stay alive, is adapting to its environment, not evolving.

This is incorrect. Did you base all your responses on this?

 

[radinator]

Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

Love this. Let's apply it to other 'theories'.

The Theory of Gravity is a theory, not a fact.
The Theory Electromagnetism is a theory, not a fact.
The Theory Relativity is a theory, not a fact.
The Molecular Theory of Matter is a theory, not a fact.
The Germ Theory of Disease is a theory, not a fact.
The Theory Quantum Mechanics is a theory, not a fact.

What I find interesting is the science you choose to discard. Why not discard several of the others and stop using a computer (which is based on several of them). Discard Newton's Theory of Gravity and step out of a 3rd floor window. At least be consistent in tossing out the 'theories'.

You don't seem to understand what the word 'theory' means.

 

[Diver Dennis]

If he has the faith for that...then he has the faith for that. If you are making fun of him for believing something, then I guess everyone could make fun of you for believe in your own life.

How do you explain the fact that other creationists discredit him?

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/whatbau.htm

The credit for finding this goes to Wolverine. Thanks Tim.

 

[Wolverine]

I really tried to read all of this thread but it kept repeating the same old tired arguments on both sides so I didn't make it. If I repeat something that someone else has said - sorry. Definitions seem to be some of the difficulty in a discussion of this topic. I'll do my best to be clear in what I'm about to say - sorry if I'm not. Science is a lot like religion - each has many who disagree within its ranks as to particulars. Each is a system of faith - some based in truth others error. A discussion like this could never answer for all facets of either of these faiths, I don't claim to be able to either.

To start, here is some food for thought:

1. If God exists and is supreme, could he not have the power to create the universe in 6 days?

2. If God created the universe in 6 days, would it have to look brand new?

I'm a Christian who believes that the Bible is literal in the 6 days of creation and the true age of the Earth is less than 10,000 years. In the days of creation, according to Genesis, God made all things in a complete form and set the laws for the continuance of all things. How old did Adam look to be 2 seconds after his creation? There must have been "apparent age" present in Adam and all creation. Why would God mislead us with such a "false looking" creation? If you read the scriptures it is evident that God intends to give us the choice to believe in him or not. We can take him at his word or not. If the world looked 6000 years old, would we have any choice but to believe in God? Everything in "evolution" and "science" does not contradict or disprove God's existence. You and I are free to interpret the "facts" and in the end we will account for our actions. This is faith and will NEVER be replaced by sight in this world.

"Science" makes a mistake when it discounts plausible theories such as creationism or intelligent design. "Science" has always had a difficult time getting at the truth due to biases of pet theories. Look at how long some of the true scientific facts have taken to gain approval in scientific circles. Facts are nothing when they are taken out of context. "Science" learns as it understands the context better. Look at all the changing theories over time and ask why something that was once believed as fact could be totally wrong today. The fact that there is mutation and micro-evolution can be just a part of intelligent design. The fact that many animals share characteristics and are closely related genetically and are made of mostly the same stuff can be because they were created to be suited to this world. The age of rocks and the distance/time light has taken to reach the Earth may be part of a created functioning universe. To discount what we have no proof for or against is pretty arrogant and sets us up for failure. Unfortunately our children are taught in school only the faith of evolution without the balance of the other faith. I would not want my children taught a specific religion, but being taught a plausible alternative theory to evolution from a scientific point of view would be very welcome. There are scientists who can match point for point what evolutionists claim as facts and claim them as proof of intelligent design. To discount these theories is going against scientific method and should bring the same fate on evolution theory as creationism - don't teach it on my tax dollar.

How did I do?

Not bad Master Yoda . As long as Creationists try to apply scientific methods to prove or disprove Creationism, I would more than welcome them to the scientific fold. Its just that Creationists base their belief on the Bible and do not even try to test the theory. Fitting facts to Christian faith is not Science. It is Faith. The arguments used by Creationists esp in radioactive dating have always been incomplete. They exploit weakenesses in the methodology of radioactive dating and use it to "prove" Creationism. That is the main issue I have with it. All Creationists want is to disprove Evolution as a theory, not to disprove/prove Creationism as one. There is definitely something not scientific about that.

here is an example:

http://www.island.net/~rjbw/CreationScience.html

 

[Wolverine]

Here is probably one of the best criticism of Creationism on the net. Half truths, quotes taken out of context.. etc.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm

Ignoring evidence which disproves a theory is NOT scientific.

 

[grazie42]

Questions for the creationists (and I really would like to know, I´m not just asking to keep arguing):

-If nothing can come from nothing, ie life couldn´t have evolved on its own with the result of our "perfect" selves!, then where did the creator come from?

-If you find the idea that god "has always been around" easy to accept, how can you find the idea that "life" has always been around hard to believe?

Then there are the old ones:
-If god created all mankind in his image, how come there are so many "bad people"? (seems god isn´t all that good)
-If all the "bad things" is a "test", is god really a benign deity? (seems more like an experiment with labrats than with "people" you care for)