Evolution, Science, Creation

[CanisLupus]

1) Evolution and Creationism is not a true science.
It is more accurately called a religion. People put a "cap" (an end idea) like God created everything, or the Big Bang created everything and then try to find evidence in science that proves their "cap" to be true.

What people should do is look at true pure science and see where it leads. From my research the only thing that really makes the most sense out of pure science is creationism, pure science seems to go very much against Evolution.

2) Creation/Evolution not a proven truth?
For people who have had true visions from God or have spoken to Him and have seen answers to prayer by Him have proof that there is a God so that Creation must be correct if there is a God. There is a problem... people lie far to much (one lie is far to much), so visions and answers to prayers that people tell others about are always subject to investigation... so sometimes the only person who has the pure evidence of the truth is the one who had the experience of the vision or answer to prayer. So therefore to truely know that God exists is to have communication with Him.

Within Evolution this kind of Evidence is impossible.

 

[The Lady Kate]

1) Evolution and Creationism is not a true science.
It is more accurately called a religion. People put a "cap" (an end idea) like God created everything, or the Big Bang created everything and then try to find evidence in science that proves their "cap" to be true.

What people should do is look at true pure science and see where it leads. From my research the only thing that really makes the most sense out of pure science is creationism, pure science seems to go very much against Evolution.

I would very much like to hear more about your research, and how "true pure science" led you to Creationism.

2) Creation/Evolution not a proven truth?
For people who have had true visions from God or have spoken to Him and have seen answers to prayer by Him have proof that there is a God so that Creation must be correct if there is a God. There is a problem... people lie far to much (one lie is far to much), so visions and answers to prayers that people tell others about are always subject to investigation... so sometimes the only person who has the pure evidence of the truth is the one who had the experience of the vision or answer to prayer. So therefore to truely know that God exists is to have communication with Him.

Within Evolution this kind of Evidence is impossible.

And with Creationism this kind of evidence is meaningless. Can anyone else ever truly evaluate your communications with God? Can anyone else ever verify that what we've communicated with is the Genuine Article?

For that matter, can we ever be sure ourselves? Or is it a matter of faith? "Communication with the Almighty" has justified acts of great charity and nobility, but also of great atrocity. Crusades, witch-burnings, planes flying into buildings, all of these things have been justified at the time with divine revelation.

Lots of people have "communications." But we take it as a matter of Faith that what we hear is the Voice of God, and not the signs of a psychotic breakdown. Is our faith evidence?

 

[Metaphor]

Let's face it...If I were to approch science with a completely un-bias mind I would screw both evo and creation. Creation clearly takes faith in God. God made everything, so to belive in creation you HAVE to have 100% faith that God is real and is at work even today.

Personally, I think evo has some major blows to it, too major to ignore. Thus, I belive that science points to creation...But then again that's just me.

-John

 

[TwinCrier]

Evolution is a theory. To become proven fact, there would have to be further evidence gathered by watching all species of the planet continue to evolve over the next several thousands of years. If, in several thousand years the human race.... or any species on the planet for that matter, has had the DNA of the entire species altered I would have to accept evolution as fact because then it would be proven. Since evolution is a theory based on the evaluation of evidence of the past, it is simply a theory.

 

[pjalford]

All I'm going to say is that I don't buy that theory that my ancestors were apes!

 

[Metaphor]

All I'm going to say is that I don't buy that theory that my ancestors were apes!

Along with that I find it interesting that their is ONE life form that dominates over the rest. We have an extreme ability to do millions of things that apes can't do. Take music for example. We can compose, feel, and see the emotion in music. Amps on the other hand...:-/

Once scientists put a PC in the midst of some apes. It didn't go over very well. They didn't understand that they keybored was ment for tpying, so they used it as a toilet. One thought the PC was evil, so it bashed it with stones.

To me this " abyss of existence" we are living in, it proof that God is real.

-John

 

[imind]

Personally, I think evo has some major blows to it, too major to ignore.

what are these "blows"?

Evolution is a theory.

evolution is both theory and fact, as far as science defines facts. the only theoretical part of evolution is/are the mechanisms that allowed it to happen. you do realize that much of our understanding of gravity is only theoretical, correct?

r any species on the planet for that matter, has had the DNA of the entire species altered

why would this be necessary? where does evolution say that in several thousand years the year DNA of an entire species will 'alter'?

Along with that I find it interesting that their is ONE life form that dominates over the rest. We have an extreme ability to do millions of things that apes can't do. Take music for example. We can compose, feel, and see the emotion in music. Amps on the other hand...:-/

Once scientists put a PC in the midst of some apes. It didn't go over very well. They didn't understand that they keybored was ment for tpying, so they used it as a toilet. One thought the PC was evil, so it bashed it with stones.

how does this, in any way, disprove evolution?

 

[Metaphor]

what are these "blows"?

evolution is both theory and fact, as far as science defines facts. the only theoretical part of evolution is/are the mechanisms that allowed it to happen. you do realize that much of our understanding of gravity is only theoretical, correct?

why would this be necessary? where does evolution say that in several thousand years the year DNA of an entire species will 'alter'?

how does this, in any way, disprove evolution?

One thing i've never understood is why their arn't millions of fossils of the "in between" stages. And sorry, that theory talking about how things jumped from animal type A to animal type B is just bogus.

Where did the basis for life come from? It sprang out of nothing? Where did nothing come from?

And no, im sorry; saying "where did your God come from?" is a narrow minded un-valid question. God was not created. He came from no where. He was there, is here, and always will be. "He was the God in the begining". God was not created, He is the Creator, He was not made. (that's the faith part).


Anyhow, with my music and ape stuff..

If evolution were true; where is their ONE life forum that has much more advanced form of thinking and beliving? Out of the BILLIONS of life forms their are; we dominate thought, mind and body. their are no other life form that come CLOSE to our ability to think, understand, belive, write, speak, converse, love, care, hate, acknowlage, etc.

-John

 

[random_guy]

One thing i've never understood is why their arn't millions of fossils of the "in between" stages. And sorry, that theory talking about how things jumped from animal type A to animal type B is just bogus.

So what do you call the dino-bird transitions that were found?

Where did the basis for life come from? It sprang out of nothing? Where did nothing come from?

Which has nothing to do with evolution. It seems like nearly every single Creationsit has no idea what evolution actually is?

If evolution were true; where is their ONE life forum that has much more advanced form of thinking and beliving? Out of the BILLIONS of life forms their are; we dominate thought, mind and body. their are no other life form that come CLOSE to our ability to think, understand, belive, write, speak, converse, love, care, hate, acknowlage, etc.

-John

Which again, has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution states life ends up being a tree, not a ladder. Creatures are not progressed higher up some imaginary ladder to sentinent psychic superpower animals.

Perhaps you should give us a definition of evolution so we can find out where you went so wrong.

 

[Metaphor]

So what do you call the dino-bird transitions that were found?



Which has nothing to do with evolution. It seems like nearly every single Creationsit has no idea what evolution actually is?



Which again, has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution states life ends up being a tree, not a ladder. Creatures are not progressed higher up some imaginary ladder to sentinent psychic superpower animals.

Perhaps you should give us a definition of evolution so we can find out where you went so wrong.

Ok maybe I think evo. is something totally different.

Evolution - Noun
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.


Evolution says that there was no creator and everything came about naturally, correct?

In that case, my first question, "where did the basis for life come from" remains valid.

If it really did take millions of years for animal type A to get to animal type B, a LARGE percentage of our fossils would be the inbetween stages. the few we have are easiely debatable.

-John

 

[random_guy]

Ok maybe I think evo. is something totally different.

Evolution - Noun
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Nope, this is incorrect. Evolution says nothing of turning into a complex or better form. That's why the cockroach has remained almost unchanged in millions of years.

Evolution is the change of allele frequencies in a gene pool over time. This is a fact that this occurs. The theory of evolution explains why.

Now, in your above post, you mention a problem is that evolution can't explain the origin of life. Where in your definition does it mention this?

Evolution says that there was no creator and everything came about naturally, correct?

Again, this is misleading. Science makes no mention of a Creator. Theory of Evolution says as much about a Creator as Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory, and Atomic Theory.

Next, evolution doesn't mention anything about the origin of life. It explains the diversity of life.

In that case, my first question, "where did the basis for life come from" remains valid.

Again, no it's not valid. Even in your definition, there's no mention of a beginning. Even if God specially created every animal, evolution would still occur. Only thing would change is universal common descent to kind common descent.

If it really did take millions of years for animal type A to get to animal type B, a LARGE percentage of our fossils would be the inbetween stages. the few we have are easiely debatable.

Fossils are hard to form, but every fossil is a transition fossil. Perhaps you should explain what you think a transition fossil is. Maybe part of the problem is you don't understand the twin nested heirarchy of life evolution predicts.

You never stop being what you originally were. For example, you're a human, but you also are an ape. Transitional fossils show characteristics of humans and apes. Similarly, at lower levels, birds are still therapods, and we find lots of transitional fossils of birds-therapods.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

All I'm going to say is that I don't buy that theory that my ancestors were apes!

Why not?

 

[TwinCrier]

Maybe he'll believe it when he sees it. Get back with him in 10-100 million years.

 

[Metaphor]

Why not?

Ok well maybe we think of evolution as two different things. You have more of an opinion of what evolution really is, as other people think it explains everything their is to explain.

Also, I would aruge about the fossils more but if you are indeed a christian, then my arugements would become void.

btw, I stand with pjalford when i say "My ancestors were not apes!"


-John

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Ok well maybe we think of evolution as two different things. You have more of an opinion of what evolution really is, as other people think it explains everything their is to explain.

Also, I would aruge about the fossils more but if you are indeed a christian, then my arugements would become void.

btw, I stand with pjalford when i say "My ancestors were not apes!"


-John

Why do you hate God's apes?

 

[Metaphor]

Why do you hate God's apes?

I have nothing against apes at all. I love them. Their cute, smart, and they show God's handy work all the way. But what I DO hate with the idea that my ancestors were once apes.

God created every creature individually with love and care. I belive apes were created just as we were. I DO NOT belive that we were created from apes. Well, I also strongly belive in the Bible, so I guess my statement was a no-brainer.

-John

 

[gluadys]

From my research the only thing that really makes the most sense out of pure science is creationism, pure science seems to go very much against Evolution.

I would be very interested in knowing about some of the evidence which goes against evolution.

Also, is there any evidence for creationism? Or are you assuming that, if evolution is not true, creationism is true by default? Have you ever considered third options?

Within Evolution this kind of Evidence is impossible.

This kind of evidence is not impossible. It is just impossible to investigate it scientifically. btw 'evolution' is not a synonym for 'science'. Anything that is impossible for science is also impossible for evolution, since evolution is a scientific theory. But that is no reason to attribute the limitations of science to evolution in particular. It is just as impossible for the theory of gravity as for the theory of evolution.

 

[gluadys]

Let's face it...If I were to approch science with a completely un-bias mind I would screw both evo and creation. Creation clearly takes faith in God. God made everything, so to belive in creation you HAVE to have 100% faith that God is real and is at work even today.

Personally, I think evo has some major blows to it, too major to ignore. Thus, I belive that science points to creation...But then again that's just me.

-John

Even if evolution is not supported by science, that does not mean science supports creation either. You can believe science points to creation, but it is only a belief until you can point to specific evidence that points to creation.

And, btw, evolution is not an alternate to God. It is perfectly acceptable to believe in God and creation and also accept the scientific view of evolution.

 

[gluadys]

Evolution is a theory. To become proven fact, ...

Theories don't become facts. They relate facts to each other so that we can understand the significance of facts. Facts are data. Theories explain what the data means. Without theories, facts would be just a jumble of unrelated information without meaning.

 

[gluadys]

All I'm going to say is that I don't buy that theory that my ancestors were apes!

Since you are an ape, your parents (and more distant ancestors) must also have been apes. This is true of all humans.