Creation vs Evolution

[cornetto]

I was reading through constant bickering about who is right and
who is wrong about the origin of man. Darvin formalized it, but I
believe this mentality must have originated after the advent of
mechanistic thinking brought along by Rene Descartes in the 17th
Century.  If we can break something down into its parts and
understand them, then we can put it back together and
understand the whole. 

Look at quantum physics, biology, physical science.  Each does
just this.  Going back to the origin of man, lets just say that they
are in fact the two absolutes for argument sake, and we each
have chosen our own belief - one of the two.  What then?  What
do we have.  Inner peace, an argumentative position, a political
front, a majority, a minority, what?  It would seem that if you
wanted to answer the question, with faith (required of either), of
where did we come from, you would also be concerned with the
question of why are we here?  However, this seems less important.

 

[Arikay]

Well, in the view of science, we know more about how the world works. Knowing more about how the world works is important one thing that it can have direct changes on is medicine.

 

[Aceldama]

I think it is wonderful that we have science, practically everything you see before your eyes is due to the scientific method. Using science in fields such as biology can help humans live longer and happier lives by improving medicine and other treatments (thanks Darwin!). Without basic physics we wouldn't even have the wheel!

It seems that science is a desperate search for what IS. Until we become gods science will not continue to cease questioning, unless creationism takes over that is, as according to creationists they practically believe they know the origin of everything and why everything is how it is in the universe...why bother researching? GODDIDIT!

BTW I didn't exactly understand what the original poster was asking.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 08:56 AM Aceldama said this in Post #3  Using science in fields such as biology can help humans live longer and happier lives by improving medicine and other treatments (thanks Darwin!). 

Darwin had nothing to do with "improving medicine". Zip, Zero, Zilch, nothing. My dad use to collect autographs of famous people who contributed to the field of medicine. Actually we still have them all somewhere. You will even find wierdos in there like Fraud and Spook. But there is no Darwin, because Darwin contributed nothing to medicine as we know it today.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Quantum physics actually makes being a theist more intellectually satisfying because it destroys the clockwork universe that deists inferred from Newtonian mechanics. Quantum physics allows God to act without violating the laws of physics (which He could do if He chose).

 

[Arikay]

Um, that would make sense if Darwin was the end all in evolution. But he isnt. However, he did set us on the right path, that then lead to these discoveries.

Many of the studies that support evolution, also help in medicine, like gene mutations and how virus's adapt. Some of the same science that supports evolution might help us find a cure for SARS or any number of other diseases out there.

Today at 07:08 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #4



Darwin had nothing to do with "improving medicine". Zip, Zero, Zilch, nothing. My dad use to collect autographs of famous people who contributed to the field of medicine. Actually we still have them all somewhere. You will even find wierdos in there like Fraud and Spook. But there is no Darwin, because Darwin contributed nothing to medicine as we know it today.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Science is not the problem.

The problem is when christians say that because something cannot be scientifically tested that there is no way God did it in the manner He states.
Thereby taking miraculous powers from Him and making Him more of a spectator than God.

Study of His creation is fine.

Denying Him the ability to perform outside the laws He instated is not.

Denying Him the ability to bend, break and completely ignore the laws He put into being Himself is sheer foolishness.

 

[Freodin]

Today at 09:57 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #7

Science is not the problem.

The problem is when christians say that because something cannot be scientifically tested that there is no way God did it in the manner He states.
Thereby taking miraculous powers from Him and making Him more of a spectator than God.

Study of His creation is fine.

Denying Him the ability to perform outside the laws He instated is not.

Denying Him the ability to bend, break and completely ignore the laws He put into being Himself is sheer foolishness.

Assuming that he uses this ability in certain situations makes faith blind.

 

[ifriit]

Today at 08:57 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #7

The problem is when christians say that because something cannot be scientifically tested that there is no way God did it in the manner He states.

Speaking as an outsider, this doesn't appear to be the case in the first place. It is not that Christians who believe evolutionary theory to be valid believe science supercedes the abilities of your god, but rather they do not appear to believe that your god even stated the events of the formation of life in as straightforward a fashion as you think your god did. Ultimately, your disagreement is one of your personal interpretations of the Christian Bible. Why are you so certain that your interpretation is superior to an "evolutionist's"?

 

[themac63]

Hey,

 

[themac63]

hey infritt

So basically what your saying is in Gen. 1 when God says that he created the earth in 6 days, that he didn't create the world in 6 days..... Is that what your saying?..... I'll respond to your response..

 

[cornetto]

Yesterday at 06:12 AM cornetto said this in Post #1

I was reading through constant bickering about who is right and
who is wrong about the origin of man. Darvin formalized it, but I
believe this mentality must have originated after the advent of
mechanistic thinking brought along by Rene Descartes in the 17th
Century. If we can break something down into its parts and
understand them, then we can put it back together and
understand the whole.

Look at quantum physics, biology, physical science. Each does
just this.

Its really funny, because so far, no one has touched the topic or question.  In fact, everyone is once again bickering about who is right and wrong - medicine, science, creation, evolution...  It would be nice if these threads were going somewhere, wouldn't it?  Anyway, I'll try and rephrase.

Scientifically, all that we do is observe and break things down and try to understand them more.  First of all, there is not a problem with this, it is wonderful, until one tries to apply this thinking to the origins of man.  Lets, take for instance medicine.  Scientists study cancer, find how the cancer is killing the human body, then create medicines to combat the cancers behaviors.  Now I could give you a million examples.  Do we think our clever methods of looking backwards or inwards and coming up with claims about the origins of man makes sense and is scientific?  Sorry, but I do not buy into that.  What then?  What do we have regarding the origins of man, besides the acccount of an icredible God who created it?  Is this so hard to believe? 

If you believe that lightning struck a pond and single cell bacterium and protiens were formed, and then through billions of years were evloved from that, and you think the bible story is fruity?  If you believe that the DNA molecule is randomly created?  Wow, I wish I had faith that strong.  Think about this, there is one DNA strand in every cell of your body.  If one of those DNA molecules were computer coded, it would take 30 years to print and if then bound in books, would fill the entire Grand Canyon.  That discobery was made possible through science and calculus.  Random?

 

[Arikay]

So basically you are saying you dont believe in evolution (or abiogenesis, or both) because it seems like it is too big of a chance?

What do we have regarding the origins of man, besides the acccount of an icredible God who created it?  Is this so hard to believe?

Well, do do have all sorts of fossils and stuff, and currently all testing has shown that man isnt really anything different than an animal when it comes to evolution.

Of course, you would need to be more specific. Which creation account? (well its obvious since this is a christian forum) But there are more creation myths than just the one in the bible. What makes yours anymore special than the others, that all claim to somehow be devinly inspired by god?

Today at 12:52 PM cornetto said this in Post #12



Its really funny, because so far, no one has touched the topic or question.  In fact, everyone is once again bickering about who is right and wrong - medicine, science, creation, evolution...  It would be nice if these threads were going somewhere, wouldn't it?  Anyway, I'll try and rephrase.

Scientifically, all that we do is observe and break things down and try to understand them more.  First of all, there is not a problem with this, it is wonderful, until one tries to apply this thinking to the origins of man.  Lets, take for instance medicine.  Scientists study cancer, find how the cancer is killing the human body, then create medicines to combat the cancers behaviors.  Now I could give you a million examples.  Do we think our clever methods of looking backwards or inwards and coming up with claims about the origins of man makes sense and is scientific?  Sorry, but I do not buy into that.  What then?  What do we have regarding the origins of man, besides the acccount of an icredible God who created it?  Is this so hard to believe? 

If you believe that lightning struck a pond and single cell bacterium and protiens were formed, and then through billions of years were evloved from that, and you think the bible story is fruity?  If you believe that the DNA molecule is randomly created?  Wow, I wish I had faith that strong.  Think about this, there is one DNA strand in every cell of your body.  If one of those DNA molecules were computer coded, it would take 30 years to print and if then bound in books, would fill the entire Grand Canyon.  That discobery was made possible through science and calculus.  Random?

 

[Taffsadar]

Today at 08:52 PM cornetto said this in Post #12
Its really funny, because so If you believe that lightning struck a pond and single cell bacterium and protiens were formed, and then through billions of years were evloved from that, and you think the bible story is fruity?  If you believe that the DNA molecule is randomly created?  Wow, I wish I had faith that strong.  Think about this, there is one DNA strand in every cell of your body.  If one of those DNA molecules were computer coded, it would take 30 years to print and if then bound in books, would fill the entire Grand Canyon.  That discobery was made possible through science and calculus.  Random?

Sure looks odd but if you break it down it gets alot more probable. Viewing it like you is like how a peasant from 16th century Nubia would feel if he got told that humans made Empire state building. But not mentioning machines.

 

[euphoric]

Today at 08:52 PM cornetto said this in Post #12Scientifically, all that we do is observe and break things down and try to understand them more.  First of all, there is not a problem with this, it is wonderful, until one tries to apply this thinking to the origins of man.  Lets, take for instance medicine.  Scientists study cancer, find how the cancer is killing the human body, then create medicines to combat the cancers behaviors.  Now I could give you a million examples.  Do we think our clever methods of looking backwards or inwards and coming up with claims about the origins of man makes sense and is scientific?  Sorry, but I do not buy into that.  What then?  What do we have regarding the origins of man, besides the acccount of an icredible God who created it?  Is this so hard to believe? 

Your argument here seems to be that you can't see the use in investigating human origins.  The problem with that is that our investigation into our ancestry does help us in the investigation of cures for disease, improvements in health, nutrition and treatment of congenital defects, etc. 

Understanding where we come from is a key aspect of learning how we "work."  Evolutionary relationships also help us in understanding how species closely related to ours react to different diseases, medicines, etc.  We can investigate possible treatments and cures based on natural immunities in other primates.  That's off the top of my head and I'm sure there are many others as well.

Today at 08:52 PM cornetto said this in Post #12If you believe that lightning struck a pond and single cell bacterium and protiens were formed, and then through billions of years were evloved from that, and you think the bible story is fruity?  If you believe that the DNA molecule is randomly created?  Wow, I wish I had faith that strong.  Think about this, there is one DNA strand in every cell of your body.  If one of those DNA molecules were computer coded, it would take 30 years to print and if then bound in books, would fill the entire Grand Canyon.  That discobery was made possible through science and calculus.  Random?

Argument from incredulity.  Powerful stuff there.  You're discussing two separate disciplines, evolution and abiogenesis. 

As for the random bit, (stop me if you've heard this one once, twice, a million times) evolution is not random.  While one might make the argument that genetic muttion is a random process, natural selection is certainly not.  Since evolution employs both, it is not a random process.

-brett

 

[euphoric]

Today at 08:52 PM cornetto said this in Post #12 What do we have regarding the origins of man, besides the acccount of an icredible God who created it?  Is this so hard to believe?

When it contradicts reality, then yes, it becomes very hard to swallow.  Especially when a much simpler, far more probable explanation is present.  I would consider it a basic element of common sense that when an ancient creation story developed by a relatively primitive culture completely contradicts observed reality, we can safely assume that it is a story, not a scientific account of past events.

-brett