Evolution vs. Creation: The Great Debate

[Morcova]

Ok, which <bleep> forgot to inform me about the orgy?!

I know I sent you the memo.

 

[KTatis]

I think I mistyped everything. What I was saying is Scientist spend all their hard work and money on collage to study the things around us but when it comes to christianity they claim that they know everything just by reading the Bible. True although I am a Christian I do believe in evolution.

P.S. Sorry for all the confusion but continue on. You guys had some very interesting points... even though they kind of targeted me. But all thats been cleared up now. : )

 

[TheBear]

I think I mistyped everything. What I was saying is Scientist spend all their hard work and money on collage to study the things around us but when it comes to christianity they claim that they know everything just by reading the Bible. True although I am a Christian I do believe in evolution.

P.S. Sorry for all the confusion but continue on. You guys had some very interesting points... even though they kind of targeted me. But all thats been cleared up now. : )

Thank you for clarifying, KTatis.

 

[Baggins]

Even the title of this thread is off-beam.

There is no great debate between evolution and religious literalism in any non-theocratic state apart from the USA.

There is no great debate about evolution and biblical literalism in the USA amongst the educated ( scientifically literate )segment of the population.

And the educated segment of the population have little desire to debate such nonsense with those people who do wish to believe fairy tales.

Even most of those people who wish to push biblical literalism in the states do so for largely self serving reasons, they make money from it.

There is no real debate here at all. How can you debate reality versus the supernatural?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

There is NO serious scientific debate on the occurrance of evolution. It is a fundimental concept in modern biology. 99.9% of relevant field scientists accept it. Debates concerning evolution mostly concern rate and relationships of species.

 

[cwalla5]

Well, if you are talking about professors of evolution yes, they would have to go to school for years, but there are proponents of evolution who haven't even finished high school yet, and there who people who believe in evolution who study things like physics and astronomy.

Similarily there are people who study the creation, they are called creationists. Likewise there are people who believe in creation who haven't finished high school yet.

Maybe i'm confused, do you have to go to school for all that time to believe in evolution? No, someone can read you a story in science class and try to drill it into your head, no matter how illogical it seems to your innocent mind.

It takes more faith to believe in the "BIG BANG" and "EVOLUTION" than it is to believe that there is a creator. Do you realize how intricate of a process that is to have just happened by mistake? How many complicated life-changing events have occurred in your life by mistake?

 

[cwalla5]

How can someone say that evolution is any more real than creation?

Just like I haven't seen God and believe in Him, you haven't seen anything evolve lately, but you still believe. Oh, i guess your answer to that is wait another gazillion years and we'll see a flea turn into a tick.

I believe that the creatures created by God make physiological changes based on their environment, but it seems like Darwin took that concept and ran with it a little to far..

 

[Pete Harcoff]

It takes more faith to believe in the "BIG BANG" and "EVOLUTION" than it is to believe that there is a creator.

Wherever I see someone make this glib statement (and that's all it really is), it suggests a huge lack of understanding of either of those theories.

Do you realize how intricate of a process that is to have just happened by mistake? How many complicated life-changing events have occurred in your life by mistake?

If things weren't the way they were, they'd be different. What you are suggesting is that everything is the way it is because of divine fiat. And you claim we are the ones with faith? Yeah, sure.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

How can someone say that evolution is any more real than creation?

Just like I haven't seen God and believe in Him, you haven't seen anything evolve lately, but you still believe. Oh, i guess your answer to that is wait another gazillion years and we'll see a flea turn into a tick.

I believe that the creatures created by God make physiological changes based on their environment, but it seems like Darwin took that concept and ran with it a little to far..

Evolution, especially common descent, is backed by empirical evidence gained through over 150 years of scientific investigation. Genetics, in particular, plays a pretty significant role.

Not only that, but evolution, including common descent, is an applied science that has real-world usefulness (particularly in agriculture and medical research). To really appreciate all that, however, requires a decent understanding of the various aspects of the theory (and there are many), as well as your ear to the ground of the biotech industry.

 

[Morcova]

How can someone say that evolution is any more real than creation?

Because evolution has been used in the medical field for years and years and creationism has yet to be prove useful for anything.

 

[thecountrydoc]

OH ME, OH MY!!! What a discussion!

May I suggest to all who have posted here that there is one element that has been overlooked by all. That element is LOGIC. I say this with a fairly good understanding of both creation and evolution. I also say this with a fairly good understanding of human nature.

It should be noted that neither viewpoint can be proven by observation. Observation is a required component for a scientific study as defined in the world of academia by academic definition. Therefore I will not attempt to present my thoughts as a doctorial presentation. Rather, I will share somthing with you that I once shared with a young man who ask if creation was indeed done in seven litteral days who claimed to be a Christian. I must also tell you that for me personaly to accept any theory, or teaching, it must be logical.

"You have posed a very good question. Was creation a litteral 7 day event? It has been debated as long as I can remember.

First we need to consider who was this Creator? Of course every Christian who belives in the bible will readly agree that it was God Himself. Lets look at some the charector attributes of God. He is perfect. All knowing. Knows the end from the begining. Is a God of love. Cares about mankind as His children. Knows every sparrow that falls & cares about all His creation. Now lets read the account of creation as given in the Bible. As we go through the account of creation, God validates each day by the saying that the evening and the morning constituted each day. When we know somthing about the charector and nature of God, as well as what He has given us in His Word, the Bible, it would make God less than perfect and even a lier, if it were not a litteral 7 day week. You will notice the rational given is from a bibical viewpoint. I say from a biblical viewpoint because it is from the Bible that we get the definition of faith, and faith must be used to accept any of the account of creation, as well as any other concept or theory. (I might suggest reading Heb.Ch.11 the faith chapter.) It must also be noted that if there is no belief in all, or any part, of the creation story, there is no reason to debate the fine points of it.

Now lets look at the 7 day creation from a solely from a rational, logical, point of view bassed on what we can decuct from the sequence of events during creation. Forgive me if I take just a slight detour from what might be considered the standard account of creation before I address the the 7 days events themselves. In Gen.1:1-2, we read; "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness WAS upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." As I read this passage it becomes very clear to me that the finite cannot comprehind the infinate. It makes it very clear that God was here from the beginning. But it simply does not give a start date for creation. Therefore the argument that our current dateing systems showing some geologic rock to be millions or even billions of years old disproves the creation story, is completly invalid. We can't possibily know when this mass that was without form and void, now called earth, was created. It is not neccessary to include this bit of interest when diccussing a 7 day creation, but it might help those who doubt any part of the account of creation.

Lets start with Day #1: As we read the biblical account of creation in Gen. Ch.1, we find the first day God created light. As we look around us there is one common denominator amoung all all living creaturs. They ALL require light to exist. I know that some will challenge that statement perhaps giving as an example life forms that live in complete darkness at the bottom of the seas. Eventhough those life forms that may be thousands of feet deep they are still linked in their food chains to activaties and creatures at the surface that require light. Therefore God created light first in order to support all life. Also note that God Himself "...called the light day and the darkness night, and said that the evening and the morning were the first DAY!"

Day #2: Gen. 1:6; "And God said let there be firmamant." Wheather Christian or atheist we all accept the term firmamant to mean our atmosphere. He also "...divided the waters that were under the earth from the firmament above the earth." In the account of the second day God creates an atmosphere that would require light to recycle water upon the earth. God did keep the order of creation's events in sequence so that they would harmonize and function to meet the needs of all life that He was yet to create.

Day #3: Next came the creation of dry land which was followed by the creation of all plant life which of course needed the light, the firmament, and the land to survive.

Day#4: Gen.1:14-16; "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: HE made the stares also." The account of God creating the sun, moon, and stars is usually accepted by Christians without much thought. It also should be noted that not only did He create a world wide alarm clock, but also gave us a first glimpse at his future relationship with mankind through prophecy. You will note that the first use God appointed to these lights was for signs. Here again God comes first, and everything else comes second!

Day #5: Now that God has planed the georaphy of the earth, which include seperating water from dry land, He now creates all the sea creaturs and all the birds of the air. This seeming inconsistant bit of creation, sea creatures created on the same day as birds, is often pointed out by noncreationest. They simply are not thinking about the water birds. It seems to me that the Creator did indeed keep things in order.

Day#6: Now that now all the support systems needed to sustain mammalian life have been put in place. God now creates all land forms of life;"...and saw that it was good." After looking over what had been created, God now decides to create the very pinical of His creation. "And God said let us make man in our image, after our likeness:" Please note the pronouns us and our. It would clearly indicate the involvement of Christ as well as God the Father in creation. "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created He them....And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Once again God tells us that He did this final act of creating things and beings in one day.

Day #7: This was God's rest day. It was the only day of the creation week that God did not create. Rather, "God blessed the seventh day and santified it: because that in it He rested from all His work which God created and made."

As you can see there was a need for the orderly sequence of creation for each subsequent act of creation to survive. Also if it were untold millions of years, or for that matter even just a few years, all life as we know it today could not have survived. God also set us an example by doing His work and then resting. The sequince of work, and then rest, is vital for our best health. How many people do you know who are stressed out because of not enough rest. Or maybe someone is a work-a-holic, has health problems, and the doctors tell them to get more rest.

I hope that this view of creation will be of help in understanding the NEED for a literal 7 day creation.

May God bless you, and the Holy Spirit lead you as you study God's Word.

Respectfully, your friend and brother in Christ,
Doc

Respectfully,
Doc

Lord put your arms around my sholders and your hand over my mouth.

 

[USincognito]

How can someone say that evolution is any more real than creation?

Are you sure you're not conflating "Creation" with "Creationism?" You do understand there's a very big difference between the two right?

Just like I haven't seen God and believe in Him, you haven't seen anything evolve lately, but you still believe. Oh, i guess your answer to that is wait another gazillion years and we'll see a flea turn into a tick.

Now it seems like you're confusing evolution and atheism. You do understand there's a difference right? And no, we don't need to wait even a single minute longer to observe speciation since we already do in the fossil/molecular record and we have observed speciation in the wild and laboratory.

I believe that the creatures created by God make physiological changes based on their environment, but it seems like Darwin took that concept and ran with it a little to far..

How so, because that's the extent of what Darwin wrote about in Origin of the Species and what the Modern Synthesis continues to claim to this day (with the exception of beings being created by God of course)?

 

[Paulos23]

OH ME, OH MY!!! What a discussion!

May I suggest to all who have posted here that there is one element that has been overlooked by all. That element is LOGIC. I say this with a fairly good understanding of both creation and evolution. I also say this with a fairly good understanding of human nature.

It should be noted that neither viewpoint can be proven by observation. Observation is a required component for a scientific study as defined in the world of academia by academic definition. Therefore I will not attempt to present my thoughts as a doctorial presentation. Rather, I will share somthing with you that I once shared with a young man who ask if creation was indeed done in seven litteral days who claimed to be a Christian. I must also tell you that for me personaly to accept any theory, or teaching, it must be logical.



Respectfully,
Doc

Lord put your arms around my sholders and your hand over my mouth.

This is still just a statement of faith based off the belief that the bible is infallible. There is nothing logical about it.

And observation of an event is not a requirement of science, evidence is. Observation of an event can help and is preferred, but evidence the event left behind is required as well. If this wasn't the case the folks of CSI would be out of a job.

 

[thecountrydoc]

Well Paulos23,

I find your response most interesting. Why do I say that? Because you have used the introduction to my last post while avoiding the body of the post. Your action reminds me of many so-called christians who pick and choose what they want from the Bible while ignoring the complete text. It would seem that your response is as illogicial as your theory.

To declare something to be scientific the following definition isused: The ability to demonstrate and observe an action or reaction, then by reproduction of said action or reaction observe the same results.

Respectfully,
Doc

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I say this with a fairly good understanding of both creation and evolution.

I don't believe you. Why don't you explain what you think evolutionary theory is.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

May I suggest to all who have posted here that there is one element that has been overlooked by all. That element is LOGIC. I say this with a fairly good understanding of both creation and evolution. I also say this with a fairly good understanding of human nature.

It should be noted that neither viewpoint can be proven by observation. Observation is a required component for a scientific study as defined in the world of academia by academic definition. Therefore I will not attempt to present my thoughts as a doctorial presentation. Rather, I will share somthing with you that I once shared with a young man who ask if creation was indeed done in seven litteral days who claimed to be a Christian. I must also tell you that for me personaly to accept any theory, or teaching, it must be logical.



Respectfully,
Doc

Lord put your arms around my sholders and your hand over my mouth.

Lets start with Day #1: As we read the biblical account of creation in Gen. Ch.1, we find the first day God created light. As we look around us there is one common denominator amoung all all living creaturs. They ALL require light to exist. I know that some will challenge that statement perhaps giving as an example life forms that live in complete darkness at the bottom of the seas. Eventhough those life forms that may be thousands of feet deep they are still linked in their food chains to activaties and creatures at the surface that require light. Therefore God created light first in order to support all life.

This is wrong. Organisms around deep sea vents are independant of solar energy. The food source at the base of the food chain is bacteria that utlize H2S from the vents.

This was a fairly fundamental discovery, because this was the first very well defined ecosystem, and very elaborate ecosystem, that was completely independent of sunlight at any level of the food chain.

 

[FishFace]

And as we all know (well, the evolutionists, anyway) it was organisms which first developed to metabolise stuff at the bottom of the ocean - i.e. independent of the sun - which started off life at all, and started changing the atmosphere into what we know and breathe today.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

And as we all know (well, the evolutionists, anyway) it was organisms which first developed to metabolise stuff at the bottom of the ocean - i.e. independent of the sun - which started off life at all, and started changing the atmosphere into what we know and breathe today.

I don't think we all know that but some people do think that may be the case. I am not so sure.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

OH ME, OH MY!!! What a discussion!

May I suggest to all who have posted here that there is one element that has been overlooked by all. That element is LOGIC. I say this with a fairly good understanding of both creation and evolution. I also say this with a fairly good understanding of human nature.

Day #3: Next came the creation of dry land which was followed by the creation of all plant life which of course needed the light, the firmament, and the land to survive.

.

How is the creation of plant life the day before the sun is created in any way LOGICAL?

Do you think the first plants thrived on starlight?

 

[thaumaturgy]

It should be noted that neither viewpoint can be proven by observation. Observation is a required component for a scientific study as defined in the world of academia by academic definition.

Doc,
Might I ask if you have ever heard of "forensics"? Certainly you have seen television shows that discuss "crime investigations"?

While you are technically correct, neither evo nor creation can be proven 100.0...0% what we can do is develop a MODEL based on the available evidence.

Said model has as its inputs those things we see happening today and recorded in the "soft sediments" today and then look for that data in the ROCK RECORD. Which we find. We find exact replicas of dunes, ripple marks, raindrop impressions preserved in the rock record.

When it comes to evolution what we DO see are numerous lifeform changing over time reflected in the rock record. We see some animals that are NEVER found in earlier rocks and some NEVER found in later rocks.

The model that is developed is FAR superior to a "supernatural" model predicated on an imaginary being. While one may firmly believe in God they are incapable of presenting evidence of their particular conception of God that will significantly carry weight for all objective observers. Otherwise we'd all be one religion, right?

Face it, the creation hypothesis rests INITIALLY on the presence of God. It goes forward to draw out conclusions on God's nature based on verses from the Bible. However this cannot prove:

1. God exists
2. Who wrote Genesis
3. That Genesis is in any way a reliable source for information.

And further, there is no evidence anywhere in the rock record of the Genesis account of creation, nor is there evidence for other massive geologic events recorded in Genesis such as the Noachian flood.

You are perfectly free to hypothesize all you want. And you are correct that without "observation" we do have an unknowable past. But what people often FAIL to understand is that science can and does extrapolate graphs and extrapolate data and build workable, testable models predicated on literally mountains of evidence, both present and past.

Otherwise you are lost in the extremes of Hume's Empiricism. The falling-off point at which no claim can ever be verified until observed.