Evolution vs Creation

[ServantofTheOne]

You are telling them what to believe? Is the famous paleontologist and firey Bible believing pentacostal preacher Dr Robert Bakker also just wanting to be popular?
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Galaxy/8152/robertbakker.html

no i'm not telling them what to believe.. I'm stating that the two views cannot be reconciled without compromising foundational beliefs of one or the other. thats all.

Why? Evolution doesnt talk about a god, you do.

indeed it doesn't talk about God, nor does it allow for development mechanisms other than adaptation or mutation. That is why there is no room to combine Creationism with evolution.

How is it a limitation? Surely its far more elegant than to believe everything poofed out of nothing.

limitation because the impetus of evolution relies on adaptation or mutation, which excludes the possibility of willful intention.

what is elegant about believing that we are advanced animals, and that we are here as a result of adaption or mutation rather than willful intention. just an accident or circumstance. i don't see the elegance.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Beastt]

the Creator is not a thing contained within this universe, and He is not restricted by its laws.

a programmer creates a program that does adds only like numbers, 1+1=2, 2+2=4, etc etc... and the "universe" of this program is limited to this Law. similarly we are created with certain finite laws governing our universe and all things follow certain properties and by certain criterea... one of these properties is cause and effect. every result in this universe follows this property, despite we might not know the cause of certain things that seem spontaneous.

this property cannot be applicable to the Creator just like the restrictive properties of the computer program cannot be applied to the programmer.

So you're saying that despite your claim that all things require a cause, your creator doesn't require a cause which, of course, leads us to the idea that not all things require a cause. Standard creationist reasoning -- it requires a cause unless I say it doesn't.

And as far as causes go, if there is a cause for virtual particles, as you claim, then during the expansion of the big bang, the cause of virtual particles continued to result in their appearence while the expansion kept them from cancelling each other out, leaving real particles, hence matter. So we still have a universe filled with matter/energy, we still have a cause, though as yet undetermined, and we still have no need for a creator.

 

[ServantofTheOne]

So you're saying that despite your claim that all things require a cause, your creator doesn't require a cause which, of course, leads us to the idea that not all things require a cause. Standard creationist reasoning -- it requires a cause unless I say it doesn't.

i will repeat:
"the Creator is not a thing contained within this universe, and He is not restricted by its laws.

a programmer creates a program that does adds only like numbers, 1+1=2, 2+2=4, etc etc... and the "universe" of this program is limited to this Law. similarly we are created with certain finite laws governing our universe and all things follow certain properties and by certain criterea... one of these properties is cause and effect. every result in this universe follows this property, despite we might not know the cause of certain things that seem spontaneous.

this property cannot be applicable to the Creator just like the restrictive properties of the computer program cannot be applied to the programmer."

And as far as causes go, if there is a cause for virtual particles, as you claim, then during the expansion of the big bang, the cause of virtual particles continued to result in their appearence while the expansion kept them from cancelling each other out, leaving real particles, hence matter. So we still have a universe filled with matter/energy, we still have a cause, though as yet undetermined, and we still have no need for a creator.

no need for a Creator? ok, then what force produced the universe as it is today? does matter have brains or capacity to design collectively in unison?

by the way he's not my Creator, he's your creator too, even if you deny it. Your body is designed to expire at some point in the future. It will not last forever. Your body submits to the Creators program/design for you, even though your consciousness rejects Him.

 

[Beastt]

i will repeat:
"the Creator is not a thing contained within this universe, and He is not restricted by its laws.

a programmer creates a program that does adds only like numbers, 1+1=2, 2+2=4, etc etc... and the "universe" of this program is limited to this Law. similarly we are created with certain finite laws governing our universe and all things follow certain properties and by certain criterea... one of these properties is cause and effect. every result in this universe follows this property, despite we might not know the cause of certain things that seem spontaneous.

this property cannot be applicable to the Creator just like the restrictive properties of the computer program cannot be applied to the programmer."

Seems a bit pointless to repeat something which I included in my post. But... suit yourself.

no need for a Creator? ok, then what force produced the universe as it is today? does matter have brains or capacity to design collectively in unison?

by the way he's not my Creator, he's your creator too, even if you deny it. Your body is designed to expire at some point in the future. It will not last forever. Your body submits to the Creators program/design for you, even though your consciousness rejects Him.

You just finished saying that the creator of the universe is outside of that universe and therefore, not subject to the rules of this universe. Is there some reason that this would cease to be the case if the creator of the universe were something other than a sentient being? Perhaps physical laws outside of the universe and separate from the physical laws of this universe are responsible for the existence of this universe.

The sentient, caring creator was among the most recent creations in this universe. And they didn't create the universe. The universe created matter, organized it into galaxies of planets, stars and debris. On at least one of these planets, life formed and evolved and the life forms created the caring, sentient creator in their own image.

 

[Edx]

no i'm not telling them what to believe.. I'm stating that the two views cannot be reconciled without compromising foundational beliefs of one or the other. thats all.

Only by your interpretation that you cant accept evolution and be a theist. Most of the world seems to manage it.

You dont bring religion into science, you take it and apply to your reiligous views. Science tells us how not why, thats what religion gives people.

indeed it doesn't talk about God, nor does it allow for development mechanisms other than adaptation or mutation.

What scientific evidence do we have of these other mechanisms?

That is why there is no room to combine Creationism with evolution

No one does that. Theists that accept evolution think the universe was created and designed by god, just not literally as it is written in Genesis. They choose to interpret that as a metaphor for the human condition.

You cant understand how someone could have a different interpretation and understanding. Ever see The Last Tempataion of Christ? Many wanted to ban it, yet when I saw it I really enjoyed it and thought it was far more likely to make people become interested in Christianity. Very inspired, and I felt made more sence than the original tale. See what I mean?

limitation because the impetus of evolution relies on adaptation or mutation, which excludes the possibility of willful intention.

No becuase willful intention is not what the evidence suggests. If you are a theistic scientist you have to accept this, and accept your faith is faith. Creationists are in denial because they are not willing to accept that their faith and interpretation of their Bible does not agree with the scientific evidence.

what is elegant about believing that we are advanced animals, and that we are here as a result of adaption or mutation rather than willful intention. just an accident or circumstance. i don't see the elegance.

You dont see elegance because you dont understand it. But regardless of which, the story where everything was spoken into existance and we were created fully formed out of mud is a fictional story not based on any evidence.

Ed

 

[ChrisS]

"You dont bring religion into science, you take it and apply to your reiligous views. Science tells us how not why, thats what religion gives people."


I believe what your reffering to is NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria), a philosophy that claims science and religion are two completely different fields, one covering the net of the empiracal universe, the other covering moral meaning and value. While partially correct, if fully naturalistic models are correct about issues such as orgin, then theism becomes unnecessary. However, that would contradict the philosophy that science is the realm of facts while religion is the realm of morality and faith.

 

[Martin the Jadi]

Well, just because you think of it as based on no evidence doesn't mean there ISN'T any evidence to prove that Creation is factual. For instance, the thing called carbon-dating (I think that's what it's called) states that the universe was hear a couple billion years ago, formed by a "Big Bang," but evolutionists still haven't proved that The Flood didn't happen and didn't mess with the molecular structure of these fossils they are finding everywhere. Plus, how do you explain the fossilized palm trees in Antarctica? You will probably say that it used to be a paadise there (tropical), but the "Ice Age(s)" froze the areas over. But how come it didn't also freeze over other tropics such as the Bahamas or the Indonesian Islands? Also, how do you explain that the predictions the Bible has made? It stated waaaaay back that naturaul disasters, warfare, and unusual occurences would happen towards the end of the world, which I, as a Creationist, believe that it has been accurate so far. I mean, I've seen and heard so many people claiming that God used evolution to create us and this world, but what kind of Adventist would I be to fall for that?!The Grand Canyon is also another thing created by The Flood. Evolutionists say that it was created by erosion from great rivers and MANY YEARS of eerosion. But wouldn't it also make sense if The Flood had just carved through the rock and washed through through it, cutting short what millions of years of erosion would have done???

Life isn't just a daily thing where we wake up one day and got to sleep later. What would be the point of our lives if we just did that? DEATH! That would be the only goal in life, to live and then die someday and be gone FOREVER! There wouldn't be ANY second chance for anyone!------------------Written by a newbie lol

 

[Martin the Jadi]

Oh yeah, I'm 12 years old and I think I put up a good fight.

 

[Randall McNally]

What's a Jadi? Is that someone who uses the Farce?

 

[ChrisS]

Oh yeah, I'm 12 years QUOTE]

Shh!!!, lol I'm kidding, yeah you put up a good fight.

 

[Edx]

Well, just because you think of it as based on no evidence doesn't mean there ISN'T any evidence to prove that Creation is factual.

Well provide some. Creationists have so much evidence they have to preach on lay people because mainstream wont take their "science" seriously. They are so confident they are right they have to sign a sworn statment to say that no evidence will ever change thier minds.

For instance, the thing called carbon-dating (I think that's what it's called) states that the universe was hear a couple billion years ago, formed by a "Big Bang,"

No it doesnt. Carbon dating doesnt work that far back. And how could carbon dating ever prove the Big Bang?!

but evolutionists still haven't proved that The Flood didn't happen and didn't mess with the molecular structure of these fossils they are finding
everywhere.

What do you mean mess with the molecular structure of these fossils?

As for the flood:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
other flood myths:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Btw it was Christian scientists that proved the age of the earth before Darwin even wrote Origin of the Species.

Plus, how do you explain the fossilized palm trees in Antarctica?

Petrified Trees:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC332_1.html

You will probably say that it used to be a paadise there (tropical), but the "Ice Age(s)" froze the areas over.But how come it didn't also freeze over other tropics such as the Bahamas or the Indonesian Islands?

Heard of the equator?

Also, how do you explain that the predictions the Bible has made?

What predictions?

-snip-

I mean, I've seen and heard so many people claiming that God used evolution to create us and this world, but what kind of Adventist would I be to fall for that?!

Someone that uses their brain?

The Grand Canyon is also another thing created by The Flood. Evolutionists say that it was created by erosion from great rivers and MANY YEARS of eerosion. But wouldn't it also make sense if The Flood had just carved through the rock and washed through through it, cutting short what millions of years of erosion would have done???

No because we know what that kind of erosion does and that is not what we see. And imagine this, a flood cant suddenly erode rock so quickly. And in the Grand Canyon why didnt those massive pillars get washed away with the rest of the sloshing water?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html

Life isn't just a daily thing where we wake up one day and got to sleep later. What would be the point of our lives if we just did that?

Whats your point?

This isnt about meaning, its about science.

Ed

 

[JohnR7]

i'd like to read what and why creationalists belive what they do.

I believe that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Why do I believe that? Because it is more logical to me than saying we do not know what created the heaven and the earth. Or trying to figure out how it could have created itself.

 

[atechnie]

I believe that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Why do I believe that? Because it is more logical to me than saying we do not know what created the heaven and the earth. Or trying to figure out how it could have created itself.

But it's not more logical for you to not know what created God or how God created Himself or how God could always exist?

-atechnie

 

[gluadys]

Oh yeah, I'm 12 years old and I think I put up a good fight.

A good fight, but you still lose, because you have most of your facts wrong. So hit the books for a few more years. Well, days anyway.

Welcome 12 year old Jadi.

 

[Edx]

I believe that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Why do I believe that? Because it is more logical to me than saying we do not know what created the heaven and the earth. Or trying to figure out how it could have created itself.

So you think having ANY explanation is better than admiting you dont know?

You think pretending you have ultimate truth is better than admiting you can never prove a scientific theory is 100% accurate?

 

[gluadys]

Qur'anic or Biblical or Pantheism is not at issue here. The question is, is there a Creator or not. Where did we come from.

Well, since I am a Christian I say that there is a Creator and we are his creatures. All things visible and invisible are the work of the Creator.

there are 2 choices, Creator who created everything by design, or no Creator and everything came to be as a result of evolution and abiogenesis.

Oh there are many more than two choices.

Some people try to resolve their beliefs by believing in a mixture of both by claiming that evolution is a mechanism Created by the Creator and that we are still evolved animals, and thats how the Creator meant it to be. These people have submitted to the group think mentality and want to be included on the bandwagon of evolutionary theory at the same time not give up their belief in a Creator.

Have you ever actually interviewed one of these people? This is simply pop psychology with no basis in fact.

This shouldn't be considered a choice because evolutionary theory has no room for God..

On the contrary evolution has just as much room for God as chemistry, gravity, relativity, atomic theory, heliocentricity and all those other scientific ideas.

evolution relies on the mechanism for development to be adaptation or mutation.

Actually that should be the reverse. mutation + natural selection ->adaptation.

There is no mention of willful design or willful circumstance that things have become the way they are as a result of willful conscious design.

1. When you pick up a textbook on chemistry or astronomy or cosmology or physics, where do you find mention of a wilful design or that things have become the way they are as a result of wilful conscious design? Why do you think a biology textbook has a special responsibility to mention these things when they are not found in other science textbooks?

2. Does the fact that a science textbook does not explicitly mention a wilful conscious design mean that such design is fictitious? I am perfectly capable of believing the solar system is as it is because God so willed it without having that spelled out for me in book on the science of astronomy. Why do you need (and think other people need) science texts mentioning wilful design every other page? Are you that scared you will forget your Creator?

If one believes in a Creator and believes that the Creator created all things the way they are, as He willed, and that he may have changed his creation from one form to another, Creating a diverse set of species by his will Cannot attribute this to the theory of evolution, as it would be contrary to the theory.

I am not sure what you are talking about here, but I don't see anything so far that is contrary to the theory of evolution. Can you expand on this?

Both views are mutually exclusive. There is no room for compromising the power and majesty of the Creator by injecting the limitation of evolution to His creativity.

To me, evolution testifies of the power and majesty of the Creator. I see it as the most marvellous work of His wisdom. I expect it is some flaw in your understanding of the theory that sees it as a limitation. What makes you think of it as a limitation on God's creativity?

 

[Somnus]

To me, evolution testifies of the power and majesty of the Creator. I see it as the most marvellous work of His wisdom. I expect it is some flaw in your understanding of the theory that sees it as a limitation. What makes you think of it as a limitation on God's creativity?

You incorrectly assume evolution requires some form of higher power to function. It does not.

 

[Randall McNally]

You incorrectly assume evolution requires some form of higher power to function. It does not.

Look carefully - that is not what she is implying.

 

[gluadys]

You incorrectly assume evolution requires some form of higher power to function. It does not.

I am not assuming that evolution requires a higher power to function since I do not assume the existence of such a higher power. If there is no god, evolution would still explain the diversity of species.

However, as a theist, I do believe that God sustains all natural processes in the universe he created. That includes evolution just as it includes gravity.

The first would be an untenable pre-supposition so far as science goes.
The second is a statement of faith.

 

[Somnus]

However, as a theist, I do believe that God sustains all natural processes in the universe he created. That includes evolution just as it includes gravity.

Your god is your imagination. You may believe what you wish, as I know I cannot reverse the years of brainwashing so many people, such as yourself, have received.

I am not assuming that evolution requires a higher power to function since I do not assume the existence of such a higher power. If there is no god, evolution would still explain the diversity of species.

Then why even put a higher power in the universe, if it is not needed to function? You stated above that you believe that God sustains all the natural functions of the universe, including evolution. Wouldn't this assume God exists in order for evolution to take place? Perhaps I am thinking too much or too little...

I apologize if I did not recognize what you were attempting to imply.