Evolution vs. Creationism

[Praxiteles]

Cro-magnon and modern man are one and the same.

Cro-magnon is the name given to the first modern human populations found in Europe.

 

[Alchemist]

I have studied some Geology, and they say that the most abundant element on the surface of the earth is Silica. 90% of the content of all sand is silica. I was just wondering: If man was made from sand and dirt, shouldn't we be silica based, and not carbon based?

Hi UniversalAxis,

From what I understand, silicon-based lifeforms cannot exist in the same way we exist; it has something to do with strange chemistry stuff that someone tried to explain to me but I wasn't really listening (they were showing off). So even if silicon-based lifeforms could occur, they could not be the same as humans (cells with DNA etc.). I can find a detailed explanation of this if you wish.

So, even though silicon is more abundant in rocks, etc., it is specifically the reactions of carbon that form amino acids and other important organic molecules which are present in all lifeforms. It is these small organic molecules which early lifeforms are believed to have developed from, not sand.

Peace,
Alchemist

 

[Alchemist]

By the way, in regards to the original post: As a theistic evolutionary creationist, I would argue (and ironically I think most of the atheists on this board would agree) that there is no 'evolution vs. creationism'. Why are the two apparently mutually exclusive?

 

[UniversalAxis]

I think it may be that my question was mis-stated. My thread of logic goes like this:
If the Bible states that God created man and animals from sand and if sand is predominantly made from silicon, then, by literal interpretation, man should be made from silica, I.E. silica-based life forms. But basic observation shows that man is a carbon-based life-form, not silica. Therefore, a literal interpretation of Genesis would be incorrect. Any Thoughts?

 

[Alchemist]

Oh, I see . Well most Bible's use the word 'dust' here. The Hebrew word is עפר (âphâr). Strong's definition for this word is 'dust (as powdered or gray); hence clay, earth, mud: - ashes, dust, earth, ground, morter, powder, rubbish'. Therefore I don't think that the 'dust' necessarily refers to silica sand.

That said, Christian evolutionists view the creation account as allegory anyway, so this doesn't pose a problem . If Bible-literalism is the focus of one's theology however, then I would not be suprised if this was used as a attack against evolution . If anything, I think the fact the Bible says that God crafted man from the 'dust of the earth' sounds a lot more like a gradual, perhaps evolutionary process than the instantaneous special creation proposed by many creationists.

 

[Hydra009]

Oh, I see . Well most Bible's use the word 'dust' here. The Hebrew word is עפר (âphâr). Strong's definition for this word is 'dust (as powdered or gray); hence clay, earth, mud: - ashes, dust, earth, ground, morter, powder, rubbish'. Therefore I don't think that the 'dust' necessarily refers to silica sand.

Right. IIRC, it means a clod of earth.

 

[USincognito]

By the way, in regards to the original post: As a theistic evolutionary creationist, I would argue (and ironically I think most of the atheists on this board would agree) that there is no 'evolution vs. creationism'. Why are the two apparently mutually exclusive?

It's really a semantic issue. When most non-believers refer to Creationists they're referring to YECs and the specific claims they make. It's axiomatic that TEs are creationists and have a wide variety of belief and opinion as to how the Creation progressed/happened. Non-believers - at least those who aren't God-Haters - understand and accept this.

I try and always captialize "Creationism" when referring to YECs to differentiate between them an TE "creationists."

 

[Pilgrim 33]

TE (Theistic Evolution)

Well, you can't deny that there is a plethora of evidence for evolution. The fossil record is impressive, with the most recent example being the discovery on the island of Flores in the Pacific. I consider myself Christian, but to look over all of the evidence and disregard it I would consider folly. There is no need for "sacrifium intellectum" in my opinion. I have been taught that just accepting things with blind faith does not make one a better follower. The question for me is when does hominid become human?

This is where we part company, this is not, imo, Scriptural. There is an implied assumption made without basis that lacks warrant in the Bible. In short, we're looking in the wrong direction. That's The Lie. That's Nimrod's humanist ever-theoretical evolutionary "proof" religion.

It is impossible to mix "man's religion, humanism, with God. To mix the two is no mix at all, it's just more Lie; The Truth cannot be watered down...

2 Corinthians 6:14, "... what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

The correct direction to look is not in the cold dead cursed earth but in God's living Word. The answers are all there.

It's obvious there are old bones but it is their

• 1) assumed origin and
• 2) their assumed human relationship

that is part of The Lie.

Where did all of the humanist religion's evolutionary monkey bones come from?

Why after all this time has the humanist religion's evolutionary theory not gone from theory to science, from fiction to fact?

They been looking in the wrong place. The answer isn't in the earth, it's in the Bible.

But, then, that's part of The Lie people unwittingly buy into.

The Lie: A Mystery Worth Unraveling:

Genesis 10:8-9, "And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD."

Genesis 11:1, "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech."

One world

Genesis 11:4, "And they said, Go to, let us build us a city

One world, one government

and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth."

One world, one government, one religion

Genesis 11:6-9, "And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language,

There are, yes, those claiming the mantle of Christian Humanist, I don't buy it; but, by and large, it is not their understanding of or their faith in the central core of Scripture, The Gospel message of salvation of Jesus Christ that is questioned, not in the least;

nor is it the understanding and application of history, customs and traditions, that's pretty much all up for grabs anyway;

the objection is in blending God with the direct descendant of Satan's first "church" at Babel, Nimrod's humanist religion, the mirror reflection counterfeit of the church God's Son, Jesus Christ.

Satan's church at Babylon will (is!) once again be built.

And the delusional One world, One government, One religion Lie is flourishing and expanding at mammoth proportions, even now, before our very eyes.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

From what I have gathered it is unknown if what is considered modern man and what is Cro-Magnon were able to breed with one another. If so, they would have passed the Test of Speciation and therefore would need to be the same species. The Law of Competitive Exclusion did take place, however, as evidence by humans as we now know them being the only hominids around. One theory is humans had an improved speech mechanism.

Pre-Adamites breeding with Adamites...uh uh.

Better to look at fallen angels and Adamites breeding The Nephilim.

And in the Pre-Adamite Period look to failed demonic attempts at creation resulting in prehistoric man.

It might not be correct either, but it has a lot better chance of agreeing with Scripture.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

That said, Christian evolutionists view the creation account as allegory anyway,

Though the question begs, where is the allegory evident in Scripture?

Also, there is the implied admission of many different interpretations opposed to what God said.

If anything, I think the fact the Bible says that God crafted man from the 'dust of the earth' sounds a lot more like a gradual, perhaps evolutionary process than the instantaneous special creation proposed by many creationists.

Yes, I can agree that it is entirely possible God took some time and love creating Adam, but not for millions and billions of years going through numerous failed prototypes.

What God does He does right the first time.

The answer to those old bones lies elsewhere.

 

[Ondoher]

It's obvious there are old bones but it is their

• 1) assumed origin and
• 2) their assumed human relationship

that is part of The Lie.

Maybe I should fill you in on how science works. It follows a method, you see. And this method has led us to wonderful insights into how our universe works.

1. Make observations about the natural world. For instance, Linnaeus observed that all species fit into a natural, nested hierarchy.
2. Form one or more hypotheses to explain these observations. For instance, Darwin hypothesized that the nested hierarchy was due to common ancestry.
3. Deduce somethings that must be true about the natural world if your hypothesis is correct. For example, if the nested hierarchy is really due to common ancestry, then that nested hierarchy should hold whether the traits being used to build it are anatomical or genetic.
4. Test your predictions through analysis, experimentation, or future observations. For example, cladistic analysis of genetic traits really does produce highly convergent trees with the anatomical data.
5. If tests fail, go back to 1, if they confirm, go back to 3. Eventually publish your findings so that other scientists can try to reproduce them

Now, given the above scientific method, how does that relate to the fossil record. Well, there are a number of predictions we can deduce given the hypothesis of common ancestry. For example, there must have existed species displaying diagnostic character traits intermediate between an ancestor taxon and its proposed descendent. Also, because of the branching nature of evolution, there would have existed other species, not on the direct line of descent that would have had similar intermediate traits. Given this, we can expect to find fossils of these intermediate species, although we wil never be sure if they were on a side branch. If we consistently find fossils that cannot be fit within the nested hierarchy, for example, they display character traits intermediate between distantly related taxa, such as birds and mammals, then we will have falsified this prediction.

Now, fossils such as these:

confirm the prediction that there were species with character traits intermediate between humans and our ape-like ancestors.

Is there an alternate explanation for these fossils? I suppose their might be, but I've yet to see one pass through the above scientific method and be measured against this evidence. In contrast, evolution has been through this method, and all the data is consistent, and all the predictions are being continuously confirmed.

Where did all of the humanist religion's evolutionary monkey bones come from?

As demonstrated above, evolution is science. Which is why people of various faiths are able to embrace it.

Why after all this time has the humanist religion's evolutionary theory not gone from theory to science, from fiction to fact?

By some defintions of fact, evolution is one. For instance, according to Stephen J. Gould, In science, "Fact" can only mean "Confirmed to such a degree that withholding provisional consent would be preverse." Evolution has bet that level of confirmation. That evolution occurs is commonly refverred to as the "Fact" of evolution, and the mechanisms that explain this fact are the theory of evolution, also known as the Modern Synthesis.

<snipped theistic meanderings>

 

[Observer]

I can't believe in just evolution... things have evolved, of course, there's evidence of that... but the MEANING of evolution is a process of development, and you can't have development if there was nothing, in the first place, for something to develop FROM. Evolution is a process that comes AFTER creation. Evolution cannot create, it can only alter... so that still leaves a huge gap, which in my opinion, is better explained by creationism. Something had to create that first little thing, and it wasn't evolution, and it wasn't any physical kind of element, and it wasn't any kind of chemistry... because those things couldn't have existed yet, without the existence of everything else... it's pretty simple

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Where is the direct connection, the irrefutable evidence, that man came from monkey or that billions years old bones are direct descendants of Adamite mankind?

Until that comes about, which is doubtful at best, evolution is a theory, a guess, at what could have been.

 

[WaZoO]

I can't believe in just evolution... things have evolved, of course, there's evidence of that... but the MEANING of evolution is a process of development, and you can't have development if there was nothing, in the first place, for something to develop FROM.

Yes.

Evolution is a process that comes AFTER creation. Evolution cannot create, it can only alter... so that still leaves a huge gap, which in my opinion, is better explained by creationism.

By definition, evolution is not the creation of something.

Something had to create that first little thing, and it wasn't evolution, and it wasn't any physical kind of element, and it wasn't any kind of chemistry... because those things couldn't have existed yet, without the existence of everything else... it's pretty simple

It depends on what you mean by something creating the first thing. I don't think that God zapped algae into existence, I think he set up the chemical prperties that would allow abiogenesis to occur. The science behind it is actually pretty solid, though some aspects are difficult to grasp.

http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htm

That link is a pretty good introduction to abiogenesis.

 

[WaZoO]

Where is the direct connection, the irrefutable evidence, that man came from monkey or that billions years old bones are direct descendants of Adamite mankind?

Until that comes about, which is doubtful at best, evolution is a theory, a guess, at what could have been.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It's an observed fact that allele frequencies change over time. Natural selection is observed, and intuitive. Evolutionary theory predicts that changing genes over time will produce different life forms. By the same token that evolution is just a theory, calculus is just a theory. Saying that evolution is juast a guess is disingenuous, 99% of the biologists in the world wouldn't accept something that was just a guess.

Furthermore, billion year old bones are certainally not decendant from man of any form. In fact, there are no other species that are decendant from man, we exist right here and now.

 

[Arikay]

The problem is that you are trying to attribute things to evolution that it doesn't address, so of course it fails.

Evolution assumes that the universe exists and that life exists.
I think you are confusing creation with creationism. Creationism is a falsified theory, creation on the other hand isn't part of science, but the belief that God created.
This is how it goes in science,
First cause - The uncaused event that led to the big bang. This is still unknown, it could be God, or it could be many other options. We just don't understand things well enough to tell.
Big bang - what the first cause caused, it was an expansion of space-time and energy, the energy cooled and formed particles and finally hydrogen and other light elements.
Stellar "Evolution" - the formation of stars (not to be confused with the theory of evolution) they created heavier elements in their cores and exploded to fill the universe with even heavier elements.
Abiogenesis - The formation of simple life from non life. Our understanding of this is still shaky but growing constantly. Basic chemical reactions are able to form self replicating molecules, the building blocks of life.
Evolution - Finally. It is a separate theory from all the others, and No pilgrim theory doesn't mean Guess in science, and a theory could never have irrefutable evidence, because otherwise it wouldn't be a good theory (generally evidence must be refutable, and a theory must be falsifiable, this is why some consider parts of modern creationism to be bad science, because they can't be falsified.)
It is important to note that although evolution alters older organisms, mutations can create completely new traits, and thus over a long enough time of alterations we can go from swimming creature to bunny.

I can't believe in just evolution... things have evolved, of course, there's evidence of that... but the MEANING of evolution is a process of development, and you can't have development if there was nothing, in the first place, for something to develop FROM. Evolution is a process that comes AFTER creation. Evolution cannot create, it can only alter... so that still leaves a huge gap, which in my opinion, is better explained by creationism. Something had to create that first little thing, and it wasn't evolution, and it wasn't any physical kind of element, and it wasn't any kind of chemistry... because those things couldn't have existed yet, without the existence of everything else... it's pretty simple

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Well, there are a number of predictions

Guesses, at best.

we can deduce given the hypothesis of common ancestry. For example, there must have existed

Guesses, again.

species displaying diagnostic character traits intermediate between an ancestor taxon and its proposed descendent.

Again, more guesses.

Also, because of the branching nature of evolution, there would have existed other species, not on the direct line of descent that would have had similar intermediate traits.

Guesses abound still.

Given this, we can expect to find fossils of these intermediate species, although we wil never be sure

That's for sure.

if they were on a side branch.

Guessing again. Try another direction, try the Nephilim.


there were species with character traits intermediate between humans and our ape-like ancestors.

Sounds like the Nephilim. Pre-Adamite ain't Adamite. It's something else.

Is there an alternate explanation for these fossils? I suppose their might be, but I've yet to see one pass through the above scientific method and be measured against this evidence.

There is the implied assumption that there is a definite link between Adamite and Pre-Adamite and the evolutionsit's research is biased in that direction. Again, part of The Lie, the "strong delusion".

In contrast, evolution has been through this method, and all the data is consistent, and all the predictions are being continuously confirmed.

With no irrefutable proof it is still nothing more that guesses cloaked in the scientific term "theory".

Complex scientific babel will never save anyone but the simplistic message in the Bible will.

Knowledge does not save, faith in Jesus Christ saves.


[/color][/font][/color][/font]
As demonstrated above, evolution is science. Which is why people of various faiths are able to embrace it.

No-o-o, evolution's roots are strongly and directly related to humanism, Nimrod's early Babylonian religion which, today, has roots in nearly every religion, faith and belief in the world today. They embrace it because they see the commonality in their beliefs. Evolution is a religion. It is the religion of man. It is the extension of humanism. And humanism is what is causing the One world, one government, One religion phenomena in the world today.



according to Stephen J. Gould, In science, "Fact" can only mean "Confirmed to such a degree that withholding provisional consent would be preverse."

"Confirmed" means "remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact" and evolution is far from that, there is still no evidence of a connection between Adamite and Pre-Adamite, only guesses.

Complex scientific babble calls it theory; common man language, which the Bible was written in, calls it guessing.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Furthermore, billion year old bones are certainally not decendant from man of any form. In fact, there are no other species that are decendant from man, we exist right here and now.

How close can you come to saying the same for all the animals that were created the same "day" as Adam?

 

[Arikay]

And we see that there is no point to trying to have a conversation with Pilgrim, anyone else think he just ignored everything he said was a "guess."
So, should we tell him that Germ theory and Cell theory are just theories, er I mean, Guesses, and that he shouldn't trust the doctors when they say someone has cancer because the idea we are made out of cells is Just a guess?

Now I remember why I stopped posting here as much, it's impossible to have a conversation with many creationists as they don't back up their statements, but act like they can never be wrong and ignore anything that contradicts them.

 

[TheUndeadFish]

Complex scientific babel will never save anyone but the simplistic message in the Bible will.

Knowledge does not save, faith in Jesus Christ saves.

Evolution and science aren't supposed to save anyone. Science only seeks to explain the world we can observe. Religion is what deals with deities, faith, and saving people in whatever afterlife there may be.