Evolution vs. Creationism

[Ondoher]

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

No, you don't get to dismiss science as babble, it doesn't work that way. Science is hard, and you actuall yhave to make an attempt to understand the language used. If you'd like to actually addess the points I raised, feel free.

Given your inline comments (by the way, learn to use the quote function, please). It appears you still don't understand how science works. You completely failed to follow the logic where I was making a prediction of what the fossil record should look like if common ancestry is true. Sniping "Guessing" really didn't do much for your position. If you'd like to refute these as valid predictions that must follow from common ancestry, feel free. However, you failed to do so.

It may help your stay here if you become a litle more familiar with how the scientific method actually works. I tried to help, but I fear it fell on deaf ears.

 

[Ondoher]

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.

From: http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.


Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

​

Again, I reiterate, you need to learn more about how science works. Theory does not mean "guess." The closest thing to guess in science is hypothesis:

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.


​

But even those can be tested.

 

[WaZoO]

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

I don't really understand what you're asking. The concept of a day is irrelevant to a God that exists out of time. All I was saying is that there are no decendants of humans that aren't human as well. (by human I mean homo sapien sapiens, not members of the homo genus) Actually, that would be true either way.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

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 therefore I am.

I think you are confusing creation with creationism.

Creation can be both a noun and a verb; to wit, the cosmos is creation but at creation the cosmos was created.

"ism's are cute little critters...

Main Entry: ism [url="http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif"]http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif[/url]
Pronunciation: 'i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: -ism
: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

Going by this definition how can creationism be any different from evolution or, by the same token, would it not also be just as correct to call evolution "a falsified theory"?

According to the definition, distinctive doctrine, religions fit this category (CathoicISM, BuddhISM, TaoISM, LutheranISM, BaptISM ismISM)

At the same time, by definition, theory, evolution fits that category, too.

There IS a religious relationship, far too many are deluded into making evolution, even science, their religion.

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,

(see above)

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.

This is the scientific religionist's, "prove it to me and I'll believe it" outlook and
it could be God might as well be stricken from the above comment because God does not operate on belief, He operates on faith of those who trust in His Son, Jesus Christ, for their salvation.

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.

And God said and "Let there be..." and...BIG BAnG !

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,

It means guess where Jesus taught, on the street.

and a theory could never have irrefutable evidence, because otherwise it wouldn't be a good theory

Of course, not, it would be fact. Aside from that we have belief and faith, belief that all creation was damaged by sin, and faith that all power has been given to Jesus and that is He that is the "glue" that holds creation together, if He leaves everything falls apart; and He has promised to take me with Him when He leaves. Now why would any sane person want to mix even the minutest amount of any form of the humanist religion that argues against or is in scientific or religious opposition to something like that?

(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.

Yeah, billions of years and many failed prototypes before God finally created Adam right.

What is the ultimate goal of science?

 

[Mistermystery]

Where the lack of knowledge of Scripture, history and world religions are exceeded only by persistent refusal to even consider the subject(s) hammers home the truth in the saying, ignorance is bliss.

YES, humanism is a man made religion whose god is himself.
YES, evolution is a near, direct offspring, and integral part of humanism.

Yes, mindlessly reapting of claims prompts me to just mindlessly repeat talk origin: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html

Claim:
Evolution is a religion because it encompasses views of values and ultimate meanings.
Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 196-200.
Response:

1. Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion. Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares:
   • A religion explains ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it doesn't even include the origins of life).
   • A religion describes the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
   • Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
   • Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
   • Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson [Ruse 2000], but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
   • Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
   • Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.
2. How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.
3. Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something "pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.
4. Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes [Sober and Wilson 1998]. Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion. Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of Biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.
5. Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
   Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause, Epperson v. Arkansas, supra, Willoughby v. Stever, No. 15574-75 (D.D.C. May 18, 1973); aff'd. 504 F.2d 271 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. denied , 420 U.S. 924 (1975); Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist., 366 F. Supp. 1208 (S.D. Tex 1978), aff.d. 486 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied 417 U.S. 969 (1974). [McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982]​

Again, look at your dictionary and tell me where religion ties in with evolution.

 

[Arikay]

Um... You don't have a clue about what you are talking about, but are trying to wing it right?
Creationism is a falsified theory because it's claims have been shown to be false, just like Spontaneous generation.

Not sure there is a point to replying to you anymore until you bother to try to understand what people say. A nice case of Morton's Demon it is, have fun playing with him.

 

[Mistermystery]

Yes, evidence for these giants.

The Bible stands on its own; you either accept it or reject it.

(or is asking you for evidence pointless?)

Of course it is!

There you have it.

 

[Mistermystery]

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...

but the theory of evolution does not include origins. So you are 100% correct here, evolution says nothing about the theories of abiogenesis, or the big bang.

 

[Mistermystery]

Um... You don't have a clue about what you are talking about, but are trying to wing it right?
Creationism is a falsified theory because it's claims have been shown to be false, just like Spontaneous generation.

Not sure there is a point to replying to you anymore until you bother to try to understand what people say. A nice case of Morton's Demon it is, have fun playing with him.

;_; are you talking about my post? ;_;

 

[TheBear]

Yeah, billions of years and many failed prototypes before God finally created Adam right.

What is the ultimate goal of science?

Amazing.

How's your computer doing today? Stocked up on flu and cold medication? MRI's and CAT-scans have revolutionized medical diagnosis and treatment. The same land yields ten times more crop than a mere hundred years ago.

The ongoing goal of science is positive contributions to mankind. It has always been that way....always will.

 

[UniversalAxis]

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

Knowledge does not save, faith in Jesus Christ saves.

If it is true that it is faith in Jesus Christ which saves, which i cannot disagree with, Then why do we need the explainations of a creation myth at all?
Isn't it simply enough to read the New Testament alone and have Jesus' message?
The exercise of trying to find the origins of the universe, earth and life are strictly academic endevors.
No one can dispute that, in the Bible, Jesus and his teachings are the way to salvation. But to get defensive about Genesis being entirely correct is border-line absurdity.
Once one can realize that Genesis doesn't have to be literally correct, nor does the Big Bang, Evolution and the rest, for one to be happy, then one can live a happy life. These 'Evilutionists' and scientist and those who follow them are engaged in an academic endevour, not to be confused with a theistic endevor.
Jesus' words are strong enough to stand on their own and don't even need an Old Testament except as Jesus' back story.
That being said, it does not make sense that we are forced to disagree, just because two chapters in Genesis come in to conflict with a prevailing scientific theory.
Maybe it is just me, but that is how I see it; besides, scientists need jobs, they can't all be priests or fast food workers.

 

[Arikay]

Of course I am.

No, I was talking about Pilgrims post, but you managed to slip one inbetween, I guess I still haven't learned not to use the quick reply box without quotes.

;_; are you talking about my post? ;_;

 

[Pilgrim 33]

I don't really understand what you're asking. The concept of a day is irrelevant to a God that exists out of time. All I was saying is that there are no decendants of humans that aren't human as well. (by human I mean homo sapien sapiens, not members of the homo genus) Actually, that would be true either way.

I see it was a mistake putting "rabbit ears" on "day" so let's try that agaion:

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?

Genesis 2:19, "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

(btw, the cognates exist today)

Can you say there are no other species descendant to the life mentioned in the 2:19 verse? You know, something along the lines of the Idgetbunny that got on The Ark did not originally come from the fifty gazillion year old Widgetaurus.

 

[TheBear]

The Bible stands on its own; you either accept it or reject it.

Slow down, Pilgrim. If the Bible were that straight-forward and cut-and-dry, why are there so many Christian denominations and sects?

More accurately, your claim should be, "My understanding of the Bible stands on it's own. You either accept my understanding of it, or you reject it."

 

[UniversalAxis]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible says that the whole world was flooded, and that everything died but Noah and his family and the stuff on the Ark, right?
So, then, did he take the time to drop off Buffalo in North America before he sailed over to Australia and dropped off the Kangaroo and Kowala?
Also, did Noah pick up Aborigines and Chinese and Indian People too, and keep them on his ark? What about Native Americans? Did he drop them all off on his way back to wherever he lived?

 

[UniversalAxis]

If Adam and Eve were the only people on earth, then what happened after their first generation of children? Dosen't that require incest? Isn't that a sin?

 

[BurningHeart]

There is actually more scientific fact for a divine creation than there is for evolution. I am talking about Macro evolution in this case. Micro-evolution, aka. Adaptation DOES occur, but the idea that all species have developed from a single original parent creature in not only absurd, it in just plain bad science

 

[OccamsLaser]

again, thank you, both, for confirming these wondrous pearls.

Do not cast small balls of pig excrement before pigs, claiming they are pearls. The pigs know better, and they will laugh at you.

 

[BurningHeart]

If Adam and Eve were the only people on earth, then what happened after their first generation of children? Dosen't that require incest? Isn't that a sin?

Yes, If adam and Eve were the only people on earth, then to populate the earth would have required incest at some point, among their children - brothers with sisters, father with daughters, mother with sons, etc. While this is appalling to us at this time and age in history, this was the case. As for incest being a sin, yes, it is listed as such, however, the law given by God to mankind, did not exist at this point. So, at the time of occurence, the incest acts were NOT a sin. You are responsible for what has been revealed to you, is an idea set forth in the new testament. At the time that the incest among Adam, Eve, and their children occurred, it was not a sin to do so. There had been only one command up to that time, "Eat not of the fruit of the tree growing in the center of the garden". This was broken, the incest laws came later.

 

[OccamsLaser]

many of which spawned other giant creatures known as the Nephilim spoken of many times throughout the Bible

and that those angels that spawned them were cast into the Bottomless Pit and

Satan will one day be given the Key to release them

and they will once again spawn the Nephilim

who will take over the world to the point that mankind will assemble its forces worldwide to battle them

and it will take the intervention of The Lord Jesus and His angelic army to defeat the Nephilim and their demonic horde, the Devil's army.

All that was needed to defeat the Nephilim was to kill off everything in the flood, including Noah and his family, and not permit Noah to build an ark.

Noah was a Nephilim.

At least I presume he was, because the Bible introduces the Nephilim in Genesis 6:4. Then comes the flood, survived by Noah and his family. After that, a spotting of the Nephilim is reported in Numbers 13:33.

The only way that could have happened is if Noah was a Nephilim.

It's curious God didn't see that coming.