Explain Creation and Evolution

[secretdawn]

Could someone please explain the details of creation and evolution? I have tried reading the links people reccomend, but it might be easier if someone would be willing to type out the details in layman's terms...

 

[mo cooler]

hey Creation is the idea that God "created the heavans and the earth. Evolution is that existance formed itself for the most part

 

[Dracil]

Simple. Evolution is one of the ways God used to make his Creation. If you meant Creationism instead of Creation, that's the idea that God created as per the Bible in a literal interpretation. Of course, that doesn't really say much about how he did it.

 

[lucaspa]

Could someone please explain the details of creation and evolution? I have tried reading the links people reccomend, but it might be easier if someone would be willing to type out the details in layman's terms...

Mo cooler did very well. Creation is the idea that God created the heavens and the earth. Science, including evolution is the details of how God did that.

And keep asking questions until you understand the details! Please!

Now, there is a rival theory of how God created. That is called "creationism". There are several forms of creationism. In the most common form of creationism the universe instantly came into being 6,000-20,000 years ago in its present form during a 144 hour (6 day) period. God directly created the plants and animals, including humans, in their present form. About 4,000 years ago there was a huge global Flood that gave all the geology that we see today, including the fossil record.

According to evolution, God created the universe 13.4 billion years ago by means of the Big Bang. During the intervening years God created the stars, galaxies and planets by gravity. Earth and the rest of the solar system was created by God by means of gravity about 4.55 billion years ago, give or take a couple million. God created life by chemistry soon after the earth was formed. The first forms of life were very simply cells. At this point God used evolution to create the diversity of life on the planet. Natural selection was used to give all the varied designs we see in plants and animals.

 

[MartinM]

According to evolution, God created the universe 13.4 billion years ago by means of the Big Bang. During the intervening years God created the stars, galaxies and planets by gravity. Earth and the rest of the solar system was created by God by means of gravity about 4.55 billion years ago, give or take a couple million. God created life by chemistry soon after the earth was formed. The first forms of life were very simply cells

***? None of this is 'according to evolution'. You've been talking to creationists too long.

 

[secretdawn]

ok, sorry i should have worded that better....could OLD EARTH creationism be explained in as much detail as possible, and then Evolution, with out the concept of God be explained in the same manner?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

ok, sorry i should have worded that better....could OLD EARTH creationism be explained in as much detail as possible, and then Evolution, with out the concept of God be explained in the same manner?

OEC - God created the earth as mainstream science describes, but the diversity of the organisms that inhabit it did not arise through evolution.

Evolution - with or without God - all the current and past biodiversity is derived from a common ancestral form through descent with modification. Evolution is the same whether God exists or not; it doesn't really address His existence. From a scientific frame of reference there is no difference between theistic and atheistic evolution.

 

[secretdawn]

so is it true then that according to evolution, everything, including humans, is derived from some primordial ooze?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Not entirely right. Evolution does not cover the actual origins of life from "primordial ooze". It proposes that all current species derive from a single ancestral population.

 

[lucaspa]

***? None of this is 'according to evolution'. You've been talking to creationists too long.

My apologies. I mistyped and didn't put in the "theistic" before evolution.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Primordial ooze is not really a scientific term. However life itself must have come from some kind of primordial ooze which covered much of the early Earth.

According to this research, it is likely that all of today's multicellular organisms have evovled from just two species of primitive bacteria.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...40113075946.htm.

 

[lucaspa]

so is it true then that according to evolution, everything, including humans, is derived from some primordial ooze?

In the strict definition of evolution, Karl is right. This is how Darwin described it:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

It's only after you have life that biological evolution kicks in.

In the broader sense of evolution that creationists use, "evolution" becomes all of science. Creationists try to have a gap that science can't explain -- the origin of life -- to stick God into. However, there is no such gap. Life arises by chemistry. But then, god-of-the-gaps isn't Christian, so ignore it. For you, God created life by chemistry.

http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

 

[MartinM]

My apologies. I mistyped and didn't put in the "theistic" before evolution.

Fair enough.

Note to creationists: See how easy that was? It's called 'admitting a mistake'. Try it some time.

 

[Larry]

Is the term 'primordial ooze' used to conjure up negative perceptions about the theory of evolution?

 

[lucaspa]

According to this research, it is likely that all of today's multicellular organisms have evovled from just two species of primitive bacteria.

[url="http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...40113075946.htm."]http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...40113075946.htm.[/url]

I'm going to digress here, Late, in order to show Secretdawn some of the details.

Secretdawn, as you saw, Darwin said that all life on earth came from one or a few original species. For years, evolutionary biologists thought that all life arose from just one original species. We thought we could trace back the genes and find that common ancestor.

But it became impossible to trace all life genetically back to one ancestor. That is because one-celled organisms trade DNA from species to species by DNA outside the genome in what are called "plasmids". So a gene in E. coli, say, could be put on a plasmid and then given to a S. aureus and then moved from the plasmid to the S. aureus genome. So now the S. aureus has an E. coli gene even tho S. aureus didn't evolve from E. coli. That screws up our method of tracing genes back to a single ancestor.

One scientist -- Woese -- hypothesized that multicelled organisms originated when several different bacteria got together and formed a colony. Margulis hypothesized instead that multicellular organisms arose when only two different bacteria got together to form a two-celled colony. Antonelli found a way to test the two hypotheses and says Woese's hypothesis doesn't work. It is impossible to form a multicellular organism that way. Instead, Margulis' idea does work.

 

[lucaspa]

Is the term 'primordial ooze' used to conjure up negative perceptions about the theory of evolution?

Probably. Darwin used "warm little pond", so converting it to "ooze" is probably meant to sound gross. The purpose is to get a negative emotional response and rejection of the idea on emotion. I notice "pond scum" is often used; it seems to serve the same purpose.

 

[lucaspa]

ok, sorry i should have worded that better....could OLD EARTH creationism be explained in as much detail as possible, and then Evolution, with out the concept of God be explained in the same manner?

There are several versions of Old Earth Creationism (OEC for short). The most common is the Day-Age Theory. In this theory the "days" of Genesis 1 are long periods of time -- the necessary billions or millions of years.

The Gap Theory puts gaps of time into Genesis 1. Sometimes the gap is between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Sometimes it is between the days. Sometimes it is between day 5 and 6. Some gap theorists say that Genesis had a complete creation up until about 12,000 years ago and then God wiped the slate clean and created all the plant and animal species again, and then created man. JohnR7, who used to be quite frequently here, adhered to that one.

Atheists believe God does not exist. Theistic evolution takes the Christian belief that God not only creates but sustains the universe. Thus, all the material processes found by science are believed to depend directly on God. If God stops willing them, the processes stop. Let me take a simple example. Oxygen and hydrogen burn to form water. Science explains this by the exchange of electrons in a bond between the oxygen and hydrogen atoms and the release of heat. Theistic evolutionists say that this exchange of electrons happens only if God wills it. If God didn't will it, the exchange wouldn't happen.

Atheists say the the exchange happens without God. That the material explanation is the whole explanation. Understand? If you don't, please ASK.

Science can't tell us which is correct. Because science has never seen hydrogen and oxygen combine where we know God is absent to see if they burn in the absence of God.

So, theistic evolutionists accept everything science says about evolution. They simply look on it as God using this method and keeping the method going.

Atheistic evolutionists accept everything science says about evolution but believe that the process works on its own and doesn't need God.

Is that clear?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

quote
Is the term 'primordial ooze' used to conjure up negative perceptions about the theory of evolution?
quote

Not necessarily. However, it is often misused - or at least used in a misleading way - even by people trying to describe abiogenesis and evolutions

The term "pre-biotic conditions" would be more accurate.

 

[thomas the tank engine]

So, theistic evolutionists accept everything science says about evolution. They simply look on it as God using this method and keeping the method going.

And if you think that God used this method and is not keeping it going (except in the sense of not saying, I've had enough of this, lets stop it working) and is just letting it run by itself then you're a deist (or so I was told in another thread). I think. Maybe.

 

[secretdawn]

Is the term 'primordial ooze' used to conjure up negative perceptions about the theory of evolution?

no it is the only way i have heard it put...i am trying to learn about both to come to my own conclusion...