How to choose between creation and evolution.

OldWiseGuy · Mar 10, 2018

If you study evolution, with an open mind, you will likely believe in evolution.

If you study human, animal, and plant anatomy, with an open mind, you will likely believe in creation.

eleos1954 · Mar 10, 2018

Life comes from life. Nobody disputes that. With evolution there is no viable explanation of "first life" regardless of it's form. Something does not come from nothing.

Speedwell · Mar 10, 2018

There is no need to choose. Take both.

Snappy1 · Mar 10, 2018

Great. Point me to the people who came to the conclusion of creationism without an apriori religious belief. I'll wait.

Snappy1 · Mar 10, 2018

eleos1954 said:
Life comes from life. Nobody disputes that. With evolution there is no viable explanation of "first life" regardless of it's form. Something does not come from nothing.

There's no explanation of "first life" with germ theory either, but I'm willing to bet you're not going to lick a leper.

Paul of Eugene OR · Mar 10, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
If you study evolution, with an open mind, you will likely believe in evolution.

If you study human, animal, and plant anatomy, with an open mind, you will likely believe in creation.

It was precisely detailed study of animal and plant anatomy that led Darwin to his theory of evolution. I'm in favor of accepting both. Dear readers: each of you is both a creation of God and a development from earthly parents. In like manner, evolution happened and God created all of life.

Doug Melven · Mar 10, 2018

If you take a good hard look at evolution you will see that it cannot supply the answers to where we came from.
Even if you don't take into account first life.
Evolution says that animals evolved because they had to in order to survive.
What I would like explained from Evolutionists is that if an animal did not have what it took to survive in a hostile environment, how did that animal thrive to produce offspring?
In one single generation it had to have mutated offspring while unable to survive.
Why wouldn't the animal just move to a different environment?

bhsmte · Mar 10, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
If you study evolution, with an open mind, you will likely believe in evolution.

If you study human, animal, and plant anatomy, with an open mind, you will likely believe in creation.

Ah, no.

The study of humans, animals etc., has solidified the strengthened the evidence for evolution.

Speedwell · Mar 10, 2018

Doug Melven said:
If you take a good hard look at evolution you will see that it cannot supply the answers to where we came from.
Even if you don't take into account first life.
Evolution says that animals evolved because they had to in order to survive.
What I would like explained from Evolutionists is that if an animal did not have what it took to survive in a hostile environment, how did that animal thrive to produce offspring?
In one single generation it had to have mutated offspring while unable to survive.
Why wouldn't the animal just move to a different environment?

You are laboring under some serious misconceptions about how evolution works.

VirOptimus · Mar 10, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
If you study evolution, with an open mind, you will likely believe in evolution.

If you study human, animal, and plant anatomy, with an open mind, you will likely believe in creation.

Belief has nothing to do with science.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 10, 2018

Doug Melven said:
Evolution says that animals evolved because they had to in order to survive.

No, it doesn't.

What I would like explained from Evolutionists is that if an animal did not have what it took to survive in a hostile environment, how did that animal thrive to produce offspring?

It didn't, by definition.

In one single generation it had to have mutated offspring while unable to survive.

Nope, that's completely wrong.

Why wouldn't the animal just move to a different environment?

They would if they could.

When a population encounters an environmental change that none can survive, and there's no alternative available, they will all die out. That does happen, but it's obviously not the typical situation.

When a population encounters an environmental change that only a proportion can survive, only that proportion will survive, and only their genetic material will pass to subsequent generations. So the descendant population will, on average, be better able to survive that environment, and so-on.

More generally, the individuals that are able to produce more viable offspring will contribute their genetics disproportionately to subsequent generations, so the population average will move in that direction.

For example, if a population of light coloured moths is reasonably well camouflaged on trees with relatively light coloured bark, but industrial dirt & soot gradually darkens the trees so the moths tend to show up more against the bark and are more likely to be eaten by birds, the darker moths in the population are more likely to survive to reproduce than the lighter ones. This selective predation of the lighter moths will result in the average shade of the population becoming darker over time, so the later population is better adapted to the new situation than the earlier one. If the dirt & soot reduces and the tree bark becomes lighter again, the same process will occur in reverse. This is roughly what happened to the Peppered Moth over the 19th & 20th centuries.

LordKroak10 · Mar 10, 2018

Doug Melven said:
If you take a good hard look at evolution you will see that it cannot supply the answers to where we came from.
Even if you don't take into account first life.
Evolution says that animals evolved because they had to in order to survive.
What I would like explained from Evolutionists is that if an animal did not have what it took to survive in a hostile environment, how did that animal thrive to produce offspring?
In one single generation it had to have mutated offspring while unable to survive.
Why wouldn't the animal just move to a different environment?

If you study the mass extinctions of the past, you will see millions of species that could not adapt to changing conditions, and did not survive. Hence "mass extinctions". The most fit species are not those that are the biggest, strongest, or fastest, but those that are the most able to adapt. Animals that could adapt to changing conditions did so, struggling to survive but making it work, until over time they made more permanent changes to suit the new environment.

And animals can't just move to different environments. There may be inhospitable physical barriers such as mountains or deserts, or the difference between water and land. They may try to move and find none of the resources they need in the new environment, and so they die. Throughout all of natural history, animals had to either adapt or die. Some succeeded, many more did not. Just think of all the species that have existed at one point and did not make it to the present.

Brian Mcnamee · Mar 10, 2018

DNA RNA and the Flagellin motor are not something that time energy and matter are possible of generating. Who wrote the codes and then achieved a balance and harmony with amazing variety in the various climate zones? Man or random mutations? Seems when I watch a nature video they agree with the Bible and show creation unspoiled in some remote area and it is good. Then they bring in man and show man with dominion over the creation and certainly in a fallen state as we are the only ones destroying all environments. The recognize man is different than the animals and set over creation and not doing well over it. This Bible which recorded this history of God creating in 7 days also predicted that man would one day have the ability to kill all life on the planet if God did not intervene. If you do some research as to was there was a global flood it provides plenty of evidence that this is history with a genealogy going back to Adam not that long before the flood. God calls those willfully ignorant who do not recognize He exists as the creation itself is considered proof of His eternal power and intelligence. Genesis is a foundation for the whole of scripture and it is a literal history.

MoneyGuy · Mar 10, 2018

Both!

They coexist.

Larniavc · Mar 10, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
If you study evolution, with an open mind, you will likely believe in evolution.

If you study human, animal, and plant anatomy, with an open mind, you will likely believe in creation.

Dunno about that. If you study biology ToE becomes obviously the best current theory of how thing evolve.

Next?

mark kennedy · Mar 10, 2018

OldWiseGuy said:
If you study evolution, with an open mind, you will likely believe in evolution.

If you study human, animal, and plant anatomy, with an open mind, you will likely believe in creation.

I don't get that because I've studied genetics and fossils. The way you make that decision is you carefully consider the evidence and come to an informed decision.

Larniavc · Mar 10, 2018

eleos1954 said:
With evolution there is no viable explanation of "first life" regardless of it's form.

Correct. For that you need to study abiogenesis. How things begin is not the same as how things change.

Larniavc · Mar 10, 2018

Doug Melven said:
If you take a good hard look at evolution you will see that it cannot supply the answers to where we came from.

Correct. It is abiogenesis that deals with that issue of biology.

Larniavc · Mar 10, 2018

Doug Melven said:
What I would like explained from Evolutionists is that if an animal did not have what it took to survive in a hostile environment, how did that animal thrive to produce offspring?

They didn’t that the point.

bhsmte · Mar 10, 2018

mark kennedy said:
I don't get that because I've studied genetics and fossils. The way you make that decision is you carefully consider the evidence and come to an informed decision.

Speaking of informed decisions regarding DNA and evolution:

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2

How to choose between creation and evolution.

Wake me when it's soup.

God is Love

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Finally Old Enough

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

A nihilist who cares.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Natura non facit saltum

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency