How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Doug Melven]

No, I haven't studied evolution in depth in many years.
But, just looking at basic evolution, life from nonlife. requires much more faith than it does to believe that God created the Earth in 6 days.

 

[LordKroak10]

No, I haven't studied evolution in depth in many years.
But, just looking at basic evolution, life from nonlife. requires much more faith than it does to believe that God created the Earth in 6 days.

I would have to disagree. Research the present-day phenomena observed in geothermal vents on the ocean floor. We find life there that doesn't exist anywhere else on this planet. There is good reason that we believe geothermal vents are the birthplace of life. There is at least some evidence to support the notion that life can arise from inorganic substances, whereas there is no evidence to support the creation story. There is the famous Miller-Urey experiment, which was able to create organic compounds from inorganic substances, but it must be noted that they used a simulation of early earth that is no longer considered accurate. Still, they proved that it IS possible to create components of life from basic substances.

 

[dreadnought]

It is, if you have constructed your theology on a literal and inerrant Genesis.

Some people's rock is the Bible. I might suggest that the Lord should be our rock. It takes faith.

 

[bhsmte]

I didn't think I needed to, what interests me is the actual scientific literature but try to get a conversation going on that is like pulling teeth.

You seem to have a different interpretation of scientific literature, than the scientists.

But hey, maybe they are all wrong and you are right.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Thank you, I think I like him at the point of the origin of life.

Science is the study of creation.

Evolution is the best explanation for the evidence we have. Pardigm shifts are common as new evidence comes to the surface for people to examine. Science books go though constant revision. The Bible does not need revised although there are always new translations and our interpretation goes through the same sort of revision we see with Science. Only the original Hebrew Biblical language is dependable.

I don't think we can get 'here' from 'there' via evolution (arguing from incredulity).

 

[pitabread]

But, just looking at basic evolution, life from nonlife. requires much more faith than it does to believe that God created the Earth in 6 days.

No. Research into life from non-life is based entirely on chemical processes using organic compounds and can be directly tested.

Believing God poofed everything into existence first requires acceptance of an unbounded untestable supernatural cause. The latter of which clearly requires more faith than acceptance of natural compounds and chemical processes.

 

[bhsmte]

It's not a theory, it's a phenomenon in nature. It's the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. The a priori assumption of universal common ancestry is presupposition, not science.



I'm well acquainted with the fossil and genomic evidence, I have no problem going along with it, just remain unconvinced.

Why exactly, is evolution not a scientific theory?

Are there any other well accepted scientific theories, that you claim are not theories? Or, is it only this one theory, that happens to threaten your personal faith belief?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The simple words about how God caused Adam to sleep and removed a bone from his side and built Eve, was not even understandable until we understood scientifically that rib bones contain multipotent [edited: stem cells] DNA from which God could build Eve and that rib bones grow back if the sheath which houses it is left intact by the surgeon.

So, for thousands of years we could only look at that and wonder. Yet, men since the beginning have been assigning ideas to the text without any ideas of what it could mean.

Then, we should accept what the bible says as it has proven to be good information even if we have no ideas of why or how. Science is a big help in these matters.

Paul said that we will know God by the things He has made. That's a lot of science!

The metaphor is the important thing. God created Lucifer out of himself, for himself. Adam's rib was a reenactment of that event.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Certainly the Bible is telling the truth. There could be some symbolism. Is it really that big of a deal?

Anything that leads us away from God isn't good.

 

[mark kennedy]

-_- RNA and proteins form naturally. They can catalyze the reactions pertaining to their formation, making them form faster and in larger quantities. Most of the basic cell reactions are ones that can occur naturally, but not as fast as they do within cells filled to the brim with RNA and protein enzymes that catalyze the reactions.

News to me, I've yet to see laboratories that can produce that sort of thing.

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh, the irony.

Wow, you have some memory, you don't know how to make a point but a pretty good archivist.

 

[bhsmte]

Anything that leads us away from God isn't good.

Who is "us"?

 

[mark kennedy]

Why exactly, is evolution not a scientific theory?

Because it's not a theory, it's a phenomenon. The theory of evolution is a philosophy of natural history, big difference.

Are there any other well accepted scientific theories, that you claim are not theories? Or, is it only this one theory, that happens to threaten your personal faith belief?

Nothing threatens my personal faith, I just go with the evidence as a find it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Science is the study of creation.

Exactly

I don't think we can get 'here' from 'there' via evolution (arguing from incredulity).

If that's what you want to call it, the argument from credulity is much more common in my experience.

 

[LordKroak10]

Because it's not a theory, it's a phenomenon. The theory of evolution is a philosophy of natural history, big difference.

To say that the theory of evolution is a "philosophy of natural history" is both inaccurate and misleading. Unless you are looking at a different theory of evolution than I am, it is accepted as a scientific theory. A scientific theory is an explanation of observed phenomena that is supported by evidence and research. The theory of evolution, in its current state, has an incredibly robust body of scientific evidence to support it, and each year seems to bring more advances that further cement its status as a scientific theory, not a philosophy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Exactly



If that's what you want to call it, the argument from credulity is much more common in my experience.

I think there's a fine line between the two.

 

[mark kennedy]

To say that the theory of evolution is a "philosophy of natural history" is both inaccurate and misleading.

Nonsense, it's either a phenomenon or it's a theory of natural history known as Darwinism.

Unless you are looking at a different theory of evolution than I am, it is accepted as a scientific theory. A scientific theory is an explanation of observed phenomena that is supported by evidence and research. The theory of evolution, in its current state, has an incredibly robust body of scientific evidence to support it, and each year seems to bring more advances that further cement its status as a scientific theory, not a philosophy.

Science is a philosophy, it's called epistemology (theories of knowledge), the word literally means knowledge. You guys are fun.

 

[USincognito]

Life comes from life.

That's a platitude, not a scientific proposition.

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

That's almost correct. Evolution simply does not address the first, primordial life. Evolution only deals with extant life that reproduces and passes on genetic material to offspring.

Something does not come from nothing.

Well it's a good thing that no part of evolution or the theory of evolution proposes, suggests or even implies "something from nothing".

Oh, and that also is a platitude, not a scientific proposition.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think there's a fine line between the two.

An argument from authority or an argument from ignorance, what you know or don't know. It's the same thing, it's irrelevant to the actual evidence.

 

[USincognito]

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.

And plate tectonics doesn't describe where the earth comes from, but they seem to accept it just fine.