No intelligent design, logic in Evolution.

[Enoch7]

I have always viewed Intelligent Design as I logically see it to be: a pathetic attempt for Christians to combat science. I almost feel embarrassed when a fellow Christian begins bashing evolution (after all, that's all intelligent design has goin' for it right?).

So since I don't quite feel like elaborating on my distaste for the whole Creationism crowd, I will simply write down the three problems with Creationism (which not coincidentally are their main points).

1. Evolution is flawed.
2. Nature is so orderly.
3. God said so.

To begin with, for any theory to hold it's own legitimacy in saying another theory is incorrect, only demonstrates their lack of understanding when it comes to science. Now, I know a lot of you will probably say it's normal for a new theory to contradict an old one -- and that's credible. What's not credible however, is saying that because something else has problems, it means another thing is true. For example, let's say I leave cookies and milk for Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. Now just because the cookies and milk disappear, doesn't mean that Santa Claus did it. And just because I don't know entirely who could have ate the cookies and milk, doesn't mean Santa Claus did it either. Same thing with Creationism: their main argument is that evolution is flawed, and thus, only they can be right. But just because science can't exactly pinpoint how we came into being doesn't mean that God did it. For that matter, I could just as well argue that Santa Claus did it! Not to say I don't believe God created the universe, but that this aspect of intelligent design holds no water in the realm of science.

Secondly, to say that there has to be a God because the universe and nature are oh so orderly is a little irrational. This is because you don't know nature or the universe from being anything but what they are. You are saying, "because nature and the universe is as it is, there has to be a God." It would be similar to me pointing to a rock and saying, "because that rock is a rock, there is a God!" We haven't seen something as broad as "nature" being anything but what it is. You can call it orderly if you want, but animals kill, rape, eat each other's flesh and blood, have no government, no laws -- they basically tear each other apart. If you want to call that orderly, be my guest. I'm not going to call it chaotic, I'm going to simply call it nature. Because that's what it is, and for us to say whether or not it's orderly or chaotic is a matter of opinion.

Lastly, "because God said so." Yet, if you read 2nd Peter 3:8 it says:

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

Well that sounds good enough to me. And he says "like" too, which insinuates that Peter was using an arbitrarily large number when he said "thousand" and wasn't being exact. So what's the problem? I mean even if you don't buy that, you still got Genesis 1:14-19 that says the sun was created on the fourth day. Clearly this should be enough to settle any bickering about how long it took for the universe to be created. If it says that to the Lord days are different than they are to us, and that the sun (the very thing which we use to define night and day) was not created until the fourth day, surely this is enough to at the very least be open about how long it took for God to create the universe. I mean even when you take it in the most literal sense, as I have just demonstrated, it states that the world couldn't have been created in six days. That is, unless you're one of the many Christians who pick out the parts in the Bible they like and don't like.

Besides, just take a look at evolution -- is it so wrong to believe that if you try hard enough you can become something better? Because that's what evolution is saying. To always try and become something better: that's evolution, the way of life. And I just can't stress enough the similarity it has with Christianity. Christ was all about sacrificing your needs and wants for be a better person, and to gain kinship with the higher power, so why are we arguing with something that teaches basically the same thing? That if we try hard enough we can evolve to a higher state, and be closer to the ideals that guide us. Because the only way we can evolve to that state, is through Christ's example. Don't look at the science of evolution, look at the concept. When you do that, you'll see that the world was created through God. That without God, we wouldn't have evolved. We wouldn't have evolved if we were lazy, self-serving, ignorant, and filled with hate.

Repent or perish - to evolve or die. See a difference? I sure don't.

 

[shernren]

To be honest, I don't agree very much with your analysis. But I have a question for creationists which has been bugging me. What do you all think of ID? Do you think ID should be taught in schools, or creationism?

See, many creationists here will tell me that creationism is right because it points to God, and evolutionism is wrong because it points away from God. Aside from whether that's true or not, where does it put IDism? To me IDism is the the perfect example to show that creationism can be taught without the God of the Bible. After all, that's the exact reason it was invented right? To present creationism without pointing to the God of the Bible.

 

[gluadys]

Besides, just take a look at evolution -- is it so wrong to believe that if you try hard enough you can become something better? Because that's what evolution is saying.

While your analysis of ID/creationism has some merit, this sentence indicates that you have not studied evolution. No one can evolve by trying to become something better. In fact no one can evolve at all, for evolution is not a process which happens to individuals. Evolution is a change in the characteristics of a species.

And a species has no choice about its evolution. It cannot evolve by trying or stop evolving by not trying.

Three things are required for evolution to take place.

1. Reproduction: living things must make copies of themselves.
2. Mutation: but the copies must not be absolutely exact; mutation supplies variability.
3. Differential reproductive success (aka natural selection): success in reproduction must not be randomized over all variations, but aligned with a particular set of variations.

In most species none of these things falls under the control of an individual and so cannot be influenced by a desire to become better. And even in humans, where reproduction may be a choice, the other two function automatically whether we will them or not.

 

[Enoch7]

While your analysis of ID/creationism has some merit, this sentence indicates that you have not studied evolution.

Wow, well that's embarassing . I have studied it a bit (enough to understand), but I did make a mix up there, and you are certainly right about calling me on that. I admit it's been a while since I've brushed up on evolution, I jumped the gun. I had aspects of evolution confused with adaptation (the loose usage of the word, that is). -shrug- at least it was one paragraph . By the way, thank you for saying something about that -- honestly.

So regarding the last paragraph of my previous post, allow me to elaborate and rephrase.

Just look at religion in general. I've always had this saying, "I hate religion, I love God," because I truly believe Christ died to get rid of religion. That he destroyed the "law" and through that destruction left only "the way" or "the truth" or "the life (suggesting the words are interchangable)." And the church was established merely for meeting and organizing purposes.

Religion changes. We have a vengeful and cruel God, then a wise God, then a loving and forgiving God. I, in no way believe that God changed. I see God as fixed -- that he is one thing. It's us that change around him. Simular to the sun: I can sit here and say "obviously the sun moves because I can see it go from east to west," but it's actually us that move.

We picked the best sounding religion until the right one (Christianity) came up, only to show there was no use for "religion (this is beside the point, I'll admit, since this is mainly a personal belief)." Simular to natural selection, everyone who stood up to the Jews were killed off. Judiasm was the best religion for it's time, until Christianity rolled around randomly. I say randomly because hey, there were a ton of people during Christ's time claiming to be the messiah, and yet we only focus on Jesus. And even with this ideal, more religions have sprouted from Christianity to form denominations (survival of the fittest). Even though (in my opinion) the basis of Christianity is to stop this madness, and to just live free from all this "truth searching," because there is only one form of truth: Jesus Christ.

I believe there is a difference between science and truth, and there's a difference between religion and God. That one is man's definition, the other is the actual.

What I'm trying to say is that evolution has more in common with Christianity than most people would think. And even if you don't agree with me, surely you're open to the idea that evolution is not a total enemy of Christianity and Creationism certainly is not what it's all cracked up to be.

 

[JBrian]

Besides, just take a look at evolution -- is it so wrong to believe that if you try hard enough you can become something better? Because that's what evolution is saying. To always try and become something better: that's evolution, the way of life. And I just can't stress enough the similarity it has with Christianity. Christ was all about sacrificing your needs and wants for be a better person, and to gain kinship with the higher power, so why are we arguing with something that teaches basically the same thing? That if we try hard enough we can evolve to a higher state, and be closer to the ideals that guide us. Because the only way we can evolve to that state, is through Christ's example. Don't look at the science of evolution, look at the concept. When you do that, you'll see that the world was created through God. That without God, we wouldn't have evolved. We wouldn't have evolved if we were lazy, self-serving, ignorant, and filled with hate.

This is not evolution. Evolution is non-life producing life. Evolution is non-intelligence producing intelligence. Evolution is unconscience life producing conscience life, etc. etc. Becoming better is not evolution.

I think you completely, totally, and remarkably misconstrue the creationist's case. We argue for intelligent design because the universe and life display signs of intelligence. What is so wrong with that? You will probably charge me with "That's not science!" Yes it is, however it is not operation science, it is origin science. Which is exaclty what the theory of macroevolution is: origin science. Macroevolution is not repeatable or observable. Therefore it is not operational science, it is, like creationsim, forensic science. Macroevolutionists infer macroevolution from the existence they now see. We do that with creationsim. No difference.

 

[shernren]

Hmm? Get the facts right, JBrian.

Abiogenesis is non-life producing life.
Evolution is life producing more complex life.

Here we go with operation science and origin science again. JBrian, if you understand relativity you will know that we never observe anything in the present, right? As an obvious example: I cannot tell you that the sun is shining now. I can only tell you that the sun was shining 8 minutes ago, because the sun is 8 light-minutes away from the earth and information will take 8 minutes to reach us. The same applies with all experiments, all the way from experiments with contact involved (because contact involves electromagnetic forces, which also propagate at the speed of light) to experiments that involve peering back farther and farther into the past. Because of that, no science is ever done in the present. By creationist definitions, there is no such thing as operational science. Everything is "origins science". Everything is "uncertain".

Do you really want to live in a world like that?

The fact is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to infer creationism from what we now see. There are far too many fossils (ironically) for creationism to explain, for example.

 

[JBrian]

Hmm? Get the facts right, JBrian.

Abiogenesis is non-life producing life.
Evolution is life producing more complex life.

Here we go with operation science and origin science again. JBrian, if you understand relativity you will know that we never observe anything in the present, right? As an obvious example: I cannot tell you that the sun is shining now. I can only tell you that the sun was shining 8 minutes ago, because the sun is 8 light-minutes away from the earth and information will take 8 minutes to reach us. The same applies with all experiments, all the way from experiments with contact involved (because contact involves electromagnetic forces, which also propagate at the speed of light) to experiments that involve peering back farther and farther into the past. Because of that, no science is ever done in the present. By creationist definitions, there is no such thing as operational science. Everything is "origins science". Everything is "uncertain".

Do you really want to live in a world like that?

The fact is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to infer creationism from what we now see. There are far too many fossils (ironically) for creationism to explain, for example.

Macroevolution posits that life came from non life. That is the theory.
Yes, it takes 8 minutes for the sun's light to get here. That does not mean that we do not sense other things "right now" in the present. We do. Our senses are not telling us what happened 3 seconds ago, they are telling us what is going on NOW! Operations science is science where we can actually test and observe things. We cannot do this with the origin of the universe or life. There is such things as operational science: biology, chemistry, etc.

How are there too many fossils to posit creationism?

 

[notto]

Macroevolution posits that life came from non life. That is the theory.

No, that would be the theory of abiogeneisis (and technically so does creationism).

Where does Macroevolution posit this? You should read some Darwin. He attributed the creation of life to the same source as creationism - the Creator. Evolution deals with speciation and descent, not the origin or creation of life.

 

[JBrian]

No, that would be the theory of abiogeneisis (and technically so does creationism).

Where does Macroevolution posit this? You should read some Darwin. He attributed the creation of life to the same source as creationism - the Creator. Evolution deals with speciation and descent, not the origin or creation of life.

In order for macroevolution to work, abiogenesis must have taken place. Creation does NOT assert that life randomly and naturally came from non life. Darwin later recanted of his "creator" and said his theory did not need God. Contemporary macroevolutionists say that life came from non life. Although evolution as such deals with the evolving of life, abiogenesis is presupposed.

 

[artybloke]

Besides, just take a look at evolution -- is it so wrong to believe that if you try hard enough you can become something better? Because that's what evolution is saying.

Evolution is not a moral process, nor is it about "improving" anything. It is merely about survival of life and change from one thing to another. A tiger is not an "improvement" on an amoeba; it's merely more complicated.

Creation does NOT assert that life randomly and naturally came from non life.

Neither does abiogenesis. It asserts that life began from naturally occuring chemical processes that can be understood (though we don't have enough information yet about the early earth to know which of the many possible processes it was that produced life.)

And it makes no comment about whether that process was controlled through divine agency. No scientific analysis can make metaphysical statements about ultimate causes, only about proximate causes.

 

[shernren]

Nope, "macro"evolution states that simpler life gave rise to complex life, while abiogenesis states that non-life gave rise to life. One does not need the other. My personal belief, for example, is that given the current mess (or lack of sound at all!) in abiogenesis research, it may be that abiogenesis didn't happen and God did indeed create the first cell ... but left it to evolve.

Yes, it takes 8 minutes for the sun's light to get here. That does not mean that we do not sense other things "right now" in the present. We do. Our senses are not telling us what happened 3 seconds ago, they are telling us what is going on NOW! Operations science is science where we can actually test and observe things. We cannot do this with the origin of the universe or life. There is such things as operational science: biology, chemistry, etc.

Easy to say, hard to prove. There is always a time gap between conducting an experiment and reading its result. Show me one in which there isn't.

How are there too many fossils to posit creationism?

Creationism with the global flood basically predicts that all the fossils we have today were produced as a result of 2,000 years of procreation following the Fall before the Flood. That is simply unworkable. For example, check out this refutation: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19655613#post19655613

 

[Windmill]

I have always viewed Intelligent Design as I logically see it to be: a pathetic attempt for Christians to combat science. I almost feel embarrassed when a fellow Christian begins bashing evolution (after all, that's all intelligent design has goin' for it right?).

So since I don't quite feel like elaborating on my distaste for the whole Creationism crowd, I will simply write down the three problems with Creationism (which not coincidentally are their main points).

1. Evolution is flawed.
2. Nature is so orderly.
3. God said so.

To begin with, for any theory to hold it's own legitimacy in saying another theory is incorrect, only demonstrates their lack of understanding when it comes to science. Now, I know a lot of you will probably say it's normal for a new theory to contradict an old one -- and that's credible. What's not credible however, is saying that because something else has problems, it means another thing is true. For example, let's say I leave cookies and milk for Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. Now just because the cookies and milk disappear, doesn't mean that Santa Claus did it. And just because I don't know entirely who could have ate the cookies and milk, doesn't mean Santa Claus did it either. Same thing with Creationism: their main argument is that evolution is flawed, and thus, only they can be right. But just because science can't exactly pinpoint how we came into being doesn't mean that God did it. For that matter, I could just as well argue that Santa Claus did it! Not to say I don't believe God created the universe, but that this aspect of intelligent design holds no water in the realm of science.

Secondly, to say that there has to be a God because the universe and nature are oh so orderly is a little irrational. This is because you don't know nature or the universe from being anything but what they are. You are saying, "because nature and the universe is as it is, there has to be a God." It would be similar to me pointing to a rock and saying, "because that rock is a rock, there is a God!" We haven't seen something as broad as "nature" being anything but what it is. You can call it orderly if you want, but animals kill, rape, eat each other's flesh and blood, have no government, no laws -- they basically tear each other apart. If you want to call that orderly, be my guest. I'm not going to call it chaotic, I'm going to simply call it nature. Because that's what it is, and for us to say whether or not it's orderly or chaotic is a matter of opinion.

Lastly, "because God said so." Yet, if you read 2nd Peter 3:8 it says:

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

Well that sounds good enough to me. And he says "like" too, which insinuates that Peter was using an arbitrarily large number when he said "thousand" and wasn't being exact. So what's the problem? I mean even if you don't buy that, you still got Genesis 1:14-19 that says the sun was created on the fourth day. Clearly this should be enough to settle any bickering about how long it took for the universe to be created. If it says that to the Lord days are different than they are to us, and that the sun (the very thing which we use to define night and day) was not created until the fourth day, surely this is enough to at the very least be open about how long it took for God to create the universe. I mean even when you take it in the most literal sense, as I have just demonstrated, it states that the world couldn't have been created in six days. That is, unless you're one of the many Christians who pick out the parts in the Bible they like and don't like.

Besides, just take a look at evolution -- is it so wrong to believe that if you try hard enough you can become something better? Because that's what evolution is saying. To always try and become something better: that's evolution, the way of life. And I just can't stress enough the similarity it has with Christianity. Christ was all about sacrificing your needs and wants for be a better person, and to gain kinship with the higher power, so why are we arguing with something that teaches basically the same thing? That if we try hard enough we can evolve to a higher state, and be closer to the ideals that guide us. Because the only way we can evolve to that state, is through Christ's example. Don't look at the science of evolution, look at the concept. When you do that, you'll see that the world was created through God. That without God, we wouldn't have evolved. We wouldn't have evolved if we were lazy, self-serving, ignorant, and filled with hate.

Repent or perish - to evolve or die. See a difference? I sure don't.

Now, I know a lot of you will probably say it's normal for a new theory to contradict an old one -- and that's credible. What's not credible however, is saying that because something else has problems, it means another thing is true

This isn't fair. Creationsists don't do that. We prove evolution is not true (as it isn't) and say creation is true. Not because of the fact evolution ain't true. We're just showing that evolution isn't true. When has it been said that because evolution isn't true suddenly creationisim is true?

heir main argument is that evolution is flawed, and thus, only they can be right. But just because science can't exactly pinpoint how we came into being doesn't mean that God did it.

Actually, it does.

Evolution is actually mathematically impossible. Not just extremely low chance. The fact is, life is so complex, it proves the need for something to have created us, and only God is so powerful, as only he can give life.

Secondly, to say that there has to be a God because the universe and nature are oh so orderly is a little irrational. This is because you don't know nature or the universe from being anything but what they are. You are saying, "because nature and the universe is as it is, there has to be a God." It would be similar to me pointing to a rock and saying, "because that rock is a rock, there is a God!" We haven't seen something as broad as "nature" being anything but what it is. You can call it orderly if you want, but animals kill, rape, eat each other's flesh and blood, have no government, no laws -- they basically tear each other apart. If you want to call that orderly, be my guest. I'm not going to call it chaotic, I'm going to simply call it nature. Because that's what it is, and for us to say whether or not it's orderly or chaotic is a matter of opinion.

Ever heard of sin?

Besides that, I'm not understanding by what you mean by orderly. I don't think I've ever heard of that being used. But if you mean complexity then certainly it implies there is a God. Sure, its not full-blown proof. But neither is any of evolutions stuff either. Basically nothing is a certainty in this world. Even gravity is a theory. That doesn't mean it isn't there.

Lastly, "because God said so." Yet, if you read 2nd Peter 3:8 it says:

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

This doesn't prove anything.

As far as I'm concerned, this doesn't prove anything. It could be taken in other ways, like this, it could be explaining how God has lived for so long that to him a thousand years is nothing, it is like a day

AND, if you read on in that passage, as I did, its actually talking about end of time scoffers Its saying that they'll say why hasn't he come but the bible is saying that the time period is actually so small... >.O thats a totally different context.

Genesis 1:14-19 that says the sun was created on the fourth day. Clearly this should be enough to settle any bickering about how long it took for the universe to be created. If it says that to the Lord days are different than they are to us, and that the sun (the very thing which we use to define night and day) was not created until the fourth day, surely this is enough to at the very least be open about how long it took for God to create the universe. I mean even when you take it in the most literal sense, as I have just demonstrated, it states that the world couldn't have been created in six days. That is, unless you're one of the many Christians who pick out the parts in the Bible they like and don't like.

We define it as day, and so? How does that prove anything? God created light and darkness on the first day. How was it supplied? We don't know, at least, I don't know. But so? I don't actually care. Just because we don't know how it was there doesn't mean it wasn't.

Besides, just take a look at evolution -- is it so wrong to believe that if you try hard enough you can become something better?

No, because microevolution does happen! But it is hard to believe that we come a completely new species.

Christ was all about sacrificing your needs and wants for be a better person, and to gain kinship with the higher power, so why are we arguing with something that teaches basically the same thing? That if we try hard enough we can evolve to a higher state, and be closer to the ideals that guide us. Because the only way we can evolve to that state, is through Christ's example. Don't look at the science of evolution, look at the concept. When you do that, you'll see that the world was created through God. That without God, we wouldn't have evolved. We wouldn't have evolved if we were lazy, self-serving, ignorant, and filled with hate.

Repent or perish - to evolve or die. See a difference? I sure don't.

I sure do!

When was the fall? Who created sin? When was the first sin? Also, if life came from nothing, why wouldn't we have evolved on our own? I mean, we were self sufficent. And, if we evolved from monkeys, does that mean that a couple of monkeys decided to not be lazy, self-serving, ignorent and filled with hate? Is that how they evolved into humans? Are the monkeys that are still about monkeys because they did not repent? O_________O

 

[Windmill]

Nope, "macro"evolution states that simpler life gave rise to complex life, while abiogenesis states that non-life gave rise to life. One does not need the other. My personal belief, for example, is that given the current mess (or lack of sound at all!) in abiogenesis research, it may be that abiogenesis didn't happen and God did indeed create the first cell ... but left it to evolve.



Easy to say, hard to prove. There is always a time gap between conducting an experiment and reading its result. Show me one in which there isn't.



Creationism with the global flood basically predicts that all the fossils we have today were produced as a result of 2,000 years of procreation following the Fall before the Flood. That is simply unworkable. For example, check out this refutation: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19655613#post19655613

Nope, "macro"evolution states that simpler life gave rise to complex life, while abiogenesis states that non-life gave rise to life. One does not need the other. My personal belief, for example, is that given the current mess (or lack of sound at all!) in abiogenesis research, it may be that abiogenesis didn't happen and God did indeed create the first cell ... but left it to evolve.

So God left it to evolve into a sinful creature? How the heck could one cell have chosen between right and wrong? When did we reach that state?

Also, so is the fact that s many fossiles would've had to have been covered with layers of mud/dirt/water/whatever in a very short amount of time for them to have turned into fossiles! Evolution doesn't provide that either -_- And I refuse to link offsite, because it usually means the person doesn't actually know the infomation themselves... you may, you may not, thats the thing, if you do not understand it, how the heck are we supposed to discuss it with you?

 

[gluadys]

Wow, well that's embarassing .

Don't sweat it. We all have to eat crow sometimes. I know I have had to from time to time right here in this forum.

What I'm trying to say is that evolution has more in common with Christianity than most people would think. And even if you don't agree with me, surely you're open to the idea that evolution is not a total enemy of Christianity and Creationism certainly is not what it's all cracked up to be.

With this I agree. And a fair bit of what you said earlier too.

 

[shernren]

So God left it to evolve into a sinful creature? How the heck could one cell have chosen between right and wrong? When did we reach that state?

Also, so is the fact that s many fossiles would've had to have been covered with layers of mud/dirt/water/whatever in a very short amount of time for them to have turned into fossiles! Evolution doesn't provide that either -_- And I refuse to link offsite, because it usually means the person doesn't actually know the infomation themselves... you may, you may not, thats the thing, if you do not understand it, how the heck are we supposed to discuss it with you?

Um, I didn't link offsite. The link points to another post in this same forum where I took several AiG arguments, pasted them here, and then dissected them using my own reasoning to show that they are logically incoherent.

I don't get your argument about "right and wrong". Right and wrong are defined in terms of a personal, ethical relationship with God. An animal doesn't have right and wrong because it has no moral obligations towards God. A human, on the other hand, does. The human was created specifically "in the image of God". That means humans have moral obligations to act as if they are the image of God. Humans began having moral obligations when they began being the image of God. As a TE who believes in the special and direct creation of man I have no problem with this. You will have to ask other TEs how they explain it.

Fossils are indeed covered rapidly with large amounts of matter to be preserved. Just because this happens on a local scale very often, though, doesn't prove that it happens on a global scale.

 

[gluadys]

This is not evolution. Evolution is non-life producing life.

No, it isn't. Evolution assumes life already exists. It is about how species diversifiy into new species.

 

[gluadys]

Macroevolution posits that life came from non life. That is the theory.

That may be somebody's theory, but it is not the theory you will find in a scientific textbook or peer-reviewed journal.

Macro-evolution is a phase of evolution and so it assumes that life already exists. Macro-evolution is a term sometimes applied to evolution at the level of the production of new species and common descent. This distinguishes it from the evolution which occurs within a species to change and adapt it, but without forming new species.


If you are going to oppose a theory, you need to deal with the theory as it is. Otherwise you are merely burning straw men.

 

[gluadys]

In order for macroevolution to work, abiogenesis must have taken place. Creation does NOT assert that life randomly and naturally came from non life. Darwin later recanted of his "creator" and said his theory did not need God. Contemporary macroevolutionists say that life came from non life. Although evolution as such deals with the evolving of life, abiogenesis is presupposed.

It is a fact that life came from non-life. Even the bible tells us that, for it says that God told the earth and the waters (non-life) to bring forth living things, and that humanity was not created from nothing, but from the non-living dust of the earth.

So the only question remaining is whether God gave supernatural assistance to the earth and the waters, or whether, when he spoke to them, he activated the natural forces in them, which he had already created, to turn earth and water into living beings.

I don't think scripture provides any comment on that. After all, either way, God created life from non-life, no?

And if, by his word to them, God activated the natural forces of earth and water to produce life, there is no reason scientists should not investigate these natural forces with the aim of understanding them.

 

[notto]

Creation does NOT assert that life randomly and naturally came from non life.

Neither does the theory of evolution.

 

[gluadys]

This isn't fair. Creationsists don't do that. We prove evolution is not true (as it isn't) and say creation is true.

Yet you contradict yourself farther on in your post and say evolution does happen. You can't have it both ways. There are not two different processes of evolution. So if it happens (and you agree it does) you can't show that it is not true. And if you can show it is not true (which you can't), you cannot claim it does happen.

In any case, evolution and creation are not opposites. Evolution is just a way of describing how God created.

When has it been said that because evolution isn't true suddenly creationisim is true?

Again you contradict yourself, for your next sentence affirms that this is the case.

Evolution is actually mathematically impossible.

Anything that has actually happened cannot be mathematically impossible. Evolution has happened (you even agree that it has) so it cannot be mathematically impossible.

You will probably find when you check out the parameters on which such calculations are based, that they are using an unscientific and unrealistic description of how evolution happens. So they are really referring to the mathematical impossibility of something no one claims actually happened.

The fact is, life is so complex, it proves the need for something to have created us, and only God is so powerful, as only he can give life.

First, this is the Christians Only section of this site. No one who posts here disputes that God created us.

Second, there is no evidence that complexity cannot evolve. And if you assume that God is in charge of evolution, there is still less reason to say that complexity cannot evolve.

Besides that, I'm not understanding by what you mean by orderly.

A process is called orderly when we can understand how it works and predict the conditions in which it will take place. For example, we understand under what conditions water will become ice, or when an eclipse of the sun will occur. Order may be simple (as in the examples above) or very complex. Evolution is very complex, but it is still orderly.

The bible tells us that God made the world orderly and guarantees the natural order will continue. This is the basis on which science can be done. If nature is not orderly, it cannot be studied using scientific means.

I don't think I've ever heard of that being used. But if you mean complexity then certainly it implies there is a God.

Remember, no one posting on this thread is implying that God does not exist and create. But order is not the same thing as complexity--see above, And complexity per se does not imply that God exists. Disorder is often more complex than order (a messy room is more complex than a tidy room). Does that imply God is involved in letting your room become a mess? (I am assuming the ordinary state of a 15 year old's room. You may be an exceptional 15 year old in this regard. If so, my apologies.)

Sure, its not full-blown proof. But neither is any of evolutions stuff either. Basically nothing is a certainty in this world. Even gravity is a theory. That doesn't mean it isn't there.

This doesn't prove anything.

As far as I'm concerned, this doesn't prove anything. It could be taken in other ways, like this, it could be explaining how God has lived for so long that to him a thousand years is nothing, it is like a day

This shows promise. I am glad to see you realize we don't have proof of either creationism or evolution or even gravity or how to interpret a text of scripture. What we have is evidence---reasons to make one choice rather than another. Or we have belief--opting for one choice without the backing of evidence, sometimes in spite of the evidence.

So, the real question is, what position is best supported by the evidence? And what is your personal stance toward the evidence? Does it count enough to change your belief?

We define it as day, and so? How does that prove anything? God created light and darkness on the first day. How was it supplied? We don't know, at least, I don't know. But so? I don't actually care. Just because we don't know how it was there doesn't mean it wasn't.

And this is what differentiates you from a scientifically-minded person. You don't actually care about figuring out what you don't know (at least on this topic--- I am sure there are some questions to which you really really want answers and care enough about them to figure them out.) But a person interested in nature does care, and does want to know about these things.

As a matter of fact we do know there was light and dark before the sun. Around 8 billion years before. But we also know that the earth was never exposed to that light and dark because the earth never existed without the sun. The solar system as a whole came into being in the same time framework. So all the days and nights since the earth came into being have been caused by the turning of the earth on its axis so that each place on earth experiences day when it is turned toward the sun and night when it is turned away from the sun. There has never been day or night on earth without the sun.

No, because microevolution does happen! But it is hard to believe that we come a completely new species.[/color]

Depends on what you mean by a completely new species. Speciation has been observed many times. We know for a fact that new species evolve from existing species. Not only has it been seen in nature, it has been replicated in experimental work. I have a short list (about 50) provided by a biologist who used to post here regularly. And another list of observed speciation is easily found at talkorigins.

I expect, however, that when viewing the reports of speciation, you will say that this is not what you mean by a completely new species.

So we would need to discuss what a species is and how evolution works through speciation to get to the kind of change you are talking about.

So let's begin with what you mean by a completely new species? What are the criteria for a species being completely new?

And why do you expect evolution to produce a completely new species? Darwin never said this would happen. He described evolution as "descent with modification". In short, what he visualized is that all new species would be modifications of ancestral species. IOW not completely new, just somewhat new. And that is still what the theory of evolution proposes: no completely new species at all. Just a multitude of variations producing modifications of former species.

Do you have any problem with that?

When was the fall?

Do you understand the difference between a scientific and a theological question?

Do you think a scientist could tell from a genome whether or not a person was affected by the fall? What would the scientific indicators of the fall be?

Theological questions cannot be used to comment on scientific questions, nor vice versa. Evolution is a matter of science, not of theology, and must be dealt with in terms of science. The fall is a matter of theology, not science, and must be dealt with in terms of theology.

My personal take on the fall is that it happens every day.

Who created sin?

Every human person in all of history.

When was the first sin?

When the first human to have self-aware consciousness of self and God chose self over God.

Also, if life came from nothing,

No one, not even atheists, claim that life came from nothing, so why do you raise a non-issue?

why wouldn't we have evolved on our own?

Well, we did evolve. And no one in this forum would claim we evolved on our own. The question is whether or not God ever provided a miracle to assist our evolution, or whether God worked only through natural forces.

You do know, I hope, that natural is not the opposite of God. God created nature and gave it its powers and sustains the natural order. God mostly operates in this world via the natural order. So to say something happens naturally is an affirmation that God worked through the same natural order he created. It is not a denial of the existence of God or of his work of creation.

And, if we evolved from monkeys, does that mean that a couple of monkeys decided to not be lazy, self-serving, ignorent and filled with hate?

No, evolution does not happen to individuals nor because of individual effort. Evolution is a change in a population that occurs automatically in response to mutation and environmental change. It cannot be willed to happen nor to stop happening.

Your queries show you have not understood the process of evolution. You don't know how evolution actually works. It would be good to do some basic reading on the topic if you wish to discuss it intelligently.

If you are genuinely interested in a discussion on this topic, pm me.