What do you believe regarding creation and evolution?

I chose I don't know, because I'm being honest. I'm surprised that only four people voted for it, because really, we all don't know.

Does it really matter, where we came from? There could be millions of explanations for our existence, none of them provable, from Aliens seeded the Earth last Wednesday and injected false memories of history into our heads as some kind of sick experiment, right up to we don't exist at all.

Fact is we seem to be here right now, and it seems like we should find away to survive on this planet into the future - to me debating about where we came from is a waste of time and thought.

ThePhoenix said:

(I'd say its in the order of 10^2000, but I could be very wrong). Does that imply divine creation? NO! Because there's a very simple, and very random method of determining the state, whether or not people flip them on or off.

Click to expand...

Your argument is weightless. Just because there is a mass amount of combinations that you can think of means nothing. It is when you deal with a scenario where there is one or two successful combinations out of a trillion trillion trillion other dead combinations, that you get suspicous that there was an intervening hand. It would also be case where there would be a required number of 10,000 occurances, each of which had a probability of 1 in 10 to the 20 power, and each all had to perfectly happen simultaneously. Even that scenerio is rediculously generous. And that would be the case when you speak of spontaneous formation of a single cell organism. OH WAIT! I forgot, once you get cell formed, how do you jump start it so that it will start functioning? That alone is an incredibly delicate issue. I know that the known amount of knowledge today is only a fraction of what information the universe holds, but we know enough realize that spontaneous formation is basically hopeful wishing in the minds of neo-evolutionists.

ThePhoenix said:

Nothing sprung fully formed into a genetic code. Instead various codes were added slowly through gradual mutation

Click to expand...

Without a somewhat systimatic code for dna in the first place nothing would be living.

ThePhoenix said:

suddenly through rapid mutation, or through gene sharing. And there is a very simple method to select the good genes - the bad ones die off. Therefore assuming that every generation mutates a 70 code long genetic code would evolve in 70 generations, since every non-viable method would die each generation. Obviously it took a little bit longer then that...

Click to expand...

sounds like a science fiction story. I could kind of parallel this story with a story of my own of how the english language was formed by papers with individual letters on them getting blown around in a room. Eventually some of the letters fell into word format. These words were verb, noun, adjective, advert, and so on.
Then more letters began to obey the previous words and formed themselves into the specific catagories. Well first, without intelligence, the not even the characters on the papers would have incured their own existance. Of course this sounds just like a rediculous story. THus you see how rediculous human evolution, well unless you want to be willingly ignorant.

alpha_centuari said:

Your argument is weightless. Just because there is a mass amount of combinations that you can think of means nothing. It is when you deal with a scenario where there is one or two successful combinations out of a trillion trillion trillion other dead combinations, that you get suspicous that there was an intervening hand. It would also be case where there would be a required number of 10,000 occurances, each of which had a probability of 1 in 10 to the 20 power, and each all had to perfectly happen simultaneously. Even that scenerio is rediculously generous. And that would be the case when you speak of spontaneous formation of a single cell organism. OH WAIT! I forgot, once you get cell formed, how do you jump start it so that it will start functioning? That alone is an incredibly delicate issue. I know that the known amount of knowledge today is only a fraction of what information the universe holds, but we know enough realize that spontaneous formation is basically hopeful wishing in the minds of neo-evolutionists.
Without a somewhat systimatic code for dna in the first place nothing would be living. sounds like a science fiction story. I could kind of parallel this story with a story of my own of how the english language was formed by papers with individual letters on them getting blown around in a room. Eventually some of the letters fell into word format. These words were verb, noun, adjective, advert, and so on.
Then more letters began to obey the previous words and formed themselves into the specific catagories. Well first, without intelligence, the not even the characters on the papers would have incured their own existance. Of course this sounds just like a rediculous story. THus you see how rediculous human evolution, well unless you want to be willingly ignorant.

Click to expand...

Your argument leaves out the selective process. There is nothing random about evolution or abiogenesis.

Some chemicals react better with others. Some form long chains while other do not Some require a catalyst while other do not.

In your example related to lanugage, what is the selective pressure that would select words? It is lacking one and therefore is not a valid analogy.

Does hydrogen react with oxygen in the same way that helium reacts with oxygen? Chemical reactions are not random at all.

Now, extending this to evolution once a self replicator is formed, environment selects for and against combinations for "survival".

Again, your analogy does not have this selection mechanisms and therefore, leaves out one of the most important mechanisms of abiogenesis theory and evolutionary theory.

It is a strawman of the actual theories you are trying to discuss.

Pete Harcoff said:

I know that. You said the length of the universe is 10^24. 10^24 what? Inches? Meters? Parsecs?

Click to expand...

Actually, I was wrong. Currently the most distant visible objects are 4X10 to the 26th power meters away.
I would post the source link, but according to the moderator rules I don't have enough posts to show an external link. Any, it was from the " scientific american" a science journal.

alpha_centuari said:

Your argument is weightless. Just because there is a mass amount of combinations that you can think of means nothing. It is when you deal with a scenario where there is one or two successful combinations out of a trillion trillion trillion other dead combinations, that you get suspicous that there was an intervening hand. It would also be case where there would be a required number of 10,000 occurances, each of which had a probability of 1 in 10 to the 20 power, and each all had to perfectly happen simultaneously. Even that scenerio is rediculously generous. And that would be the case when you speak of spontaneous formation of a single cell organism. OH WAIT! I forgot, once you get cell formed, how do you jump start it so that it will start functioning? That alone is an incredibly delicate issue. I know that the known amount of knowledge today is only a fraction of what information the universe holds, but we know enough realize that spontaneous formation is basically hopeful wishing in the minds of neo-evolutionists.
Without a somewhat systimatic code for dna in the first place nothing would be living. sounds like a science fiction story. I could kind of parallel this story with a story of my own of how the english language was formed by papers with individual letters on them getting blown around in a room. Eventually some of the letters fell into word format. These words were verb, noun, adjective, advert, and so on.
Then more letters began to obey the previous words and formed themselves into the specific catagories. Well first, without intelligence, the not even the characters on the papers would have incured their own existance. Of course this sounds just like a rediculous story. THus you see how rediculous human evolution, well unless you want to be willingly ignorant.

Click to expand...

That argument makes no sense as well. The only reason that this came under scrutiny is because of all the trillions of combinations produced a human. Unlikeliness cannot prove intervention. Now I would say that in analogy to your argument, I will say that if I have a random number generator from 1-1000000000000 and I pick a number, if I get it the first time round, thus the conclusion is valid that God is helping me. There is no logical link, you are simply trying to use an inappropriate real-life analogy.

To me it is quite simple. Simple enough for a child to understand. Didn't Jesus say that we must come to him as a little child?

If the Bible is true and if God is not a liar then it happened as it was written.

The first thing God did was to make light. Then he separated light from darkness. So, before there were stars there was light. Light everywhere from one edge of the universe to the other.

Latter he made the stars etc. these are containers of light. It did not take billions of years for the light to reach the other edge of the universe as the light existed before it was contained.

Is that too hard for God? No.

When God created the animals were the elephants full grown? Where the whales adults? Where the birds already flying? It seems as if this is true.

However, if we were to look at them they would not appear as if they had just been created but rather as full grown...that is aged. So, there was built in maturity if you will. Whether it appeared as if the elephants were years old or the whales ancient...nevertheless they had just been created.

Likewise with the universe. There is built in age. Adam was created as a man, not a child. However, he just began to exist.

The earth as well...looking old, but just existing. Nothing is too hard for the Father. In fact, perhaps he did so to prove his greatness.

He is so great, so powerful that all this came into existence by his very word. He didn't need evolution...he is greater than that. In an instant a moment of time he said let there be...and there was...that simple.

Some might argue, well the scriptures say that one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.

This is true...but think about it. If one day was a thousand years and he took one day to create a certain thing could not the opposite also be true.

Could he not do what might take a thousand years or perhaps to our puny minds a million years...could he not do this in one day?

Remember...not only is a thousand years as one day, but one day is as a thousand years. That is he could do in one day what could take a thousand years.

He is that great.

So, to doubt that God is that great and that powerful dismisses all that he has written. And why would we do that?

If science disagrees with God's word it is only because science has not learned enough to understand God and is not this what the scriptures say?

The wisdom of man (this includes science) is foolishness to God!

Evolution...not needed.

Billions of years...not needed.

The one who raised Jesus from the dead, is more than able to create this tiny universe just the way he has had it described to us.

It is not foolish to believe so, it is wise. For then we truly see his greatness and our faith is strengthened and our hope is made alive.

This is what I think.

emjohn45 said:

Latter he made the stars etc. these are containers of light. It did not take billions of years for the light to reach the other edge of the universe as the light existed before it was contained.

Click to expand...

What about the light from supernova, that by your reasoning, would never had existed in the first place. Seems a mighty odd thing to do...

Anyway, the whole "appearence of age" argument is rife with problems. For one, if the universe looks ~14 billion years old, then all science will reveal is that the universe looks ~14 billion years old.

It also opens up a whole philosophical can of worms about the nature of reality. If the universe was created to look a certain age, then by the same logic, the universe might have been created 5 minutes ago complete with historical evidence including false memories. And since you can't disprove such a possibly, it remains viable.

Lastly, it makes God out to be a great deceiver. There is plenty of evidence in the universe for a ~14 billion year history (i.e. the aforementioned light from supernova). If God really created the universe more recently, He went to a lot of trouble to make it appear otherwise.

emjohn45 said:

When God created the animals were the elephants full grown? Where the whales adults? Where the birds already flying? It seems as if this is true.

However, if we were to look at them they would not appear as if they had just been created but rather as full grown...that is aged. So, there was built in maturity if you will. Whether it appeared as if the elephants were years old or the whales ancient...nevertheless they had just been created.

Click to expand...

I do not want to rain on your parade, because you seem to come up with some good answers. But as is often the nature of things, when you answer a questions, two new questions comes along.

What about salt, limestone, coal & oil? We do put salt on our food, so it most likely is organic, just as limestone, coal & oil are all organic. They were all alive at one time.

Salt can not be formed in a flood, salt is formed when the oceans evaporate and the salt and other mineral deposits remain.

JohnR7 said:

I do not want to rain on your parade, because you seem to come up with some good answers. But as is often the nature of things, when you answer a questions, two new questions comes along.

What about salt, limestone, coal & oil? We do put salt on our food, so it most likely is organic, just as limestone, coal & oil are all organic. They were all alive at one time.

Salt can not be formed in a flood, salt is formed when the oceans evaporate and the salt and other mineral deposits remain.

Click to expand...

Salt is Sodium Chloride, which is inorganic.

wblastyn said:

Salt is Sodium Chloride, which is inorganic.

Click to expand...

Calcium carbonate is inorganic also. But most of it comes from organic sources. Sodium Chloride maybe inorganic, but without it you do not have brine and without brine you do not have brine shrimp, an essential part of the food chain.

If God created everything all at once, would not our whole food chain still be alive and not buried in the ground as a "inorganic" chemical or element?

The Bible says He is a God of the living. Why do we see so much evidence of a world that was once alive, but now is no longer alive?

so? sodium chloride is inorganic, that's what he was saying.

Jet Black said:

so? sodium chloride is inorganic, that's what he was saying.

Click to expand...

So? Simple, there are lots of people in the evolution camp, there are lots of people in the YEC creation camp. There are few of us, only about 10% in the GAP camp. Still, that is the position I am defending, so I have a right to present my evidence.

so? sodium chloride would still be inorganic even if everyone believed the moon was made of cheese.

Jet Black said:

so? sodium chloride would still be inorganic even if everyone believed the moon was made of cheese.

Click to expand...

We were talking about salt, I grouped salt with limestone, coal and oil. They are all evidence of a world that use to be and now no longer is.

YEC denys the old world, so I presented evidence for an old world.

I do not deny the "new" world that the YEC's believe in. They deny the old world. And Evolutionists deny that the old world had to end, before the "new" world could begin.

The Bible says unless a seed fall to the ground and die, then new life can not spring forth. He was talking about wheat, the old has to die, before the new crop can begin.

JohnR7 said:

We were talking about salt, I grouped salt with limestone, coal and oil. They are all evidence of a world that use to be and now no longer is.

Click to expand...

You said salt is organic, salt is sodium chloride which is inorganic so you were wrong.

JohnR7 said:

Calcium carbonate is inorganic also. But most of it comes from organic sources. Sodium Chloride maybe inorganic...

Click to expand...

Calcium carbonate and sodium chloride are both inorganic because organic compounds contain C-H bonds. It doesn't matter whether it comes from a living source such as marine microorganisms. The distinction between organic and inorganic comes from the chemical composition rather than the source.

For example, oil is formed from previously living matter, but what makes it organic is the fact that it is composed of hydrocarbon chains. Similarly with natural gas, or methane, CH4.

Calcium carbonate is produced by marine fauna and is often what comprises the different types of limestones, but it is inorganic because it does not consist of hydrocarbon molecules. What label you are looking for here is either biochemical or biogenic, as in, calcium carbonate can be a biogenic mineral that comprises limestones.

wblastyn said:

You said salt is organic, salt is sodium chloride which is inorganic so you were wrong.

Click to expand...

It depends on who you talk to. I have put posts up here before and about have the people will say organic and half will say nonorganic.

Perhaps Mechanical Bliss is right when he says you should go more by biochemical or biogenic.

Gracchus said:

In reality of course, dead seeds don't sprout.

Click to expand...

Like I said: "He was talking about wheat". Wheat and a lot of other plants do not produce seed, untill they die. I have a whole yard full of flowers that do not produce seed until they die.

Usually when a plant is done flowering we pull it out. But if we want the seeds from it, then we leave it be untill the seeds are ready to fall off by themselves, then we harvest the seeds.

"Organic" and "inorganic" are labels.

Lables are convenient for discussion but they are not reality. Treating the words as the reality is fastening your attention on the finger that points at the moon.