What do you believe regarding creation and evolution?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by platzapS
ello, all. i'm a new user of christianforums and i am fascinated with the creation/evolution controversy. I believe in macro-evolution and that we evolved from one-celled life forms, but that God started it off. There's just so much evidence (fossil record, vestigial organs) that point to evolution. I believe that much of Genesis 1 is figurative.

I would like to comment, are we realy sure that creation vs. evolution is an ever must be controversy (one holds true, the other fails), or that they can have some form of synthesis?

Religion speaks about creation ex-nihilo (out of nothing), which is something we cannot understand of believe in. And of course, the fact is that man and all there is, were not created, but gradually in a long lasting historic process had gotten shape, the way evolution describes.
BUT... the universe in it's totallity, is a different thing, and even cosmologists come up with an explenation with is just some sort of creation ex-nihilo. Time, matter and space had some definite beginning, and occured as a spontaneuous act "out of nothing", and which is as yet not understood in all detail. From our point and perspective, within this universe and space/time frame, there is nothing (within) this universe that could have caused it, and it can not even be stated within this point of view that it had some cause, because whatever that might or could have been, is not within our timeframe (there was not something "before" the big bang). It takes a lot of abstract effort to envision this, and it might be we are never able to model the cause of our universe to come into existence.

That is a different perspective of course. So creation is not a myth but a proven fact now, although the way it was portrayed in the Bible, was a bit misleading, but the idea remains the same (for me at least. they could not have known in that time, hoe the universe came into being, because the lack of knowledge, so what the bible tells are just stories, legends, etc).

 

[Lanakila]

Originally posted by Morat
  Information can be lost. But Natural Selection tends to insure that the information lost is "bad information".

  Mutations, of course, are constantly adding information.

 

 

Your last statement is false. What is a mutation, Morat? You and I know its a transcribtion error in the genome (base pairs of nucleic acids). Mutations are errors in pre-existing information. Nothing is added, only changed or taken away from. Evolution uses circular reasoning, evolution supposedly has to be true, so therefore mutations have to add information. But, the truth is they don't. You may want to do a little more research before making definitive statements like your last one.

 

[chickenman]

how very ironic

mutations can add information.

behold: a gene represented by the word cat

cat

(duplication mutation)

cat + cat

(single nucleotide (letter) substitution mutation)

cat + hat

____________________

we used to have cat, now we have cat and hat - new information arising through duplication mutations and substitution mutations

 

[Orihalcon]

how ironic is it?  a mutation is an accidental change.  i have aaaabbbb.  by accident, i make it baaabbbb.  wowee, something different, something new!

and no, mutations aren't constantly adding information.  REPLACING is more like it.  usually when a muation occurs, there's an old gene that turns into a new gene- you don't get something new added, you have something old that's changed.

 

[Lanakila]

Originally posted by chickenman
how very ironic

mutations can add information.

behold: a gene represented by the word cat

cat

(duplication mutation)

cat + cat

(single nucleotide (letter) substitution mutation)

cat + hat

____________________

we used to have cat, now we have cat and hat - new information arising through duplication mutations and substitution mutations

 

Its not new information at all. So now your cat has 2 left ears, or is short a whisker. Its still a cat. The information isn't new at all its a shuffling of "pre-existing" information. The 2 dynamic processes that move evolution are natural selection and genetic mutations. Both of these processes have no intelligence behind them. They are chaotic and random. Most mutations are negative and harmful to the creature, they happen in. To claim that everything on the earth got here through these 2 processes, leaves a major question that Francis Crick tried to answer. Where did the information come from  in the first place. This question he tried to answer with his "Panspermia" theory. His theory only displaces the problem to another planet and aliens lifeforms. The information still had to come from someplace (should I say someone).

 

[Faithful1]

I picked #1, but #2 is just as good. Noone has been able to convince me otherwise and I certainly don't want to be in the camp of those who are calling God a liar.

Faithful 1

 

[chickenman]

sorry, I don't understand what is wrong with you guys

you had cat, now you have cat and hat

the same thing can happen with genes via the same mechanisms

1 gene

2 genes with different functions

thats new information - and these mechanisms produced great increases in information (the duplication of the hox cluster)

the no new information argument is fallacious, its wrong. Mutations can and do increase information

 

[Sinai]

Well, thus far 20 persons think God created both the universe and life, although those 20 votes are spread among 5 options--but each option has at least one vote; 5 persons say God created the universe but not life; 23 do not believe in the God described in the Bible; 3 don't know; and 6 checked "other."

 

[Mainframes]

 

Its not new information at all. So now your cat has 2 left ears, or is short a whisker. Its still a cat. The information isn't new at all its a shuffling of "pre-existing" information. The 2 dynamic processes that move evolution are natural selection and genetic mutations. Both of these processes have no intelligence behind them. They are chaotic and random. Most mutations are negative and harmful to the creature, they happen in. To claim that everything on the earth got here through these 2 processes, leaves a major question that Francis Crick tried to answer. Where did the information come from  in the first place. This question he tried to answer with his "Panspermia" theory. His theory only displaces the problem to another planet and aliens lifeforms. The information still had to come from someplace (should I say someone).

Use some imagination. Maybe the mutation caused the tail in the cat to be more prehensile. If this offers an advantage then the gene is passed on and proliferates. Move on a few thousand years, we may now have a creature decended from cats that has a highly adaptable tail that it used in climbing, mating rtuals maybe and can no longer be called a cat.

This is evolution, not exactly a hard concept.

 

[Jet Black]

The information isn't new at all its a shuffling of "pre-existing" information.

in your cartoon version, yes, however when you look at things like nylon eating bacteria, you have completely new information.

 

[obediah001]

That is the key to evolution , you have to use your imagination!!!! Crick was good as Gould & many other of the Evolution religionists in extending the shadow so far that we will never be able to prove thier silly evolutionary religion.

 

[obediah001]

God created this cosmos in 6 days about 6 or so thousand years ago & science supports this proposition fully. Remember Evolution is not science but a religious view.

 

[Arikay]

obediah001: Maybe you can back that up.
First, start by giving us a basic definition of what the theory of Evolution is. Then explain how its a religion.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

God created this cosmos in 6 days about 6 or so thousand years ago & science supports this proposition fully.

Only five percent of 'scientists' in america support this view. The rest, christian and non-christian, support evolution. Funny, since over 50% of americans don't believe in evolution.

Remember Evolution is not science but a religious view.

Evolution is science. Which came first - evolution or fossils?

 

[alpha_centuari]

I picked other. My views:
Several experiments have shown that molecules that are necessary for life can form under conditions that occur or are likely to have occured in nature. Other experiments have produced simple self replicating molecules.

Yes, like amino acids have been caused to bond. And there is a chance that a single cell organism can form.
But the problem is that no one has ever produced all 20 life demanding amino acids.
The probability of the spontaneous formation of life is literally around 1 in 10^10,500 power. For comparison, the known length of the universe is somwhere around 10^24. The phrase " chance of life forming " is basically an out right lie. IT is flawed in syntax. If you know anything about physics you would know that that probability is just a horribly silly technicallity. Some people think it is like the chance of pick a certain card out of 10^10,500 cards. Not so. It is more like the chance of 10,000 blind men each trying to figure out a rubix cube. Except in spontaneous formation there is no semi-intelligent force trying to figure out anything , it total chaos.

How ever life started, the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution explains the current diversity of life.

In theory it can perhaps make an explanation that sounds somewhat convincing but it offers no logical explanation to why we have extremely complicated organs such as the eye, which has over 40 interdependantly functioning parts. Some evolutionists resort to saying something silly like, there are some cells that are light sensitive and eventually those cells evolved into eyes. Using that logic we would have eyes all over our body. Eitherway, no simple environmental stimuli can stimulate an eye to start evolving.

It is backed by massive amounts of evidence and is supported by numerous experiments. I fully accept the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. None of the other theories of evolution fit the data

Actually, I have heard much much better explanations for the geological features we find today. Much better explanation for fossils and many other things.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The probability of the spontaneous formation of life is literally around 1 in 10^10,500 power.

No one assumes that life spontaneously formed. There is a process, inherent to the laws of chemistry and physics. Plus, since no one is sure of the exact process by which life formed in the early Earth, deriving a probability of it occurring is meaningless.

For comparison, the known length of the universe is somwhere around 10^24.

Huh? The length of the universe is 10^24? 10^24 what exactly?

 

[alpha_centuari]

No one assumes that life spontaneously formed. There is a process, inherent to the laws of chemistry and physics. Plus, since no one is sure of the exact process by which life formed in the early Earth, deriving a probability of it occurring is meaningless.

Nice evasive talk. If there is no one out in space to design a dell computer, would you consider me narrow minded if I said that given infinite time and an infinite universe that eventually a computer would suddenly form by chance?
10^24 means 10 to the 24 power.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Nice evasive talk. If there is no one out in space to design a dell computer, would you consider me narrow minded if I said that given infinite time and an infinite universe that eventually a computer would suddenly form by chance?

Seeing how there is no known (non-human) natural process which can form a computer by itself, I would not think that computers could be formed outside of human intervention. On the other hand, we do know that biological chemicals react under certain conditions to form other chemicals. This is the basis of abiogenesis research (namely figuring out which chemicals and what conditions).

But going with the computer analogy, flash back a thousand years. If I showed you a computer 1000 years ago, would you think I was able to construct one by natural means?

10^24 means 10 to the 24 power.

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

 

[ThePhoenix]

Yes, like amino acids have been caused to bond. And there is a chance that a single cell organism can form.
But the problem is that no one has ever produced all 20 life demanding amino acids.
The probability of the spontaneous formation of life is literally around 1 in 10^10,500 power. For comparison, the known length of the universe is somwhere around 10^24. The phrase " chance of life forming " is basically an out right lie. IT is flawed in syntax. If you know anything about physics you would know that that probability is just a horribly silly technicallity. Some people think it is like the chance of pick a certain card out of 10^10,500 cards. Not so. It is more like the chance of 10,000 blind men each trying to figure out a rubix cube. Except in spontaneous formation there is no semi-intelligent force trying to figure out anything , it total chaos.
In theory it can perhaps make an explanation that sounds somewhat convincing but it offers no logical explanation to why we have extremely complicated organs such as the eye, which has over 40 interdependantly functioning parts. Some evolutionists resort to saying something silly like, there are some cells that are light sensitive and eventually those cells evolved into eyes. Using that logic we would have eyes all over our body. Eitherway, no simple environmental stimuli can stimulate an eye to start evolving.

Actually, I have heard much much better explanations for the geological features we find today. Much better explanation for fossils and many other things.

Oh for... I refuted that Dr. Dino article. Here's how to do it.
First take the number of atoms in the room. If your room is a 2 meter cube (2 meters on each side) that's the rather large number of 2.1x10^27. With the average velocity of the air molecules there would probably be somewhere in the order of a thousand impacts per second. This is, on the surface, irriducable complexity.

This suggests that the irriducable complexity arguement is limited.

But you also postulate a different arguement, that the irriducable complexity implies a system that is too complex to be natural. Lets examine this. The number of possible combinations of light switches in New York is essentially limitless. Even assuming New York is limited to the New York city area and that there was one light switch per person, the number of combinations is causing an overflow error on my very powerful calculator (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.

So too with evolution. The complexity can be scaled down until it is quite understandable. Nothing sprung fully formed into a genetic code. Instead various codes were added slowly through gradual mutation, 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...

 

[Jet Black]

Yes, like amino acids have been caused to bond. And there is a chance that a single cell organism can form.
But the problem is that no one has ever produced all 20 life demanding amino acids.

http://www.angelfire.com/on2/daviddarling/aminospace.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/on2/daviddarling/amino.htm

so there are processed that produce amino acids naturally. Futhermore there is a clear excess of left handed amino acids in carbonaceous chondrites.

Here is an example of one that has been studied:

http://www.angelfire.com/on2/daviddarling/Murchison.htm

incidentally, there are in excess of 70 amino acids in that meteorite.

what you now need to do is to prove that a given amino acid cannot come about naturally (this includes synthesis from very early life which may not require that amino acid) and that the only solution is that God did it. what you are looking for is a God that creates an imperfect universe that cannot do certain things without his intervention.

remember also that the earliest examples of life were probably not cellular... they were probably just strips of self reproducing RNA. oh and cellualr life has been generated in labs just by mixing chemicals.