What if we melded Evolution and Creation, in some way? That in the beginning, light set out to give

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You're the one who said a one-cell creature came to life billions of years ago and gradually changed into swimming creatures, land animals and finally mankind, not us.

Now you are saying it didn't evolve into anything new at all?

No, that's not what I said. If you read my post with attention, you'll find it refers to evolutionary changes in populations. No one animal changes into another unknown type of animal.

 

[coffee4u]

No, that's not what I said. If you read my post with attention, you'll find it refers to evolutionary changes in populations. No one animal changes into another unknown type of animal.

I honestly wonder if we are all speaking English.

Does evolution or does it not believe life started as a one-cell creature after the big bang which slowly changed over millions of years into mankind?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I honestly wonder if we are all speaking English.

Does evolution or does it not believe life started as a one-cell creature after the big bang which slowly changed over millions of years into mankind?

The theory of evolution posits that populations of simple unicellular creatures evolved into the diversity of life we see today, including mankind.

This theory is supported by the elaboration of a demonstrable mechanism for this process, and multiple independent lines of evidence, repeatedly tested over 150 years, with many fruitful predictions.

 

[coffee4u]

The theory of evolution posits that populations of simple unicellular creatures evolved into the diversity of life we see today, including mankind.

This theory is supported by the elaboration of a demonstrable mechanism for this process, and multiple independent lines of evidence, repeatedly tested over 150 years, with many fruitful predictions.

Dressing things up in convoluted syntax does not impress me.

So now you are saying evolution believes after the big bang there was a variety of unicellular creatures? (a fancy way of saying one-cell)

And what proofs do they have of that? Not that I believe any of their 'proofs' but I like to at least know what you all believe currently, before you change it again.

 

[pitabread]

Dressing things up in convoluted syntax does not impress me.

What convoluted syntax was in that post you quoted?

(Was it the word "fruitful"? It was fruitful, wasn't it? )

And what proofs do they have of that? Not that I believe any of their 'proofs' but I like to at least know what you all believe currently, before you change it again.

Fossils of the oldest life forms on Earth show are unicellular creatures: Fossil Record of the Bacteria

 

[coffee4u]

What convoluted syntax was in that post you quoted?

(Was it the word "fruitful"? It was fruitful, wasn't it? )

Haha.

Come on

This theory is supported by the elaboration of a demonstrable mechanism for this process

If this is how you all commonly speak I think you need to get your heads out of the lab and speak to some real people.

It reminds me of the flowery speech I make to the education department each year.

 

[pitabread]

If this is how you all commonly speak I think you need to get your heads out of the lab and speak to some real people.

It reminds me of the flowery speech I make to the education department each year.

Again, what part of that is convoluted? I'm being sincere since I really don't get it.

This is also coming from someone who uses words like "demonstrable" on a semi-regular basis in my job. Maybe I'm just used to it.

 

[coffee4u]

Again, what part of that is convoluted? I'm being sincere since I really don't get it.

This is also coming from someone who uses words like "demonstrable" on a semi-regular basis in my job. Maybe I'm just used to it.

I think you may be. The people I am around don't normally string words together such as "elaboration of a demonstrable mechanism" not unless they are showing off or are academics who live their life stuck in a book and can't relate to other people. I took it to be showing off and still might be even if yours isn't.

I'm Australian though, we speak very plainly here, so it could be cultural too. Speak like that here and you might get told to take the stick out your you know what.

 

[Gene2memE]

Why are you critiquing the language used, rather than actually addressing the points raised?

I'm Australian too, and there's nothing "cultural" about your complaints about the language being used. Complex concepts justify complex explanations.

 

[Speedwell]

Why are you critiquing the language used, rather than actually addressing the points raised?

I'm Australian too, and there's nothing "cultural" about your complaints about the language being used. Complex concepts justify complex explanations.

And the specificity and accuracy required in scientific discourse often justifies the use of words not frequently heard in common speech.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Dressing things up in convoluted syntax does not impress me.

I'm not trying to impress you, I'm trying to answer your question. If you don't understand it, ask me to explain. I'll try to simplify the language.

So now you are saying evolution believes after the big bang there was a variety of unicellular creatures? (a fancy way of saying one-cell)

No, belief is not really appropriate for scientific theories as they are provisional (although you could believe that a theory is the best available explanation). The big bang is also irrelevant.

There is good evidence that, at one time, the Earth was far too hot for life. There is also evidence that early life appeared soon (by geological timescales) after it had cooled, and that it was single-celled. The theory of evolution is an explanation for how that earliest life diversified into all the species we've discovered from then until now.

And what proofs do they have of that? Not that I believe any of their 'proofs' but I like to at least know what you all believe currently, before you change it again.

If you mean the evidence for early life being single-celled, the earliest signs of life are fossilised microbial mats, flat clumps of bacteria and archaea. They are identified by their characteristic shape and structure, their local environment (e.g. shallow waters), and the characteristic chemical signatures of metabolism that remain in the rock.

There are a lot of claims for the earliest known life, most of which are disputed, but all are microbial, as is the undisputed evidence. The earliest evidence for multicellular life appears about a billion years later.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If this is how you all commonly speak I think you need to get your heads out of the lab and speak to some real people.

It reminds me of the flowery speech I make to the education department each year.

It's partly my personal preference for using a wide vocabulary, and partly the habit of trying to be precise and concise in science discussions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think you may be. The people I am around don't normally string words together such as "elaboration of a demonstrable mechanism" not unless they are showing off or are academics who live their life stuck in a book and can't relate to other people. I took it to be showing off and still might be even if yours isn't.

I'm Australian though, we speak very plainly here, so it could be cultural too. Speak like that here and you might get told to take the stick out your you know what.

Horses for courses - this is not unusual language in science forums. This is a science forum.

 

[SLP]

The people I am around don't normally string words together such as "elaboration of a demonstrable mechanism" not unless they are showing off or are academics who live their life stuck in a book and can't relate to other people.

Those are the only options? Showing off or an academic "stuck in a book"?

I find these kinds of characterizations more demonstrative of the jealousy of the under-educated than anything else.

When you watch a rugby player pull off an amazing feat of athleticism, do you dismiss it as 'showing off' or just something a dumb jock does?

Stuck in a book... One of my colleagues runs a small farm in addition to being a professor of English. Another is a motorcycle mechanic, etc. I do wonder where this whole thing about denigrating the educated came from....

I'm Australian though, we speak very plainly here, so it could be cultural too. Speak like that here and you might get told to take the stick out your you know what.

But not if I got a try on the pitch, eh?

I'm American. Half the people here can barely string 3 words together coherently. I LOVE it when people actually communicate like educated adults.

 

[stevevw]

Hi there,

So I have reached a point where I realize there are ways to agree, between what has to happen by chance and what has to happen by design (and to a certain extent what has to happen by choice - but we will get to that later)... It is not the case that God rules out chance, in order to design His Creation. I think we get confused as Creationists, when they see us appealing to God as if we are saying "no more chances, from now on" - really what we are saying is "as much as I knew to do, I did - now God, take your chances!". It is a fundamental fact that no believer can escape, we still need to take our chances.

This not taking chances thing, is serious and it is something that Evolution prides itself on - too much I would say, but then I know God doesn't create monkeys for the purpose of later creating humans. Nevermind that Evolution prides itself on something, the point is that it expressly appeals to chances of all kinds, in order to make its point, that eventually a chance given strength creeps in. Is it God that allows that strength to creep in? I would say "yes, but with the caveat, that He does not (never does) it randomly" Why? Because God does not want to let go of the hope, that one day we will see eye to eye with Him and communicate with Him, as such.

What can be married between Creation and Evolution, then, is that micro-Evolution is able to take greater chances, especially when taken together with the strength of Creation science, that having been created with this foundation and what is like it, nothing need change. There really is a way to accept that you will have to take chances with your Creation, and then when you do, Evolution is the most accurate way to model the interactions between you and the rest of your species from then on. This way, we keep the window open, to the breeze outside at the beginning of time!

There will be objections, like "I don't want to think about God", "Evolution and chances is all I want to take", "if God created Evolution, why didn't He create Himself?" and so on and so forth. But the fundamental point, is that we will no longer be arguing everything: the Creationists will have his ambiguous beginning (if you don't call "let there be light" ambiguous, we may not be on the same page regarding some aspects of our faith!) and the Evolutionists, will be able to throw themselves, holus bolus, at changing every last thing that feeds on the desire to be different and still accepted by those that were comfortable with whom they were - even if Evolution and Creation both flew to the wind.

There are things that will have to go: "monkeys don't start to learn English, before they become human" we literally have no link between a monkeys heart and a human's mind, "mutations are a good thing", they aren't to something that's working (and can substitute it!), "if you wait long enough, the difference between Creation and Evolution is moot" actually what Creation offers is distinction beyond this life into the next, you can't have more difference than that! Likewise "God said" is not "God expects"; "the word was God" still had to be written down; "behold your king" is something that takes a long, long, long time to understand. These are not permanent obstacles, but they can make someone who isn't prepared to make any compromizes (for good or bad, in principle) a lot more religious, than perhaps with hindsight, they would say themselves they "didn't need to be".

So that is it, I think the marriage can go from there, the weaker theory first Evolution, can start with chances for a given species and the stronger foundation can embrace both the findings there and the findings in the Spirit - just in time to make an appearance at an ethics committee! There is more to be discovered, but what we should be learning here, is that no discovery is made, by leaving more and more to aggression and consumant confusion. If we can beat this, we have a real chance at an open culture that welcomes piety in all its forms, with the one exception that if the Devil wants to make an argument = he can do it, with the pen!

I appreciate your wisdom, in this context.
Not to know the difference, is not not to speak up for it, if in time the difference was as we knew.

Could be Theistic evolution or maybe something different again. I think we are still learning and discovering. What may be classed as random as with mutations may be directed to a point. I cannot imagine God creating some universal common ancestor and then leaving everything to chance in the hope it would lead to what we have to today, intelligent beings who are able to have a relationship with their creator. The worldview of evolution would have that the outcome of the course of evolution cannot be predicted. There is no rhyme or reason only survival. I cannot see God taking a gamble like that.

So whether all instructions for life may have been in a common ancestor or several forms of life or it was set at the very beginning of existence the laws, codes and instructions had to be there from the start to ensure we were on the right path. Any slight variation to the left or right could cause us to end with no life or some other form of life that was incapable of knowing God. After all that was Gods intention to create humans to have relationship with. It seems the evidence for there being more direction and less randomness in how life evolved and developed is being discovered all the time and it is making it hard for the traditional understanding of evolution to account for what we see without appealing to extraordinary circumstances and capabilities.

 

[Speedwell]

Could be Theistic evolution or maybe something different again. I think we are still learning and discovering. What may be classed as random as with mutations may be directed to a point. I cannot imagine God creating some universal common ancestor and then leaving everything to chance in the hope it would lead to what we have to today, intelligent beings who are able to have a relationship with their creator. The worldview of evolution would have that the outcome of the course of evolution cannot be predicted. There is no rhyme or reason only survival. I cannot see God taking a gamble like that.

So whether all instructions for life may have been in a common ancestor or several forms of life or it was set at the very beginning of existence the laws, codes and instructions had to be there from the start to ensure we were on the right path. Any slight variation to the left or right could cause us to end with no life or some other form of life that was incapable of knowing God. After all that was Gods intention to create humans to have relationship with. It seems the evidence for there being more direction and less randomness in how life evolved and developed is being discovered all the time and it is making it hard for the traditional understanding of evolution to account for what we see without appealing to extraordinary circumstances and capabilities.

Except we don't know that about evolution. It may well be that evolution naturally converges on self-aware intelligence, just as it has on, say, the ability to fly which has emerged in several very different branches of evolutionary development.

From the theological standpoint, the contingency of natural processes is not in any case a barrier to divine providence.

 

[ruthiesea]

To me it’s quite simple. Religion is about the who (the creator) and the Theory of Evolution and science in general is about the how and the process. I see no conflict between the two.

Some talk about “G-dless evolution” when, in fact, nowhere in his scientific writings does Darwin say that G-d doesn’t exist.