Why does everyone think Evolution contradicts Creationism?

[Loudmouth]

Why wouldn't it?

Wasn't Thalidomide a "well attested fact"?

You mean it isn't a well attested fact that thalidomide can cause birth defects?

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean it isn't a well attested fact that thalidomide can cause birth defects?

"Can cause"?

Wow -- just wow.

[sarcasm] Ya ... there's an outside chance that it might. [/sarcasm]

 

[joshua 1 9]

What God does and says, and what his imperfect followers and believers say and write down are two different things.

Yet God is able to accomplish His purpose through imperfect people.

Isa 55:11 "So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it."

"we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." rom8:28

 

[joshua 1 9]

Why wouldn't it?

Wasn't Thalidomide a "well attested fact"?

Wasn't L'Aquila a "well attested fact"?

Wasn't Pluto a "well attested fact"?

Wasn't Phlogiston theory a "well attested fact"?

Wasn't geocentrism a "well attested fact"?

"The half-life of knowledge is the amount of time that has to elapse before half of the knowledge in a particular area is superseded or shown to be untrue." "Due to the fact that scientific knowledge is growing by a factor of ten every 50 years, this means that half of what scientists may have known about a particular subject will be wrong or obsolete in 45 years."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge

So according to Wiki half of what they tell you is junk. If half is accurate and true they at least they got that much right. The problem is we do not know which half is accurate and which half is junk.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You mean it isn't a well attested fact that thalidomide can cause birth defects?

 

[SkyWriting]

Evolution does not disprove creationism, it is the mechanism.

Evolution doesn't create anything. I have to side with the evo's on this one.
Nothing new comes from evolution. Things just change.

 

[The Cadet]

What an interesting problem with science. Do you know what my problem with that is?

http://progressreport.cancer.gov/end/mortality

SCIENCE ACTUALLY WORKS.

 

[Gene2memE]

Wasn't Thalidomide a "well attested fact"?

No. As could plainly be seen, if you did the research.

Wasn't L'Aquila a "well attested fact"?

Nope. It was a fundamental misunderstanding of geological sciences by the public and legal profession, mixed in with some quirks of Italian law.

Wasn't Pluto a "well attested fact"?

Nope. Pluto's existence was never challenged, its classification was changed due to the discovery of additional bodies in the solar systems with similar mass and more regular orbital paths.

Wasn't Phlogiston theory a "well attested fact"?

No. Not in the sense you'd use in relations to modern science.

Wasn't geocentrism a "well attested fact"?[/QUOTE]

No. Not in the sense you'd use in relations to modern science.


I think you're deliberately misunderstanding how modern empiricism works. Its disingenuous, at best.

 

[quatona]

Why wouldn't it?

Wasn't Thalidomide a "well attested fact"?

Are you saying Thalomide didn´t exist?

Wasn't L'Aquila a "well attested fact"?

Are you saying it didn´t happen?

Wasn't Pluto a "well attested fact"?

Are you saying Pluto has disappeared?

 

[ScottA]

If I were an all powerful being who wanted to create something as big and beautiful as the ENTIRE UNIVERSE... I would NEVER do it all by hand. I'd be too smart for that. First, I'd create the Laws of Physics, chemistry, etc. Then I would design a mechanism by which life of all forms can flourish.... IE... Evolution.

To me, Evolution is proof of creationism. It is proof that there is an Omniscient, Omnipotent being out there.

Most people who don't believe in evolution say "it's just a theory, it hasn't been proven" Which is a blatant misunderstanding of the word "theory". In scientific terms, a theory is something that has been proven, but not quantified (As opposed to a Law which is always true in every instance and can be calculated). It happens folks. No amount of whining and moaning can un-prove or undo evolution. So instead of believing that it is some affront to God, why not realize that Evolution is actually God's work?

We've seen evolution in our lifetimes. On microbial scale, we see things like algae being coaxed into evolving into fuel producing species. As humans, we've had a hand in the evolution of Dogs. We chose the ones that are loyal and that look nice, and the rest were routinely killed off. Even an astute person can see how traits are passed down from human parent to human child. We see hundreds or thousands of versions of the same plants and animals in different regions of the world.

So lets look at this differently.

Evolution does not disprove creationism, it is the mechanism. Science is how were discover God's universe. It is not the unholy tool by which we unravel God. It is God's tool by which we discover HIM!

The problem with evolution is...Time is an illusion. In fact, it doesn't matter whether you prescribe to millions of years or 6000 - pick an illusion.

Evolutionists/scientists actually did pretty good when they came up with the big bang theory: A big bang is what you get when you do something really fast, as opposed to really slow. Time is really slow. Creation was really fast. BANG!

Here it is in scripture: 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (all of Time...history...in His "hour.")

 

[Holoman]

Firstly there is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro we can see and has a lot of supporting evidence. Macro however has much less supporting evidence as it has never been repeated, and cannot be. Mutations and evolution has never been shown to be creative enough to support the macro.

Theory's in science may well have a lot of supporting evidence for them and be basically fact, but the neo-Darwinian theory of macro-evolution is certainly not one of them.

 

[Jimmy D]

Theory's in science may well have a lot of supporting evidence for them and be basically fact, but the neo-Darwinian theory of macro-evolution is certainly not one of them.

The Pope would disagree by the looks of it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...snt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said. He added: “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.

“The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.

“Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

 

[Armoured]

If I were an all powerful being who wanted to create something as big and beautiful as the ENTIRE UNIVERSE... I would NEVER do it all by hand. I'd be too smart for that. First, I'd create the Laws of Physics, chemistry, etc. Then I would design a mechanism by which life of all forms can flourish.... IE... Evolution.

To me, Evolution is proof of creationism. It is proof that there is an Omniscient, Omnipotent being out there.

Most people who don't believe in evolution say "it's just a theory, it hasn't been proven" Which is a blatant misunderstanding of the word "theory". In scientific terms, a theory is something that has been proven, but not quantified (As opposed to a Law which is always true in every instance and can be calculated). It happens folks. No amount of whining and moaning can un-prove or undo evolution. So instead of believing that it is some affront to God, why not realize that Evolution is actually God's work?

We've seen evolution in our lifetimes. On microbial scale, we see things like algae being coaxed into evolving into fuel producing species. As humans, we've had a hand in the evolution of Dogs. We chose the ones that are loyal and that look nice, and the rest were routinely killed off. Even an astute person can see how traits are passed down from human parent to human child. We see hundreds or thousands of versions of the same plants and animals in different regions of the world.

So lets look at this differently.

Evolution does not disprove creationism, it is the mechanism. Science is how were discover God's universe. It is not the unholy tool by which we unravel God. It is God's tool by which we discover HIM!

What you are talking about is basically called "theistic evolution". I am a theistic evolutionist myself. Most Christians are. Evolution does not inherently contradict creationism, per se. Young Earth Creationism (YEC) however, that insists on a literal reading of Genesis, a literal creation week, and a 6000 year old Earth, is pretty well contradicted by all available scientific evidence.

 

[Armoured]

Firstly there is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro we can see and has a lot of supporting evidence. Macro however has much less supporting evidence as it has never been repeated, and cannot be. Mutations and evolution has never been shown to be creative enough to support the macro.

Theory's in science may well have a lot of supporting evidence for them and be basically fact, but the neo-Darwinian theory of macro-evolution is certainly not one of them.

This is not a scientific claim, it's a manufactured argument by ID proponents.

It's also nonsense.

"Walking across town is possible, but walking from one town to another isn't" - macro/micro evolution summarised.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The problem with evolution is...Time is an illusion. In fact, it doesn't matter whether you prescribe to millions of years or 6000 - pick an illusion.

We are subject to time. The universe has a beginning and an end. God is outside of time and not subject to time. Science is finite and God is infinite.

Evolutionists/scientists actually did pretty good when they came up with the big bang theory: A big bang is what you get when you do something really fast, as opposed to really slow. Time is really slow. Creation was really fast. BANG!

The so called Big Bang is a Kubbalah belief going back at least to Abraham. That is where Science got it from. Perhaps Abraham was the first scientist. We are told that the Chaldeans had Astronomy and Astrology mixed together. They had truth and error mixed together. Abraham with God's help was able to separate the truth from the error. The Bible is a collection of books written by people that were known to represent truth. We know science has a very high failure rate over time. Yet the Bible remains consistent and true. There has never been any error found in the Bible. Evolutionary theory now is based on error. The evidence does not indicate that, but man has decided that is the approach they want to take.

 

[SteveB28]

Firstly there is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro we can see and has a lot of supporting evidence. Macro however has much less supporting evidence as it has never been repeated, and cannot be. Mutations and evolution has never been shown to be creative enough to support the macro.

Theory's in science may well have a lot of supporting evidence for them and be basically fact, but the neo-Darwinian theory of macro-evolution is certainly not one of them.

Well done. I wouldn't have thought it possible to cram so many errors into just two short paragraphs.

- there is no distinction between so-called micro and macro evolution. Accumulations of small changes result in larger changes.
- evidence exists for both the many small changes AND the accumulation of these.
- theories in science do NOT only depend upon their 'repeatability'. However, the large scale changes you deny are 'repeated' every time a fresh fossil is unearthed.
- mutations can be either neutral, harmful OR beneficial in their effects. Selection weeds out the harmful, while the beneficial persist.
- theories are not, in themselves, 'facts'. Their purpose is to explain facts.
- evolutionary theory is THE most strongly supported theory in all of science. That it offends your particular superstitious views is YOUR problem, not science's.

 

[SteveB28]

We are subject to time. The universe has a beginning and an end. God is outside of time and not subject to time. Science is finite and God is infinite.

The so called Big Gang is a Kubbalah belief going back at least to Abraham. That is where Science got it from.

If your God is "outside of time" then he can play no part in this universe. Because, in this universe, time is required for ANY action, even the act of simply existing. So, bye bye God.

 

[Astrophile]

This is not a scientific claim, it's a manufactured argument by ID proponents.

It's also nonsense.

"Walking across town is possible, but walking from one town to another isn't" - macro/micro evolution summarised.

'A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.'

 

[joshua 1 9]

What you are talking about is basically called "theistic evolution". I am a theistic evolutionist myself. Most Christians are. Evolution does not inherently contradict creationism, per se. Young Earth Creationism (YEC) however, that insists on a literal reading of Genesis, a literal creation week, and a 6000 year old Earth, is pretty well contradicted by all available scientific evidence.

Actually if you read the Bible Moses and Peter indicate that a day is 1000 years. That means creation in the Bible began 13000 years ago at the end of the last glacier age. Science then can pretty much confirm the account in Genesis is accurate and true. OEC could also true when you look at the Bible as 'shadows and types'.

Moses was there at the beginning of the old testament, Peter was there at the beginning of the Church as he was preaching on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out. Even this is what apostolic succession is based on.

6,000 years ago was when we find Adam and Eve in the Garden in Eden. This was the beginning of the 8th day. We are now very close, to the beginning of the 14 th day. Most people alive today will see the end of the 13th day. Who will still be alive at the beginning of the 14th day remains to be seen. Some people believe there will be a 7 year period between the 13 and 14 day called the great tribulation.

Revelation 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

 

[lesliedellow]

So according to Wiki half of what they tell you is junk. If half is accurate and true they at least they got that much right. The problem is we do not know which half is accurate and which half is junk.

Newton's Theory of Gravitation was published in 1697, and it is still used to send space craft to Mars. Faraday first demonstrated electromagnetic induction in 1831, and it is still used to build transformers. Mendelev published his Periodic Table in 1869, and it is still used by chemists throughout the world.