Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[pitabread]

this isnt science but religion.

You can believe whatever you want to believe.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Yes I know him, he worked on the Chimpanzee Genome paper as a staff scientist. He sent me a spreadsheet of all the amino acid sequences that diverged between Chimpanzee and human genomes. He is also more of a gentleman then the average poster and really hasn't said or done anything to be treated so harshly.

You would be surprised what you can learn from someone who you strongly disagree with, I personally have found his contributions to these discussions to be invaluable.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Thank you for confirming that.... it's rare that any of us actually know anything about each other.

 

[Tom 1]

This doesn’t need to be a scientific or religious dissertation, simply what you feel about the subject.

For me, I love the Bible and science, but this wondrous universe coming about spontaneously from singularity (the meaning of which I barely understand) in a big bang, without the mighty hand of God; a “single cell something” rising up from a mud hole (primordial soup of some kind) “on its own” in baron, inhospitable conditions and becoming “the common ancestor” in a linear progression to the varieties of everything on a beautifully complex earth, including man... well, just step back from all the jargon and defense for a moment and look at that picture. I know there are a lot of Christians who enjoy investigating God’s creation, I do myself (my handle is inquiring mind), but how people are completely sold on that “one in a gazillion” possibility, and at the same time regard the biblical creation by an Almighty God (however and by whatever means He desired to accomplish it) to be a fairy tale, really puzzles me.

I think the starting point has to be looking at the Genesis text from the point of view of the time it was written, what was important to them that was addressed in the text. It wasn’t written from a 21st C perspective, with our preoccupation with material creation, or from a 31st or 41st or 17th C perspective either. How would God have provided a scientific explanation of how creation actually worked, what the mechanisms are and so on, in a way that would be comprehensible? And what would be the point? People working in the physical sciences try to work out how things work and put theories together to provide broader explanations. That and the pursuit of knowledge of God address entirely different things.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

The earth itself was, and it "speaks" to us through geologic record. Loud and clear it says that it formed ~4.5 billion years ago.

Are you certain it wasn't 4.4 billion years? 3.8 billion maybe? I mean the number has changed so many times over the years, I'm surprised you guys can keep it straight.

Science stands on it's facts until new evidence presents itself to create new facts... the ever shifting sand of science. What does the Bible say about building anything on sand?

 

[Jjmcubbin]

since we have evidence against that consensus we dont need to rely on the consensus. very simple.

I hate to say this, but cars making babies don't count.
Seriously, does a bud appears on top of it which grows into a new car? Does the car cut itself and become two new cars. Do cars have sexes and breed? You believe in creation, so you probably also believe marriage should be done before reproduction. Do cars marry each other?
Too much? I have more.

 

[inquiring mind]

Just as a passing remark, I've never thought the age of the earth effected the doctrine of creation much one way or the other. I don't know what the problem is with creationists making a big deal of it, but they get kind of feisty when I tell them original creation wasn't a part of creation week, it happened previously.

I agree with this Mark. I know Christians have accepted gap theory, rejected it, and accepted it again depending on some scriptural interpretation at the time, but I think the answer to all this probably does lie somewhere between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis chapter one.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Are you certain it wasn't 4.4 billion years? 3.8 billion maybe? I mean the number has changed so many times over the years, I'm surprised you guys can keep it straight.

Science stands on it's facts until new evidence presents itself to create new facts... the ever shifting sand of science. What does the Bible say about building anything on sand?

A living document, a constitution also changes itself.
Organisms change as per the environment.
Heck, people change over time. Are they like sand too?
Hmm..what does the Bible say about sand? Are humans built on sand?

Nonsense is nonsense, period.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Yeah, the DNA we share with our close cousin the chimpanzee sure is complex and it's an amazing source of evidence for evolution.

Cats have 90% similar DNA to humans, ... what's your point? All this proves is that most DNA is common to all living creatures. Why would God create a completely new code for each species He made?

 

[xianghua]

You can believe whatever you want to believe.

its not a belief but a fact. and i explained why with my fossil example. you are welcome to falsify my claim too.

 

[pitabread]

Science stands on it's facts until new evidence presents itself to create new facts... the ever shifting sand of science.

Being able to continually acquire new knowledge and adapt to new findings is why this conversation is taking place across a global world-wide computer network.

 

[pitabread]

its not a belief but a fact. and i explained why with my fossil example. you are welcome to falsify my claim too.

Like I said, we've already had this conversation. Go read the archives.

If you're trying to goad me into having the same argument over again, I'm not interested.

 

[xianghua]

I hate to say this, but cars making babies don't count.
Seriously, does a bud appears on top of it which grows into a new car? Does the car cut itself and become two new cars. Do cars have sexes and breed? You believe in creation, so you probably also believe marriage should be done before reproduction. Do cars marry each other?
Too much? I have more.

who is talking about cars now?

 

[Silmarien]

can you give an example please?

Here is what the Smithsonian has to say about genetics: Genetics

Here is what BioLogos has to say: https://biologos.org/common-questio...c-evidence-do-we-have-about-the-first-humans/

If you want to look into the work of a theologically literate evolutionary biologist, I would suggest Francisco Ayala.

do you think that a robot that is almost identical to human is evidence for design? (say a robot that has DNA).

Is the fact that unicorns are almost identical to horses evidence for design?

 

[xianghua]

Like I said, we've already had this conversation. Go read the archives.

If you're trying to goad me into having the same argument over again, I'm not interested.

i already explained what is the counter claim and falsified it too.

 

[pitabread]

Why would God create a completely new code for each species He made?

Because they could?

This is something I generally find odd about the creationist position. Species arising via evolutionary processes involves certain constraints related to said process. A supernatural designer would not be bound by the same constraints, yet creationists continually apologize for the designer being bound in that manner.

 

[pitabread]

i already explained what is the counter claim and falsify it too.

That's nice.

 

[mark kennedy]

I agree with this Mark. I know Christians have accepted gap theory, rejected it, and accepted it again depending on some scriptural interpretation at the time, but I think the answer to all this probably does lie somewhere between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis.

Creation week could have happened minutes after original creation, it could have happened billions of years later. It does not effect the doctrine of creation regardless.

 

[xianghua]

Here is what the Smithsonian has to say about genetics: Genetics

Here is what BioLogos has to say: https://biologos.org/common-questio...c-evidence-do-we-have-about-the-first-humans/

If you want to look into the work of a theologically literate evolutionary biologist, I would suggest Francisco Ayala.

ok. just choose your favorite example and i will show you why its not evidence for eovlution.

Is the fact that unicorns are almost identical to horses evidence for design?

how its relevant to my question?

 

[Silmarien]

Because they could?

This is something I generally find odd about the creationist position. Species arising via evolutionary processes involves certain constraints related to said process. A supernatural designer would not be bound by the same constraints, yet creationists continually apologize for the designer being bound in that manner.

I'm not sure to what degree this is the fault of theistic evolutionists. There was a whole movement in theology after Darwin towards the conception of a God who evolved alongside the universe (process theology). So evolutionary processes in some sense became the new supreme power and God was knocked down to second place.

A lot of times there's a theological dispute hiding behind the scientific one.

 

[pitabread]

ok. just choose your favorite example and i will show you why its not evidence for eovlution.

Will it involves car, robots and watches?