Evolution vs. Creation

[Adelheid]

I would like to know how many people here believe in either the evolution or creation view, and how many who don't know what to believe. I'm trying to post a poll in this thread, and as this the first time I'm doing it, I'm not sure if it comes out right, so bear with me this time, okay?

[Dyrwen]

You accept a theory as fact or your reject it as fact. Believing in something is about opinion, whereas acceptance of something is about knowledge.

I can believe that I can fly, but that doesn't make it true. I can reject the knowledge that tells me that I cannot fly and therefore still make my belief reasonable. If I accept the knowledge that I cannot fly but still believe I can fly anyway, I'm unreasonably believing in something.

Evolution is a fact that is explained by theory because that's how science works. Whether you accept or reject it is up to you. Creationism is a belief that is explained by the Bible alone. Whether you believe in it or not is also up to you. The point is: In evolution the evidence is put into data both physical and theoretical, which have been analyzed and made sense of for years over, constantly changing so as to be more accurate over time. In creationism the evidence is testimonial evidence displayed through the Bible which may or may not be the word of God. There's no "evidence" of creationism displayed in any manner, outside of attempts to disprove evolution. The entire creationist argument is centered 99% on disproving evolution, instead of proving its own "theory" of creationism because, as most might say, we're not meant to understand God's plan for creation. Or if you want to be blunt: 'I don't know, but I believe you're wrong anyway' mentality.

Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, based on my experience with how each side works. Evolutionary biologists almost never take creationism seriously for good reason: They've got evidence of their theory, whereas all creationism has sought to do is pop illogical and emotionally driven holes in evolution that have nothing to do with the theory itself. Personally speaking, the whole "vs" idea of evolution against creation is absurd because the argument comes down to Biblical truth as being capable of being interpretted as scientific truth or the dismissal of such truths as merely literature that is more philosophy than scientific fact.

A bit of a long-winded reply, but I do find it more succint to get the basics out of the way early. heh

[simon]

Evolution seems plausible, but how did evolution start, would that not need a creation of some kind?

[Dyrwen]

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It only has to do with how life evolved over time to become what it is today.

Biology and astronomy take over when it comes to how it all began. It all began with a "bang" which eventually led to the creation of planets through elements getting together in clumps and once the heat cooled down at a certain point land was created, eventually gases created certain amounts of liquid, which was probably triggered by asteroids with ice on them. Eventually abiogenesis took place, wherein amino acids started the protein filled life of the first type of life, in simple bacteria, however this is considered somewhat improbable by most, we don't know what the odds of life are outside of exactly 1, since we exist here now.. Over time, about 4.5 billion years, they evolved into something more in different ways.

There's a run down of the basics, with sources, so you can pick up what you will and interpret it how you like in time. It all comes back to the big bang, when you say "creation", but that's a whole other discussion. This thread is supposed to be about evolution, which in my opinion, is pretty damned factual and researched.

[Scheherazade]

Ditto.
Out of sheer curiousity, Dyrwen, why aren't you voting in the poll if you have such strong opinions on the subject?

[Dyrwen]

Because it's just a poll and my position is already pretty clear as it is. I like to think of it as educating a voting populous, or something. I could also say that I'm perhaps not voting so that if by some stretch of the imagination I'm proven incorrect in all that I know is correct, I'll be able to vote my opinion on the matter accurately then. heh

I don't know, guess I'm more stubborn than anything. Personally I don't see creationism as much of a choice when it comes to "versus" evolution, since it isn't even in the same league. One is about the creation of everything, the other is about the evolution of life after it existed. They've nothing to do with eachother, outside of the fact that creationists seem to enjoy proding at evolution because it is somehow a threat to their beliefs when it doesn't even involve the origin of life until one continues asking the "why" question throughout about science.

Hopefully that made some sense. I'll vote if it'll please the court, heh, but it just feels a little better to explain myself adequately than be another number in the poll pigeonholled in a position.

[Scheherazade]

*checks the poll results*
huh-uh...
I find it interesting that many of us on here will talk and discuss things till subjects are exhausted and more but will not commit ourselves into certain things... Won't answer a simple 'yes/no' question at times.

[Stanislaw]

I think there should be a bit of column a and b response.

[amuse]

i believe in both theories. like creation already happening, and evolution catching up to it, if that makes sense. ok that sounds strange, lol. but there isn't a both category.

[Stanislaw]

Yeah creationism is primarily my belief, but I believe that perhaps evolution was a tool, and the Bibal does not really contradict the evolutionist theory...

so in brief: God did it!

[Jester]

hmm.... I've seen too much evidence to believe that humans were created around six thousand years ago and a great flood around four thousand years ago.

I once had this discussion with a freind of mine who ended up giveing me these videos of this evengalist preacher citing sources for eveidence in creation... his first problem was that he assumed that humans evolved from rocks and are in some ways related to alligators... the only way we are is that we both breathe oxygen and we have the same four base paris in our DNA... Other of his theories, I could find flaws in them at only tenth grade but people none the less listen to it. I would not be surprised to learn that Adam and Eve were real humans once upon a time and that they once lived in a garden and were then banished from it to live admist all the others human... (but thats just me saying that anything is possible but I for one acknowledge evolution as a fact)

The diests believe that god created the universe and then let it run on its own, this would give rise to both creation (a little) and evolution... scientists have actually recreated the atmoshpere and the conditions which they believed inhabited early earth and with sparks of electricity created the most minor forms of single celled base organisms (this experiment, i do not know the details of, forgotten it but know it has been done) and there are mitochondria and chloroplast DNA which seems to indicate that these seperate cell organnelles fused withother organelles to create cells liek we have them today. What I have said here is just the basis of a long list of cellular, molecular, theoretical, and many other forms of evolution.

[subterranean]

I haven't decide my stand on this issue.

[Stanislaw]

jester is correct, scientist have reproduced some of the conditions...but this doesn't leed to an anti creationist theory. Now if we say that the bibal is a metaphor, or parable, to explain ideas to people, people of old would not be able to comprehend ideas of evolution etc. Now in the Bibal it states that Adam was created out of the earth, God used the Earth to build Adam, now it is concievable that clay in early earth was an important factor in the scientific origins of life. the clay acts as a sponge inwhich to hold all of the needed 'ingriediants' together. Now it also sais that Eve came from Adam, ie, single cell division. So in conclusion the Bibal does not really dispute evolutionist theories.

[Adelheid]

Well, then, are you trying to say that if I left a tub of water, for example as it was, that I would get a fish/ shark etc. in it if I wait for billions of years??! Sounds pretty incredible if you ask me. Everything wouldn't be able to fit together nicely as it is now, if there was no God who made it, isn't it?

And, if you look at it this way, the Bible, (which I know is the Word of God) has so many prophecies that have clearly been fulfilled so far- every single one of them. Wouldn't creation (God making everything for HIS sole pleasure) be true too? Considering, if you DO bother to look, there are heapsss of evidence to show that it did?

By the way, science cannot PROVE anything. The only limitations of science are that it cannot prove anything, is NOT 100% reliable, and must conform to a scientific method. A scientist may come up with a theory, that "explains" evolution, while in the next moment, another scientist might come up with a counter-example, that contradicted the scientific experiment. Of course, we CAN use science to observe, and thus form conclusions, but what I'm trying to say is that even science is NOT 100% reliable, so it doesn't PROVE anything.

[Adelheid]

In reply to Stanislaw, I found a commentary by Adam Clarke which you might like to read: (it's for Genesis 2:7)

"Gen 2:7 -
God formed man of the dust - In the most distinct manner God shows us that man is a compound being, having a body and soul distinctly, and separately created; the body out of the dust of the earth, the soul immediately breathed from God himself. Does not this strongly mark that the soul and body are not the same thing? The body derives its origin from the earth, or as עפר aphar implies, the dust; hence because it is earthly it is decomposable and perishable. Of the soul it is said, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; נשמת חיים nishmath chaiyim, the breath of Lives, i.e., animal and intellectual. While this breath of God expanded the lungs and set them in play, his inspiration gave both spirit and understanding."
-E-Sword v.6.5.0

The english Bible as we have it today was translated from either Aramic or Hebrew (for the old testament) for the new, it was Greek. If you study the languages, and do a word study on the word, the exact meaning of the word in either Aramic or Hebrew, could most probably not be phrased into english. (It's a bit like that for the New testament/Greek, so mightn't it be so also for the old testament?)

Also, about the time period? God did fashion man out of the dust of the earth, but what of the time issue? According to evolution, wouldn't it need to take ages? And God formed Adam in one day- day 6. Th Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything that was in it in 6 days. And, after EVERY single day, God said that His creation was good. Consider, that if man had formed slowly over a period of time, it wouldn't have been so good, isn't it?