Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IWilKikU

ISo it's not that I "Don't know what to think" as the poll suggests, but that I merely havn't decided yet. In anycase I don't believe in biblical creation, but evolution in the sense that we went from fish to lizards to ... etc... until we became humans (I apologize for my increadibly ignorant and superficial analysis of evolution ;)) still seems a bit suspicious to me. perhaps in a couple years when I'm a bit more stable in my beliefs I'll dig this thread up and post a reply.

---

i also vote for"Don't know what to think", and my reason is just the same as yours: "havn't decided yet"
my entire knowledge of biology is based on evolution, that's what i was taught to accept. i just took it for granted until i entered college and took a course called western culture. i was extremely interested in the whole "vs" thing and devoured five books on this topic. they shaked my strong hold in evolution, but the whole"God created everyting" concept still seems a bit suspicious to me. so i ended up having no idea which theory to take.
and i also think that creation and evolution are not in sharp contrast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pea

i also vote for"Don't know what to think", and my reason is just the same as yours: "havn't decided yet"
my entire knowledge of biology is based on evolution, that's what i was taught to accept. i just took it for granted until i entered college and took a course called western culture. i was extremely interested in the whole "vs" thing and devoured five books on this topic. they shaked my strong hold in evolution, but the whole"God created everyting" concept still seems a bit suspicious to me. so i ended up having no idea which theory to take.
and i also think that creation and evolution are not in sharp contrast.

---

well, everything needs a beggining right, so what else could have started it all except for God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stanislaw

well, everything needs a beggining right, so what else could have started it all except for God?

---

I am not questioning whether or not God created it, but I believe in evolution. The question is 'was everything (including humanity) created by the Almighty in seven days, or did the species Homo sapiens sapiens evolve from slight mutations?'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adelheid

Loki, How do you know that that chart is true? Evolution is not even a law. It's a theory. I'm even inclined to say it's only a hypothesis, not all of nature agrees with the facts that Evolution claims.

---

Please grant me a couple of these mysterious portions of nature. Better yet offer me one piece of evidence for creation. Just one, without any holes, can you?

Well God created the earth and everything on it but used evolution as the way of creating new species....

thats what i believe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B-Mental

Hey Loki, I am a geologist, and I totally concur with your diagram. The interesting thing is the abundant life that we as humans consider lesser forms (about 95% of your diagram). The evidence of evolution is just overwhelming. Creation is a rationalism of earlier times. When the Book of Genesis was written 7000 years represented an almost inconceivable amount of time.

---

I think the reason people(humans) consider themselves superior in nature to all other species is because of their superior ability to reason which is considered as a Divine gift by some.
On their considering 7000 years representing an almost inconcievable amount of time I must agree,it is.Which is a minute number compared to the number of coincidences required in the evolution theory.

Wasn't it Socrates that was wise because he knew he didn't know...Hmm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B-Mental

I am not questioning whether or not God created it, but I believe in evolution. The question is 'was everything (including humanity) created by the Almighty in seven days, or did the species Homo Sapiens sapiens evolve from slight mutations?'

---

well if you follow thge steps of creation, they do follow the same steps as evolution. Maybe Genesis is a metaphor/parrable explaining evolution as it would be explained to someone who could grasp this concept...ie, early man.

I have noticed some similarities, and they tend to follow similar successions. I totally agree. I guess I just wonder what it is that creationists accept. Is there a fear in evolving? Do they accept some science and not others? How do they justify using science based technology, and then cast doubt on certain fields? Fields with vast volumes supporting evidence of evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B-Mental

I have noticed some similarities, and they tend to follow similar successions. I totally agree. I guess I just wonder what it is that creationists accept. Is there a fear in evolving? Do they accept some science and not others? How do they justify using science based technology, and then cast doubt on certain fields? Fields with vast volumes supporting evidence of evolution.

---

well, it all depends on the group eh. Well, some people are very stuborn, or are stuck on a superiority complex, me I am always open to something new...unless it is completely stupid. ;)

touche pronounced "two-shay"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B-Mental

I am not questioning whether or not God created it, but I believe in evolution. The question is 'was everything (including humanity) created by the Almighty in seven days, or did the species Homo sapiens sapiens evolve from slight mutations?'

---

I have said all along that God created everthing, but evolution shaped it into what it is today. Now tell me, B-Mental, kind sir, why that makes me wrong? I do not understand nor see the significance of such charts as posted by Loki, to me that takes a great deal of acceptence on faith alone. I can go get fresh fossil seacreatures from a mountain side not too far from here, where the AT crosses. I've found some very neat ones. But I cannot accept everything evolving from one cell or whatever. Each evolved from the creature God made into the creature they are now. That is how I believe evolution. Was I a rabid, dyed in the wool creationist, I couldn't even accept that. But I can think. We are not all one race, we have evolved and changed, so it stands to reason the animals and plant life have done the same. And I believe the process still continues... How about that? It goes on unstopable every day, changing just a bit. Thank you for your time. God bless.

If Darwinian evolution is true, then God has nothing to do with the origin of life. Some Christian say that God could have used evolution to bring about life. This is called theistic evolution.
Theistic evolutionists believe that God "created the first spark of life then directed his creation through the vehicle of gradual evolution". How can that coincide with Christian beliefs (God is love,...) if evolutionists refer to the process of evolution as cruel and wasteful (elimination of weakest species,...)?

The roots of modern science are grounded in a Christian view of the world. This is not surprising, since science is based on the assuption that the universe is orderly and lawful; which would seem to be the effect of an intelligent Cause.
One cannot say that the biblical worldview of early modern scientists doesn't apply anymore, and that now "science" has demonstrated that life could evolve on its own. There is evidence of design, and hence a designer. Science today cannot prove the opposite.

And who says that evolution is objectively scientifically proven?
Evolution has 2 main ideas :
1. Spontaneous generation. "Life started in awarm pond"
Researchers have attempted to prove that life could have simply happened. Origin-of-life experiments (the "re-enactments" of how life came to be) have 11 major problems, one of them alone would stop the progress from non-living molecules to living cells.
Evolution says : life comes from non-life
Science says : life comes from life
Professor Dean Kenyon, a biochemist and former chemical evolutionist, now writes, "When all relevant lines are taken into account, and all the problems squarely faced, I think we must conclude that life owes its inception to a source outside nature."
2. Natural selection. Darwin made a trip to the Galapagos Islands and dicovered birds whose beak sizes we a little different. He thought he had sicovered evolution in action. Evolution assumes that all of the diversity of life came from simpler, less complex forms of life. For this to work though, new complex structures must emerge. For evolution to occur, you have to "add new stuff". What Darwin called "natural selection" was actually "adaptation".
So what you could call "microevolution" is true and proven: species can change slightly to adapt to their invoronments (it's true with humans too, compare the body of an eskimo to that of an african bushman). But these small adaptive changes have never been observed to lead to whole new structures (=Darwinian evolution).
Edward Deevey Jr. wrote "Some remarkable things have been done by crossbreeding and selectiong inside the speecies, or within a larger circle of closely related species, such a the wheats. But wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit; and we can no more grow wings on pigs than hens can mke cylindical eggs."

Wow.... I didn't mean for this to be so long.... just wanted to open some eyes to the lacking scientific data on evolution.
I think the reason evolution has lasted so long is that no one has found a better argument against what the Bible says to be true; and milions of people have whole careers based on the "facts of evolution".
Check out this article analysing a documentary on evolution for more indept stuff.

For those of you who have stuck with me this long, thank you... don't know if I would have!

Good day.

"Every advance in fundamental physics seems to uncover yet another facet of order" (so says non-christian physicist Paul Davies). But stirct evolution demands chance rather than a Law-Maker as the guiding force........ hmmmm.

The two theories are not completely exclusive. Beleif in evolution or the Big Bang should not necessarily mean that there is no higher power.
Belief in God, likewise, should not rule out scientific discoveries and theories.
It bugs me that rational people can't see that. It's not an either/or proposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by querida

The roots of modern science are grounded in a Christian view of the world. This is not surprising, since science is based on the assuption that the universe is orderly and lawful; which would seem to be the effect of an intelligent Cause.
One cannot say that the biblical worldview of early modern scientists doesn't apply anymore, and that now "science" has demonstrated that life could evolve on its own. There is evidence of design, and hence a designer. Science today cannot prove the opposite.

And who says that evolution is objectively scientifically proven?
Evolution has 2 main ideas :
1. Spontaneous generation. "Life started in awarm pond"
Researchers have attempted to prove that life could have simply happened. Origin-of-life experiments (the "re-enactments" of how life came to be) have 11 major problems, one of them alone would stop the progress from non-living molecules to living cells.
Evolution says : life comes from non-life
Science says : life comes from life
Professor Dean Kenyon, a biochemist and former chemical evolutionist, now writes, "When all relevant lines are taken into account, and all the problems squarely faced, I think we must conclude that life owes its inception to a source outside nature."
2. Natural selection. Darwin made a trip to the Galapagos Islands and dicovered birds whose beak sizes we a little different. He thought he had sicovered evolution in action. Evolution assumes that all of the diversity of life came from simpler, less complex forms of life. For this to work though, new complex structures must emerge. For evolution to occur, you have to "add new stuff". What Darwin called "natural selection" was actually "adaptation".
So what you could call "microevolution" is true and proven: species can change slightly to adapt to their invoronments (it's true with humans too, compare the body of an eskimo to that of an african bushman). But these small adaptive changes have never been observed to lead to whole new structures (=Darwinian evolution).
Edward Deevey Jr. wrote "Some remarkable things have been done by crossbreeding and selectiong inside the speecies, or within a larger circle of closely related species, such a the wheats. But wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit; and we can no more grow wings on pigs than hens can mke cylindical eggs."

---

My thanks for stating scientifically what I in my fumbling way, (if you look back over my posts, you'll see it!) have been trying to say. No species change, change within the species in order to adapt to the changing world around us. God bless.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B-Mental

Phylogeny & Ontogeny?

---

Would you care you elaborate, B-Mental?

I'll try... xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B-Mental

I'll try... during the course of embryo development, the embryo shows similarities to other species we "possibly" evolved from. This is most notably witnessed in the development of the nervous system. Perhaps I'll be able to find some demonstrations on the internet. In a nutshell, we share embryonic stages with other species, which evolutionists use to suggest our evolutionary ancestry.

---

I too have noted some strange similarities with other species.One head,two eyes,two ears,and one nose!...Hmm.,possibly we evolved from them!?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigDaddy_GFS

The two theories are not completely exclusive. Beleif in evolution or the Big Bang should not necessarily mean that there is no higher power.
Belief in God, likewise, should not rule out scientific discoveries and theories.
It bugs me that rational people can't see that. It's not an either/or proposition.

---

When has a religious fanatic been rationally able to understand that??

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B-Mental

Bilateral symmetry, wow you're very observant, your wit is actually the truth. I'm talking about a presence of a notochord in embryos. Prior to lung development embryos show a proto-gill, I'll find some more examples.

In general, the embryos do not display certain attributes of lets say starfish, so we can rule out starfish as your predecessor if that makes you feel better. Did you notice a head, reffered to as encephalization. Animals that don't have heads are generally believed to have ancestors that evolved prior to cephalization. Keep up the good work okmit, you might stumble across something else.

---

Thank you,I do believe I just may have stumbled across another observation at that!In every attempt to explain how the cake in the oven came out a pie the proof offered always consists of the hard facts of ,generaly BELIEVED,similarities suggest,it appears possible,etc.But the missing link is still missing!Unless one believes the link is an omnipotant creator.In which case one needn't consider how a komodo dragon may have evolved from a crockodile,or a human from a star fish,or ape.

as per PMxxxxxxxxx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B-Mental

I've ruled out starfish for you, but feel free to keep looking. I'm going to stay off of this thread, I've decided I've been convinced and am now a die-hard cretonationist. I can now go about my life with my head held high. Thank you all for your comments.

---

Hmm...Creationist vs Idiots?A challenge to the mentally deficient?

I thank you for ruling out star fish for my benifit but it really isn't my quest to establish a missing link.But I would caution any geologist to go through life with their head held high...Hmm.

B-Mental,till our paths cross again,B-Cool

well, you can't go callign evolutionists (???) idiots. It's bad arguing...called poisoning yonder well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stanislaw

well, you can't go callign evolutionists (???) idiots. It's bad arguing...called poisoning yonder well.

---

And down right rude I might add.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by okmit

I too have noted some strange similarities with other species.One head,two eyes,two ears,and one nose!...Hmm.,possibly we evolved from them!?

---

While trying to remain relatively unbiased to a humane limit, I think it essential to note that the human embryo first begins, particularly in the first trimester and early second trimester, with a tail-like appearance from what form as later the lumbar region, sacrum, and coccyx. Of course its development relies much on intake of folic acid, the spine and tail-like appearance elongate in slower proportions to the rest of the fetal figure in late second trimester and third trimester, reducing the tail.
Not that I meant to correct you, okmit, I think this a very important similarity that, perhaps, B-Mental aimed.

well, there is only so many ways a ball of cells can be thrown together, we are all organisms shaped by earth, so why not share similr characteristics (fro ye evolusionists out there)

and well, there is only so many ways a ball of cells can be thrown together... ever paint a fence, the procedure is pretty much the same, just the fini9shed product is different. (for all you creationists out there)

There is no link between the 'apeman' and the humans we see today.

Even scientists who expouse evolution say so. The Homo Erectus and upward are (what scientists all agree) true humans, there has not been found a link for apeman. Both creationists and evolutionist believes that the 'ape man' was either an extinct ape or extinct human.

In the intrests of peace on this thread, I would like to point out that calling each other "religious fanatics", "scientific fanatics", and "idiots" is doing nothing to further either cause. The question is which belief does one choose to go with, and can they validate that belief in any way. What we have here is two groups of people who absolutely refuse to listen to anything the other has to say. It is not a discussion if you only choose to hear your own side, and your own view, and dismiss everything else without even thinking about it. I personally feel God created the world, but evolution (adaptation) has changed and shaped it. Does that me I must force everyone else to see it my way? No. Can I learn from an opposing view? Likely. Can they learn from me? If they are open-minded, likely. But fussing and fighting and name calling is getting us nowhere! http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/533.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

While trying to remain relatively unbiased to a humane limit, I think it essential to note that the human embryo first begins, particularly in the first trimester and early second trimester, with a tail-like appearance from what form as later the lumbar region, sacrum, and coccyx. Of course its development relies much on intake of folic acid, the spine and tail-like appearance elongate in slower proportions to the rest of the fetal figure in late second trimester and third trimester, reducing the tail.
Not that I meant to correct you, okmit, I think this a very important similarity that, perhaps, B-Mental aimed.

---

Thank you,but I am aware of the coccyx .However,I have a close friend that was born with webed toes an fingers but can not conclude it is because she evolved from a Duck or frog...Hmm?Platypus perhaps...just kidding Carol.

Quote:

---

In the intrests of peace on this thread, I would like to point out that calling each other "religious fanatics", "scientific fanatics", and "idiots" is doing nothing to further either cause. The question is which belief does one choose to go with, and can they validate that belief in any way. What we have here is two groups of people who absolutely refuse to listen to anything the other has to say. It is not a discussion if you only choose to hear your own side, and your own view, and dismiss everything else without even thinking about it. I personally feel God created the world, but evolution (adaptation) has changed and shaped it. Does that me I must force everyone else to see it my way? No. Can I learn from an opposing view? Likely. Can they learn from me? If they are open-minded, likely. But fussing and fighting and name calling is getting us nowhere!

---

I think one of the most challenging things about discussing religion is the mutual understanding. The other day, a favourite debator was rounding the corner, (at my school mind you) and her being in deep argument with another bloke, i thought i would join in the fun. However, that was to be a thouroughly mind wrenching experience. I'm used to people disagreeing with me, but i've never felt, hated. At this point, this girl rounds on me, and all of a suden, i feel as if the whole last year in which myself and another mate have discussed religion with her, us being atheists, and her being a muslim, has been misguided and perhaps cruel. Naturally, and shortsightedly, my mate and me have always presumed ourselves to be right, but i was of the opinion, that I had a completely credible understanding when it came to religion. Respecting the individuals right to choose a religion, but always pointing out that i found religion ridiculous, and blindfolding to it's people, if not downright illogical.
Now, the point is, this girl gives me hell... All of a sudden, i'm confronted with everything I didn't realise i was doing, like the arrogant smirk i put on when discussing, and my lack of respect for her (which i disagree with, it's got nothing to do with religion mind you) and so forth. Apart from being shocked beyond words, and after having sincerely appologised for my previous behaviour, and then crawling under a rock to hide for all eternity, i have learned that regardless of good intentions, and the belief that one is clear with respect, how awfull to acknowledge, that perhaps, after all, one wasn't as open minded as one had always assumed... and boy... does it hurt to have that smacked in your face!

Brave New World

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chava

I'm used to people disagreeing with me, but i've never felt, hated.


i have learned that regardless of good intentions, and the belief that one is clear with respect, how awfull to acknowledge, that perhaps, after all, one wasn't as open minded as one had always assumed... and boy... does it hurt to have that smacked in your face!

---

Hi Chava. You shouldn't have to feel hated for how you believe. If I'm talking about Jesus over here and then hating you the next second that doesn't scan in my Bible. We may disagree perhaps, but you can ask the other atheists on the forum if Pendragon ever posts any type of hate letters. Doesn't happen. I've had to swallow my own medicine before, when a lady pointed out that I was acting inappropiately and I was forced to go to someone, tell them what I had done (which was to mimic them behind their back) and apologize. That was probably the hardest thing I ever did in my life, but it was the right thing to do. Anytime you feel like a discussion, drop me a PM or a post. Take care now. Dragon out. :)

If I may say so, the problem isnt neccessarily "Evolution vs. Creationism," but its a small fringe thats growing wider, unfortunately, by certain individuals that can't understand that religion isn't science. The problem is, that certain devoutly religious individuals in politics or otherwise, are trying to find scientific validity for their unscientific beliefs, and when science, complying with the rules of science, prove them wrong, they then feel the need to "cheat" and appeal to the government that they have been ousted. I think of it like two children are arguing, one gets hurt because the other won a fight by fair means, so he cries to his mother to be proven right.

You want to believe that God created the Earth in 7 24-hour days? Fine. But let science alone.

I think the whole 7 24-hour days thing has been very confusing for many people.
I personally believe that God created the universe through longer periods of time, that 7 days is a way of putting it... the Bible is full of such imagery, metaphors and such things. Many Christians have acknowledge that.

I'm afraid I don't really understand what you mean, misanthrope. In my opinion, if anyone, atheists have appealed to the govornment: I'll use the example of the united states constitution. Did you know that whole parts of it have been cut out of it in most textbooks used in public schools?

I personally don't see a distinction between what I believe (the Bible) and what is scientifically proven today. Any attempts at "finding the truth" (contradicting the Bible) has only led to solidifying and re-confirming what was written up to 3450 years ago.

Prof. Henry Margeneau (taught physics at Yale for over 40 years, worked with A. Einstein) said: "If you ask scientists who have a mild training in science... you do get the impressiong that there is a conflict between science and religion. But if you ask really good scientists... leading scientists, the people who have made contributions which have made science grow so vastly in the last fifty years, these sientists are all religions in their beliefs."

After looking into evolution more indepth, this is what I see: The belief that God created all things requires faith. But the evolutionary theory requires more faith, since evolution runs contrary to reason, science and history... think about it....

As always, this is my personal opinion.
That's all from me today.

I dont neccessarily mean the federal gov't, but local school boards in Pennsylvania and a lot of the Southern states have had appeals to school boards by religious parents trying to "control" the teaching of evolution. The Christian fringe has, numerous times, tried to stop the acceptance of Evolution because they, quite honestly, have their heads buried deepest in the sand are quite uncapable of thinking in reasonable terms. They see scientific thought as their enemy, calling athiests like myself and scientists "God-hating liberals." You see, these people use the idea of God not as a loving and compassionate figure, but as a hateful bigot whose purpose is for the manipulation of any bigoted theologian. The "most devout Christians," it seems, refuse to acknowledge Jesus' altruistic teachings, and fall back onto the explicitly hateful OT God that mirrors their hate. They use God solly as a weapon against anyone they disagree with, damning them to Hell. The God of the Christian Right (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Jimmy Swaggart, Harriet Meirs, Hitler would be one if he were alive, his 3rd Reich speech about "Positive Christianity," etc), is deeply hateful , and, for thirty years, his followers have campaigned aginst the rights of gays, countered the civil rights movement, and recently called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are particularly, wrongfully famous for the airing of Robertson's 700 Club on September 13th 2001, where they blamed gays, lesbians, bisexuals, the ACLU, among other groups for the WTC attack. Google it.

Misanthrope< quotos to you for argueing so well and so enthusiastically for reason in the face of so many God-fearing people on this site. I just want to clarify a few things: it is not so that the best Christians fear God as a hateful bigot. Yes, we do fear God. But one must read the psalms as well as Revelation to understand our fear of the Lord (look at psalm 103, its pretty short). Furthermore, i'm not in any way blaiming you for this idea: the media tends to pick out all the liberally negative things that an institution does: this includes exlpoiting the antisame-sex marraige in an anti gay way (yes amny good Christians are anti gay but not Christianity itself is anti gay- see the beatitudes), other examples to show this about the media is that the only animal rights activists we hear about are the ones who toss paint on people's coats; the only only huge institution i can think of right now that gets off easy by the media is the govornment. Maybe this i because many television stations and newspapers are run by or motord by govorments.
As far as evolution is concerned I tend to lean towards genesis. The concept of "day" was not created until the fifth day so all that time before could have been any space of time. Furthermore, All scientists know that spontanious generation does not exist. Animals simply don't pop out of no where. The same goes for bone structur on a protazoa. I don't deny that the calouses on my feet are a form of evolution, but an ameaba cannot grow a leg and crawl out of the water: the idea is simply obsurd.

I would love to learn more about the subject of evolution vs creation and i know there are some excelent texts out there. In the mean time I have no quam with the southern schools of United States banning evolution from the cerriculum. (i'm bad at spelling). The kids there would benifit from the theory, yes it is only a theory, but not much more than they would from learning historical based ideas on this scientific issue.
Once again I really admire you for standing up for what you believe in, I hope to talk to you more on such matters.
Keep up the good work

I know it's difficult not to sometimes, but there is to be _no discussion_ of current politics in these forums.

sorry about that, thanks a lot for the reminder.