Evolution vs. Creation

Hi, Dolwen, get a dishwasher. (it's German humour, never mind) Lets get really philosophical here and let us take for granted: God (whenever) created the universe. Now that things have been created (doesn't matter what things, just any things) there is now more than one thing, they are few, you can count them and find relations not between the things, but between their numbers. if you have * and another * this makes: ** you can call their number "2" or call them "3", doesn't matter, they are just signs. What you cannot change is that there are ** of them. GOD HIMSELF CANNOT CHANGE THIS. Whatever world or universe he would create, there would always be ** unless he only made one single thing. But even if he would create only one single thing, there would be * and nought, i.e. 0. Therefore, there would be ** states of existence and everything would become the same as above. That is why God cannot move beyond numbers. Even if he made only immaterial things, like Angels, you still would have entities, which means that they can be counted. Just like in Sesame Street.
So, if the concept of GOD entails that he is all powerful and that he is the creator of everything, the creator you have to do with cannot be GOD. To avoid the refutation of GOD you would have to change the concept, i.e. God is the creator of everything but he is not all powerful. Is such a concept of God compatible with christianity? Or you could say, God is somehow numbers and he created the universe (including, but perhaps not only, man) to his image (or nature): which (also) is numbers. This would be nice, don't you think? It entails the trinity 1 is 3 as well as eternity since numbers are infinite. But if so, we can scientifically explain and prove many things, because they have to do with numbers (oversimplified in evolution: numbers of genoms). And by being scientists, we would even follow God's work.
What's wrong with evolution anyway? Why does it bother you? Why do you think you have to take the Bible literally, you wouldn't do with any other text - you would always interpret. The Bible, especially the New Testament, has not been written by God, it has been written by people giving their accounts of their experience of God. The only thing which is supposedly directly from God is the ten Commandmend tables, and they, alas und luckily for me, have apparently gone lost.

But Thorwench,

Aren't you placing God in a box, and limiting Him? If He created math, numbers and all, He is just as capable to change it as not. He rules it, because He made it. Just as an when an inventor creates something, he has the ability to change it because He knows what He is doing. It's not a perfect example, because even an inventor has to create his invention out of something. God created out of nothing. Also, an inventor only knows so much. God knows everything.

The NT (New Testament) or even the OT is written by God. God gave the words to men to put down on paper. The Bible is inspired by God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. (2 Tim 3:16) Also, the Word of God is pure. (Prov 30:5) God preserved it for generations (even in a pass the message game of 10 people, we could not do as much for 1 sentence, much less 66 books!!!!) It has not been changed, only translated to different languages. Given, sometimes the translation is not exactly the same as the original Hebrew and Greek because there exists no such word in the translated language, but much care has been taken to ensure accuracy.

Hi Adelheid, I like your inventor example. It expresses the gist of this latter discussion quite nicely. Has, and is, the world not full of inventors who could not and cannot control their own inventions? Even if your were a creationist you must love this, Adam and Eve going haywire and having to be thrown out od Eden.
Anyways, philosophically speaking, and even theologically speaking it doesnt sound right that God created out of nothingness. There was God, i.e. something. If God created at all, he created out of himself and his creation would be the refutation of nothingness. If there had been nothingness outside of God, God would have been quite limited and finite, Since there was something next to him which he was not. Now this is not what you want, is it?
If however God created out of nothingness because nothingness was within him, I don't know what we are talking about apart from nothing.
If you ask me about putting God in a box, I cannot see why numbers would be such an uncomfortable container. You can stretch in almost every direction ad infinitum but, as always, there are some inherent rules you cannot bend. No one can, not even God. Just like God couldn't decide to be evil or can he? Could he decide to cease to exist? If the answer is no, he is limited, is he then God? Now, I also believe in something, namely that there is a principle that governs everything. But the principle is what it is, it cannot change but it is at work everywhere. I also believe that this principal could be expressed in numbers although we will never know exactly how since we cannot go beyond the scope of our experience and cannot know about what happened before the big bang.
The Bible however, was certainly not written by God, the early Christians held many conventions about what should be in there and what should not. In the beginning, they even could not agree on how to present and how to understand the trinity and even if there was such a thing. They eventually agreed on the version we have now by essentially killing the other Christians who didn't share their opinion or branding them as heretics. The bible texts originate from people who went out to spread the word as they were told. They were more than God's stenographers. The only biblical text, which can be seen as an 1 to 1 account of God's message (received by direct contact/vision) is the Apocalypse. This is what makes the Apokalypse so special.
Anyway, I greatly enjoy this discussion even if I cannot agree with you.

It is my understanding that any good theory must be falsifiable. If this is the case, then evolution must make a great theory. Is it 'fact'? Well, despite my relativism, I would say certainly not. There are holes in evolution, it would be silly to ignore them. The 'missing link' is indeed still missing, despite some clamouring to the contrary.

As for intelligent design, it seems absurd to me. A rather last-minute scrapped-together plan by Christian scientists to save face. Again, a theory.

Lastly, creationism. It would take a truely pious fellow to ignore the problems with this one. Whether one believes a divinity created the earth does not negate any one of these creation theories. This one in particular has very little bearing on todays world however. Regardless of whether or not people remember it, it will go down in history along with 'The World is Flat' and 'The Earth Is the Centre Of the Universe' theories of ages past.

Overall, none of the three are 'fact', as another poster mentioned. However, there is far more evidence showing us that evolution is more likely to have occurred rather than the other two theories. Looking at Darwin's evidence, it is certainly not perfect, but it explains much. Again, the idea of 'Why has the missing link not been found yet?' is a troublesome one for evolution, but less troublesome as an invisable father in the sky for me.

Did you ever work on a jig saw puzzle and when you're done there are two or three missing pieces? Happens all the time. Still when you get the thing put together you know what the picture is. That's the way I look at this. Evolution and natural selection are on going processes. I find it amusing that some people who deny evolution, and all it's implications, readily take advantage of scientific advances based on the theory. At the moment it's Bird Flu. The possibility of developing an immunization for bird flu derives from the basic idea of evolution and natural selection. I'm much more concerned with finding my missing cufflinks than THE MISSING LINK. It may be missing to some but I'm sure it wandered around someplace.

Regards,

Yodan

Well, yodan, let me also equivically say that there is no doubt at the scientific evidence of evolution of species. In this arguement, with the possibility of divinity (which it is in our nature, it seems, to think about), there is nothing wrong with the logic of creationism based on the omnipotent being at the head of it (a convienent device, no?).

Evolution has happened. We can see it every day, in peice of nature that surrounds us, nevermind just a few species in another era. Humankind routinely engages in evolution through the course of our species

My understanding of the subject ends there. This thread has gotten me interested in the idea, however. Think I shall have to do some studying.

Gawaine,
I have a good one for you, it is called "Fly: an experimental life" by Martin Brooks. It is actually about the fruitfly (drosophila) which is heavily used in genetic and related research because it breeds very fast and because all its genomes are known. Although scientific, the book is nicely written and is also entertaining. In addition of paying hommage to drosophila and the knowledge this little insect gave us, it also contains a very comprehensible discussion on the current problems of evolutionist theories.

I wrote this for the PB&J Band on the General Chat Thread, but since it's in honor of this thread, I'll also post it here. Remember, my friends, this song is all tongue-in-cheek, mean to be not taken too seriously. It's quite an honor to have been a participant in this long-running thread!

Parody of Margaritaville by Jimmy Buffet

Wastin' Away Again Here In Forumville (In honor of our longest running thread!)

Throwing out ideas,
Through sleepy eyelids,
Hoping that we'll find reward for our toil.
And prayin' this evenin'
People are ruled by reason,
Because this thread not pretty at all when it starts to boil!

Wastin' away again here in Forumville.
Searching for that long-lost train of thought.
If I started to lay blame, I'd never stop naming names:
But in fact: It ain't nobody's fault.

Some think the solution.
Is straight evolution.
Others think it was a Higher Power out there in the blue.
It's a question that sages,
Have pondered all down through the ages,
Somehow I think we better study again because we haven't a clue!

Wastin' away again here in Forumville.
Searching for that long-lost train of thought.
Some might even claim, that the LitNet's to blame:
But I know: It ain't nobody's fault.

We've all blown our cool now.
Got into a few rows.
Some of the ones that we loved had to move it along.
Tell me, is this whole question,
Worth so much stress and rejection?
And did it ever occur to any of us that we all could be wrong?

Wastin' away again here in Forumville.
Searching for that long-lost train of thought.
Some people claim, too much study is to blame:
But learning is fine: It ain't nobody's fault.

Yeah, I know. Could have left it alone. So it's my own fault.

:angel: :angel: ;angel:

I guess it's been said before on this Forum; haven't taken time to read all. My personal opinion is one I formulated long before I ever heard of Intelligent Design, but that is my belief. To wit: God created, and used evolution as His tool. This is the belief that makes the most sense to me.

I don't know if anyone is still active on this thread- but I'll post anyway because I feel I need to. First off, there are several misconceptions plaguing this debate.

In more recent posts you have used the term 'Intelligent Design' as if it reffered to something other than creationism when, in fact, they are synonimous.

Another misconception that seems a running element from the first to last post is this idea of 'evidence'. Evidence belongs to no specific point of view- it is merely observations (scientific, historical . . .) that can be interpreted one way or the other. So to say that there is more evidence for evolution is an invalid thesis.

Additionally to say that the Bible is false, is in itself a false statement. The old testament is historically sound (for the moment we will exclude the debated creationist tale) There are even accountings in the Bible that have been long disputed by historians but were, in fact, proved accurate by archaeological finds.
(If you want specifics on any of this, let me know, I just don't want this to go on for too long right now).

Allright, it is late, I will post again later with the rest, but I just wanted to get some of those misconceptions out of the way first.

More misconceptions. To say that by science you have come to the fact of evolution would be an invalid statement because science is observation. To draw a conclusion not completely and inconclusively supported by the evidence would be unscientific-- and though much evidence exists it will never be conclusive because of the millions (so the scientists say) of years before man existed or was capable of recording history-- anything based on the 'evidence' can only ever be considered an educated guess-- which is by no means conclusive.

Following this logic, you could well say that this must also hold true for creationist ideology-- and yes that is true we also can take the evidence that is available and interpret it to support our view-- which leaves us with a best guess since there was no one around-- however, our beliefs allow us one very important concession-- there was someone there and he did leave a record of what occured.
This returns to my first post . . . the old testament has been found factually accurate-- and Genesis is a book filled with Historical accounts, not parables or songs, but Historical accounts, which brings us to the much disputed beginning of Genesis, a passage considered even by some Christians to be a legend or myth-- how many history texts can you find that include among their endless facts and recountings a random section of fiction with no preface or explanation. That makes no sense, and these first few books of the Bible, read them if you doubt me, are nothing if not methodical, rational, sensical (at times seemingly too much so) and historical accounts.

Next post-- a different interpretation of the 'evidence'.

I believe that an omniscient, omnipotent God created everything. Evolution is just a belief for people who don't want to believe in God. Neither can really be fully scientifically supported: they are based upon faith. To quote Sir Fred Hoyle, "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged [through evolutionary processes] is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stanislaw

so in brief: God did it!

---

cool one,Stan.
again:

on brief:

God did itYes,He did:thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vedettedujour

In more recent posts you have used the term 'Intelligent Design' as if it reffered to something other than creationism when, in fact, they are synonimous.

---

Define both “Creationism” and “Intelligent Design”, please.

I propose taking a look at some of the 'revealed' techniques I find in the 'Awake!' special Issue for September 2006: Is There a CREATOR? (Published by the Jehovah's Witnesses - and with a claimed print-run of over 32 million!)

In fairness to the very charming young men who frequently attempt to engage me in conversation, I must say the first page does say: "Jehovah's Witnesses believe the creation account as recorded in the Bible book of Genesis. However, Jehovah's witnesses are not what you might think of as creationists."

With this in mind, I intend here to look at one of the techniques used by the leaflet to counter the accepted scientific explanation of Evolution. The first is:

The Creation of Straw Men:

Did God Use EVOLUTION to Create Life? (Title, pg. 9)

and

WHAT IS EVOLUTION? One definition of evolution is "A process of change in a certain direction." However, the term is used in several ways. For example, it is used to describe big changes in inanimate things - the development of the universe. In addition, the term is used to describe small changes in living things - the way plants and animals adapt to their environment. The word is most commonly used, though, to describe the theory that life arose from inanimate chemicals, formed into self-replicating cells, and slowly developed into more and more complex creatures, with man being the most intelligent of its productions. This third notion is what is meant by "evolution" as used in this article. (Box at bottom, pg. 9)

A straw man argument is based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position (Wikipedia). It can be a successful way of persuading people, but is not actually very truthful – the argument has not been countered, people have simply been persuaded.

So where is the straw in the examples above?

It is packed around the definition of Evolution.

Evolution is:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
(Quoted : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evol...efinition.html )

Two things to notice:

1) There is no mention of the Origin of Life (or Creation if you take the religious view);
2) There is a clear distinction made between the Biological use of the word and other Scientific and everyday uses.

I suspect, judging from the first part of the ‘Awake’ definition, the writer of this argument is very aware of the slight of hand he (or she) is trying to perform here – No scientist would ever claim EVOLUTION created life – life, and its reproduction, needs to exist before evolution can take place.

I also suspect (but do not know enough to state more definitely) that those many members of the Catholic and Anglican Churches, as well as Muslims and Jews, who both believe in an act of creation by Divine Intervention and the theory of Evolution would be a little upset at the representation of their views in such a distorted way.

A second straw man is set up in the article: Is Evolution a FACT? (page 13)

The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:

Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.

Natural selection leads to the production of new species.

The fossil record documents macro-evolutionary changes in plants and animals.

(The BOLD is in the original – and there is a note to point one, which I don’t reproduce.)


The biggest amount of straw here is in the third point.


The suggestion is that fossils, and only fossils, provide evidence for ‘macro-evolution’.


This is very far from the case.


Four major areas of evidence exist for evolution in general (including macro-evolution):


the Fossil Record

the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms

the geographical distribution of related species

the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations.

(Quoted from: Evidence of Evolution).


By ignoring what is by far the larger amount of evidence, focusing on (what is perceived to be) the weaker and then challenging it, the article attempts to disprove, in the popular mind, evolution as a fact.


It is worth noting I think at this point that Darwin himself used the anatomical similarities between species as a major piece of evidence and to claim the argument for evolution doesn’t include anatomical similarities is downright misleading: But that is the point of a Straw Man – set him up, make sure he can’t fight back, then knock him down.