Evolution vs. Creation

[Whifflingpin]

Wintermute: "... the Cosmos series by Carl Sagan? In it, as I recall, he demonstrated that the basic building blocks of life, complex protein molecules, could be generated from inorganic materials in an environment similar to how our early solar system is believed to have been. "

There may be building blocks, but that does not mean that they would ever self-generate into something more complex.

A field might be full of rocks, but you'd have to wait several eternities for then to form themselves into a house.

[billyjack]

there was never a point of creation, "its" always been. the fact that the title "evolution vs. creation" hits home for so many people tells me that both are probably wrong. cause i buy into the whole "7 out of 10" people are most likely invalids. and if this many invalids have a say on this matter, it must not be what really matters.

[Wintermute]

A field might be full of rocks, but you'd have to wait several eternities for then to form themselves into a house.

Hi Whiff,

Well now, that depends on whether you consider a cave to be a house. Neanderthal certainly did.

How long would you need to wait for an empty vacuum to produce a God? Am I alone in this inability to grasp a universal creator that has existed for infinity and just a few billion years ago decided to create a massive, amazing universe with humanity in the center of it all? I just don't get it. I'm doomed to a life of uncertainty, hehe.

[Wintermute]

there was never a point of creation, "its" always been. the fact that the title "evolution vs. creation" hits home for so many people tells me that both are probably wrong. cause i buy into the whole "7 out of 10" people are most likely invalids. and if this many invalids have a say on this matter, it must not be what really matters.

Hi Billy, thanks for your input.

Just so I understand, you are saying that 7 out of 10 (70%) of folks are invalids? Do you have some data on this? It's not consistant with my observations. Are you talking about folks that are physically disabled? Or are you pluralizing the adjective 'valid'--arguing that 7 out of 10 arguments on this thread are invalid? If that's the case I would disagree completely. Every argument on this thread is valid to the person that wrote it. Most everyone is sincere in their desire to explore the possibilities and conundrums this universe presents us with.

Now about there never being a point of creation--you have some evidence of this? Or is it just your opinion? I suspect the latter, but it is presented as fact so I was just curious.

[Redzeppelin]

There's another one of those observations that swings both ways: The odds are so against God spontaneously occuring out of nothing. . .or existing for infinity...

I don't know how you calculate the "odds" for the existence of a Being who claims eternal existence. Calculating any such "odds" would be based on our idea as to the probability of something - how do you calculate the probability of a Divine Being?

Have you had to opportunity to read or watch the Cosmos series by Carl Sagan? In it, as I recall, he demonstrated that the basic building blocks of life, complex protein molecules, could be generated from inorganic materials in an environment similar to how our early solar system is believed to have been. Granted, protiens are a long way from Beethoven's 9th symphony, but over billions of years...I dunno. I remain uncertain, lol.

What I'd like Carl (or any other similar scientist) to do is tell me where the inorganic material came from and what was the catalyst that resulted in the "switchover" from inorganic to "life." "Could" implies potential, but not actual.

I hate when Christians say "god is love". Love is a human emotion; not what God is or what he represents. I know this sounds stoic, but emotions only weaken the individual. Why associate something we made up (love) with the divine being......the other thing we made up

Thus spake the Nietzschean "superman." God is identified in the Bible as love - He is the living definition of what love is - He and nothing else. That you are capable of love is proof that He lives within your heart (whether or not you acknowledge/like it). Furthermore, love is not an emotion - it is a choice. We did not "make up" love (though we certainly have distorted its meaning pretty severely).

Pico writes that "man is an afterthought" and that we were created so God would have a creature that would admire his work. I have nothing against true Christians who "climb the ladder up to the stars".

I'm glad Pico's self-esteem issue isn't mine. To make God into an egomaniac is a sure sign of someone trying to understand a being that is quite beyond his grasp.

[Scheherazade]

This has been one of the oldest and most popular discussion threads in this section of the Forum. It is unfortunate that it will now be closed temporarily due to some members' inability to comply with Forum Rules and carry on civilized exchanges without resorting personal attacks on others and/or their beliefs.

I hope everyone will take this time-out perioud to read and familiarize themselves with these.

[Scheherazade]

This thread is now open for discussions again, in the hope that future posts will comply with the Forum Rules.

I would like to thank those members who refrain from inflammatory remarks or current politics and would also like to remind that those who persistently resort to such comments might be banned temporarily/permanently from the Forum:

The general Forum Rules apply here, as well as the following:

1. Discussion of religious or sacred texts is encouraged here, but please remember to respect the beliefs of others.

2. These forums are not here for preaching, or attempts to convert, nor promote other religiously affiliated websites.

3. Please do not copy and paste huge tracts of text, you shouldn't need more than a few sentences or a paragraph to make your point in reference to the topic/discussion. Having said that, if you are going to refer to or use content from other sites, you must include a link for it. You cannot copy and paste entire articles from other sites because that is copyright infringement, and contributes nothing to discussion. From Copyright.gov ; "Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports."

4. Admin and the Moderators reserve the right to edit, delete, close, and/or remove topics or posts, not always with warning. It is up to you to understand the forum rules.

5. If you are going to post to this part of the forums, you must be willing to subject yourself to other members' points of views and opinions, which may not agree with yours.

6. This area is for discussions of specific religious texts. Any other general religious topics started will be subject to Admin's or the Moderator's discretion as to whether they remain.

7. As of the 25th of May 2006 any member failing to follow these rules may simply lose their ability to post & view this subforum instead of being warned. Any such member who continues to misbehave may be banned from the forum as a whole.

.
.

[The Atheist]

Sorry, Red, I hadn't checked back, but I'll answer a couple of your comments here:

Your assertion that creation if "fantasy" expresses an opinion and nothing else but - an opinion you cannot substantiate.

That's actually incorrect. I can satisfactorily explain every step of evolution barring abiogenesis, for which there are several interesting hypotheses and theories, but as yet, no proof.

If your creationism is "God created Earth and enabled abiogenesis", then I can't really argue against that from facts, so I don't. The thought that anything beyond the first, single-celled life forms was "created" by anything other than evolution is simply flying in the face of all scientific results and facts to date. If you think the biblical creation is literal, I can't help you, but if you'd like hard facts, I can surely provide plenty.

Feel free to give examples of what "facts" creation "flies in the face of" so I can seriously consider them;

The amount of evidence as to evolution of life forms since the first single-celled ones is so enormous that it would require far more space than is currently used by this entire forum, so I need some specifics as to what bothers you.

then I'll throw out at you some of the sheer absurdities that science requires me to accept to explain reality without the causal agent of God.

That would be an excellent place to start! You give me a few examples of "scientific absurdity" and we'll go from that.

The only "fantasy" being entertained here IMO is the idea that we're the products of random, faceless chance - the odds of which occurring are so astronomical as to approach zero probability.

I'm not sure whether you're a mathematician, or at all up to date with current mathematical work in the evolution of animals, but if we're talking evolution from single-celled organisms, the actual algorithm for evolution shows an infinitesimally small chance that it isn't factual. And I do mean small, as in billions to one against evolution.

I look forward to discussing this some more - I see the thread's been closed once, but if we stick to facts and data, there should be no problem.

[watkinsguy]

i have a question...everything comes from something yes? So where exactly did the proverbial "cosmic gunk from which we all evolved from" come from? I mean at one point and time there had to be nothing in this universe, so how did it all get here? A more specific example I guess is when you see a building, you know there had to be a builder. When you see a painting, you know there had to be a painter. So when you see the complexities that is the universe, how can you not wonder "How did all this get here?". I'll give you a hint:it wasn't trillions of atoms being tightly compressed together until they exploded.....

[billyjack]

When you see a painting, you know there had to be a painter. So when you see the complexities that is the universe, how can you not wonder "How did all this get here?". I'll give you a hint:it wasn't trillions of atoms being tightly compressed together until they exploded.....

matter of fact statement are most likely not facts.

i think you're hinting at some all powerful creator being behind the "way" of things: creating them, having some sort of plan. . .

i don't think that's neccessary though. people use the human eye as an example for why evolution is crap, saying its far too complex for natural selection and evolution to account for its intricacies. but scientist have shown how the eye would've evolved through some pretty simple but brilliant demonstrations involving lenses and light--and its powerful evidence to show that even the most complicated things don't need a creator. look at an acorn, within it and its surrounding lies the blueprint of an oak. no creator is need for this. its just the way of things. omnipotence is doing spontaneously, without having to think about it. the universe didnt need to be consiously devised by God. it didnt need to be devised or planned at all. it just is.

[Lily Adams]

What I'd like Carl (or any other similar scientist) to do is tell me where the inorganic material came from and what was the catalyst that resulted in the "switchover" from inorganic to "life." "Could" implies potential, but not actual.

Oh, but he does! I own the series, and in other episodes, (not just that one about evolution) he talks about how the stars of the universe created (and still create) different elements (including carbon, the necessary element for life) through fusion pf hydrogen and helium. But the second episode, "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue", is the one that talks about the evolution of life.

[Redzeppelin]

That's actually incorrect. I can satisfactorily explain every step of evolution barring abiogenesis, for which there are several interesting hypotheses and theories, but as yet, no proof.

You can offer me science's interpretation (an inherently subjective tool of knowledge) of observable evidence that a creationist might have en equally compelling interpretation of - the big difference is that the creationist scientist doen't have the problem explaining where matter came from.

If your creationism is "God created Earth and enabled abiogenesis", then I can't really argue against that from facts, so I don't. The thought that anything beyond the first, single-celled life forms was "created" by anything other than evolution is simply flying in the face of all scientific results and facts to date. If you think the biblical creation is literal, I can't help you, but if you'd like hard facts, I can surely provide plenty.

The "hard facts" argument creates a problem because it requires you to live a life based on only what you can verify via the "hard facts." That creates some difficulties because it's a pretty sure bet that there are many things you believe to be true that you have no "hard facts" to corroborate. As well, if you are arguing for a totally Naturalistic world-view, then we now have to deal with the difficulty of the meaning of your words, as well as the issue of freewill: because, in a Naturalistic world, humans essentially have no freewill because they are subject to the forces of this world (biological, chemical, neurological, social, psychological) that are beyond their control; as well, since your brain is merely a machine full of chemical and electric interactions, how can you claim that your words are a) your own, and b) that they're "true"?

The amount of evidence as to evolution of life forms since the first single-celled ones is so enormous that it would require far more space than is currently used by this entire forum, so I need some specifics as to what bothers you.

That life came from non-life (a violation of the law of biogenesis); that matter came from nothing; that one-celled creatures resulted in the irreducible complexity of things like the eye.

That would be an excellent place to start! You give me a few examples of "scientific absurdity" and we'll go from that.

Some evolutionists have conceded that the odds of evolution occurring are 1 in 10 to the 250th power. Borel's single law of chance tells us that when chance exceeds 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power that absolutely no chance remains for an event to occur. Other evolutionary scientists have estimated the chance that life could evolve at 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power. Most of us wouldn't bet our life savings on odds of 1 in a 100.

I'm not sure whether you're a mathematician, or at all up to date with current mathematical work in the evolution of animals, but if we're talking evolution from single-celled organisms, the actual algorithm for evolution shows an infinitesimally small chance that it isn't factual. And I do mean small, as in billions to one against evolution.

Even if you could prove such, one-cell into the complexity of the human body is something I cannot accept. Nature tends towards entropy and chaos - not increasing order.

[cuppajoe_9]

I'll just take this one:

That life came from non-life (a violation of the law of biogenesis); that matter came from nothing; that one-celled creatures resulted in the irreducible complexity of things like the eye.

Eyes are not irreducibly compex. Michael Behe, inventor of the concept, defines irreducible complexity as "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". You could remove any of several parts of the eye and it would still function, just not as well. (The same is true of the bacterial flagellum, if you were thinking of bringing tht one up.) Even the ID people have stopped harping on the eye, because it is now known perfectly well how the eye evolved.

[Redzeppelin]

I'll just take this one:Eyes are not irreducibly compex. Michael Behe, inventor of the concept, defines irreducible complexity as "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". You could remove any of several parts of the eye and it would still function, just not as well. (The same is true of the bacterial flagellum, if you were thinking of bringing tht one up.) Even the ID people have stopped harping on the eye, because it is now known perfectly well how the eye evolved.

Define "just not as well" - and then we could perhaps have some sort of Platonic dialogue on whether or not a thing that functions "not as well as it should" is actually "functioning" in any way that is germane to the thing's proper mode of operation.

[cuppajoe_9]

If I were to remove your cataracts and not put in an artificial lens, for example, you would be unable to drive a car, but you would be able to keep from being run over by one (an important function of the eye). If I were to remove your iris as well, you would be unable to adjust to how close or far away an object is to you, but you wouldn't be totally blind. If I were to remove all the structures in your eye except for the retina, you would not have functional vision, but you would be able to tell the difference between light and dark, which would be useful if you happened to be a small, cave-dwelling arthropod who eats plants that grow in the light.

On the other hand, if I could, by some very complicated operation, remove only the colour-sensitive cells in your retina, you would still have perfectly functional vision, it's just that the glories of technicolor film would be lost on you.