Evolution vs. Creation

[Taliesin]

Consider, that if man had formed slowly over a period of time, it wouldn't have been so good, isn't it?

We really would like to you to explain. Why do you think that things done in in shorter time are better?

[Dyrwen]

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??!

Technically speaking, it took a few billion years just to get microorganisms to evolve from the primordial soup, but once they were out there, everything else was able to come about later on. So if you want a straight answer, which I know you do, you won't get a shark or fish. You might get some microorganisms, eventually some sort of underwater creature which may or may not look like a fish depending on what you put in the water. It certainly would be a new species entirely, since there wouldn't be any reproduction going on with anything else beforehand.

If you really want to understand how life began that way, I suggest reading this lovely little explanation called "From Soup to Cells" by the Berkeley science department. It's quite expansive and gives you all the evidence of theory that you need.

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?

First off, that sentence was barely intelligible. Secondly, there's a lot of evidence right now that this world didn't need some God making it to become as complex as it is. Furthermore, if you're going to go into the theology realm, I can always just ask "What made God?" seeing as he's pretty complex, too. Of course, I'm pretty sure I know what your response to that will be, seeing as it doesn't take a genius to use circular logic.

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?

I'm not getting into a Biblical debate with you because it isn't my peroggative and there are plenty of others who do that for a living, but as far as your prophecy stuff goes, I'd say that they haven't been fulfilled and have been past due for quite some time. But whatever, I'm not here to fight Bible scripture with you, though a friend of mine took some time once to delve into the matter.

I've looked around and have been for the past 4-5 years for evidence of God, or at least something half-assedly true about creationism. Hell, the flood alone is proven false by how sedimentary rocks work in the grand canyon. There's already fossil evidence of dinosaurs, billion year old bacteria, hominids evolving over time in various ways. Tell you what, I've been looking around for years and haven't found any evidence, perhaps you'd be kind enough to display some of it so that I might be proven wrong or at least can analyze it myself? That's not too much to ask I hope.

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.

Nothing is provable (seeing as we might not even exist and could be in a dream world without knowing it, etc), but I follow that which is possible beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence for evolution is strikingly overwhelming and the lack of evidence of any gods is as such as well, considering I do not believe the Bible is anything but literature.

I never said science can prove evolution is correct, but I did say that it is pretty well documented that it occurs and the evidence shows it so well that a good deal of the world accepts it as fact. 55% of scientists believe that man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life and God had no part in the process. Also, 97% of the world doesn't believe that the Earth was created in six days purely because the evidence suggests 4.5 billion years ago is much more reasonable a time, even if there was a God involved.

The point is: Evolution has a lot of documented evidence for it, much more than the contrary evidence, and is therefore regarded as factual theory more so than just some humdrum explanation for the way things are. Show some evidence of creationism not directly quoted from the Bible and maybe you'll make more of a case for it.

[Stanislaw]

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?

It is perhaps a figurative way to describe the events, another metaphor that must be examined and contemplated to reveal the truth.
There are also less 'scientific' theories for the concept of evolution, such as Only God is perfect enough to creat a person directly, and that Evolution was the work of Satan. Now that could explain why there were other groups on the earth when Adam and Eve arrived.

[Monica]

At our religion classes (how to call in English such a subject? If trsanslated directly from Polish it's religion, but I don't really know if it's correct) our priest always told us that creation and evolution don't exclude each other because science and religion belong to a different category. Like in Thomas Aquinas: the difference between faith and knowledge.

[Dyrwen]

Indeed Monica, you're quite correct.

Faith is of a category of beliefs. Knowledge is of a category of sciences. Science means, from Latin at least, "having knowledge". Faith comes from the Latin of, "to trust". So in simple definitive terms, one can quite easily follow both. Science is about the systematic organization of knowledge in evolution's case, but creationism is more a matter of faith in the Bible, that is, unless there's scientific evidence out there to back up creationism, in which case it'd get to play ball alongside the sciences instead of just the religious studies.

[Jester]

Dyrwen, several posts back you said exactly what i was going to say, thanks, couldn't have said it better....

About the bath tub thing though, a couple of ver specific elements are needed like phosphuros and then electricity is needed,

stan i could see where you were going with the eve from adam thing, but eve was created from adam's rib, and at that point in time when the bible was written down, as it was written down, they would have no knowledge of these things (unless God filled thier head with doctorates that spent lifetimes trying to achieve their knowledge and a couple thousand years to get as far as they did) then metaphors as good as they sound, just don't seem plausible enough...

Adelhied, I'd like you to know that you may "KNOW" that GOd's word is in the bible, but many scientist out there KNOW that something else is going on besides God and htye feel the same way about science as you do about GOD

as Dyrwen said, nothing is can be prooven to a hundred percent becuase we rely on our senses to acknowledge reality therefore we may think we know something and it oculd be a lie... (think Matrix, that movie freaked me out becuase it brought rise to the fact that that could be our world, and we aren't really alive!)

[baddad]

My feelings on spirituality have been expressed here before, so this particular post may seem a little........different....or maybe just irrational......

Evolution does not neccessarily preclude a God. A god does not neccessarily preclude evolution.

[amuse]

i like how you put that - i just figured god created both.

[mono]

Evolution does not neccessarily preclude a God. A god does not neccessarily preclude evolution.

i like how you put that - i just figured god created both.

I could not have explained my opinion better, nor in less words.

[amuse]

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?

first of all, i'm not a christian, but i have read a lot of stuff re: the bible, like in my late teens, and "day" is actually kind of ambiguous. who's to say that god's days are in the same time frame as those here on planet: earth, galaxy: milky way? it really depends how you look at "time" to decide what's "good" and what isn't.

[Stanislaw]

The Babylonian Enuma Elish offers an interesting take on religious thoughts, it almost follows an evolutionary aproach.

it is worth skimming through!

[Adelheid]

At our religion classes (how to call in English such a subject? If trsanslated directly from Polish it's religion, but I don't really know if it's correct) our priest always told us that creation and evolution don't exclude each other because science and religion belong to a different category. Like in Thomas Aquinas: the difference between faith and knowledge.

Shouldn't Science be supporting your faith? If Creation or evolution for that matter really DID happen, shouldn't there be scientific evidence?

[Adelheid]

We really would like to you to explain. Why do you think that things done in in shorter time are better?

I'm sorry, I should have explained myself a little bit better. What I was trying to say is that man (or creation for that matter) was created in six days. At the end of every day God always said it was good. If it did take that long to create a man, plant or animal, (millions or billions of years) the creation wouldn't have been even half completed in a day! Thus it wouldn't quite have been perfect yet, would it? That's what I meant, I think.

[Molko]

Hmm...I do believe in God and I believe that God created the universe, but I also believe in the theory of evolution. I dont take the bible's story of creation literally, i.e. the world etc. was made in 6 days. As the bible has been translated from numerous languages (aramaic to greek to engish) and sometimes there is no equivalent meaning for a specific word, perhaps the word days could have really meant a long period of time (say, a thousand years). Usually, words can get lost or changed in translation. Sorry, I dont know if I properly articulated what I wanted to say

[Adelheid]

That's alright, I understand you. I too sometimes find it hard to express myself properly, unlike some people. Anyway, just out from curiousity, I think, why wouldn't you take the Bible literally? I know that somewhere in the Bible it did say that a thousand years is as one day to God, as one day is as a thousand years to God. But obviously, Moses he writer of the book of Genesis could have only gotten the creation information from God. He was a close man with God. Wouldn't God have passed the truth to Moses? So that WE could understand it? Sometimes I think that the problem is that we try to figure things out too much. The truth might be infront of us! Sorry, on offense- it happens to everybody, isn't it?

Anyway, going back to the point, God would have given Moses the truth to record, as the Bible says it is impossible for God to lie. That's the only inpossible thing that God can't do. So, anyhow, that was the point I was trying to make hope u understand me too!