Evolution or Creation?

[eriador]

just say whether or not that first post was meant as a joke.

I'm getting really weirded out.

please.

[Jebus]

It's not a joke, I don't see what's funny about it.

[Jayelle]

Jebus, you crack me up.

[Eaquae Legit]

I <3 Jebus.

[zeroguy]

I'm serious. If you believe that, well, I would be REALLY, REALLY, REALLY worried about the state of humanity.

Jebus has that effect on people.

(And you wish it were a joke.)

[Young Val]

can i be a Jebus fangirl, too?

[hive_king]

I wanna be a Jebus fangirl, too!!!

[Sparrowhawk]

Jebus is overrated. All hype. You darn kids.....

[jotabe]

I wanna be a Jebus fangirl, too!!!

You have just scared the sweet beJebus of me!!!

[hive_king]

you're just jelous because YOU can't be a jebus fangirl, too! I'm onto you, jota.

[Seiryu]

I believe seven days was really seven eras of creation and not seven 24 hour days, but I also somewhat believe in evolution.

[Super Taco]

I only believe in evolution as far as the adaptation of already existing humans.

[John Locke]

Creation is the simple explanation of Evolution, for simpler times.

[lyons24000]

You can't (rationally) rule out "Creation". You can always choose to believe in it.
My question is: Can you (rationally) rule out "Evolution"? Is it "just a personal choice", like "Creation" is?

A.

I seem to remember falling off the face of the planet immediately after starting this thread. Goodness! I was missing for over a year! However:

I think you can rationally rule out evolution.

For evolution to be possible (without divine intervention, of course) at some point life had to come from nonlife. With that in mind, we all know that life cannot come from nonlife. Therefore, how did life start in the universe and then evolve to its present state?

[London]

(Someone may have said this already, but I didn't look at the other comments...so yeah)

I believe that God could use evolution as a creation of sorts. It makes us feel more related to the creatured around us, like we have a place and we are part of earth. The reason he didn't put it in the bible is because the people then would most likely not understand the complexities of evolution as a science, and did God need to tell us? Not really. It was just another thing for the human mind to figure out. God certainly likes it when we use our intelligence.

[London]

I encourage you guys to look up the book "Radical Amazement". It integrates science into Christian spirituality. Very interesting. Contains stuff about evolution etc

[wigginboy]

(Someone may have said this already, but I didn't look at the other comments...so yeah)

I believe that God could use evolution as a creation of sorts. It makes us feel more related to the creatured around us, like we have a place and we are part of earth. The reason he didn't put it in the bible is because the people then would most likely not understand the complexities of evolution as a science, and did God need to tell us? Not really. It was just another thing for the human mind to figure out. God certainly likes it when we use our intelligence.

Well, thats assuming that God wrote the bible, which He did NOT. the bible was written by men, yes even the earliest parts. The reason evolution is not in the Bible is because it hadn't been discovered yet at the time. The Bible was all written many years before most science emerged. No one really had a system for classifying life and the relations between species. Species wasn't even a word until the late seventeen hundreds so it would have been very difficult to notice changes over a given period. What's more, archeology is a relatively new practice. Digging up bones and artifacts was considered by most to be blasphemous, at the least a form of grave robbery. So how would they know to include that in the Bible when they didn't even know it existed. Evolution is as plain as day when you look at it. There is so much to suggest that we have evolved over time. God simply wanted us to take it for granted. The animals and plants change over time to adapt to their environment, so why shouldn't we? It was built in, just like a lot of the other things we are just discovering about ourselves. Medical advances in the last century only happened because we finally had the technology and knowledge to make them work. The idea was there long before it happened, long before we discovered it. Just because Darwin discovered that life on Earth has evolved over time does not mean that it was a new idea that he alone conceived of. God (or whoever created the earth) obviously decided that we needed a way to propagate the species even in severe conditions so He (or she, or it) decided to let us change ourselves over time to do so.

Simple

[London]

I believe that the words of the bible are God's, but through the hand of man.

[lyons24000]

Well, thats assuming that God wrote the bible, which He did NOT. The bible was written by men, yes even the earliest parts.

You speak as if this is a certainty, which you cannot say with 100% assuredness. If you believe in God why would you not believe that he has attempted to communicate with us?

The reason evolution is not in the Bible is because it hadn't been discovered yet at the time. The Bible was all written many years before most science emerged.

And yet, when the Bible does touch on science, it is amazingly accurate. The book of Job (written between 1550 B.C.E. and 1400 B.C.E.) says that the 'earth is hanging upon nothing' (Job 26:7) (and Isaiah (written in the seven hundreds B.C.E.) says that the earth is a "circle". The Books of Job and Ecclesiastes both talk of the water cycle. (Job 36:27; Ecclesiastes 1:7)
Proverbs 4:23 may even be talking about the circulatory system! Man didn't write that of his own accord because, well, man had no idea of these things at this time. Even in Babylon at it's height, they believed that the earth was being held up by pillars! The Bible writers didn't write that! They would have had they been of man and not of God.

Evolution is as plain as day when you look at it. There is so much to suggest that we have evolved over time.

Plain as day? Many scientists don't even agree on that!

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”

According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”

Even those who support evolution can't agree on the fundamentals:

“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.

“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg),

The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”

God simply wanted us to take it for granted.

And how do you know that? Has God communicated with you in some way that he didn't communicate with the Bible writers?

The animals and plants change over time to adapt to their environment, so why shouldn't we? It was built in, just like a lot of the other things we are just discovering about ourselves.

I call that adaptation, not evolution. A species can adapt in a very short period of time, within generations. A group of humans living in one area have adapted to their environment and would literally die if exposed to another environment. They didn't evolve into two different species, they just adapted to their environment, same with humans.

Just because Darwin discovered that life on Earth has evolved over time does not mean that it was a new idea that he alone conceived of.

Many are starting to admit that Darwin's theory had flaws in it and may even be plain wrong (although aspects of it a probably correct). But what Darwin thought was evolution was most likely adaptation.

God (or whoever created the earth) obviously decided that we needed a way to propagate the species even in severe conditions so He (or she, or it) decided to let us change ourselves over time to do so.

Again, has God given you some type of revelation to be able to make this statement in a way that says there is no doubt about it it's common sense? You've come up with this on your own (or gotten it from someone who did). I put more emphasize in the Bible, which has proved its inspiration to me over you.

[IcedFalcon]

Well said neo. There is strong evidence for evolution but whos to say it wasnt the method for creation.
Holy books are like laws, anything is correct depending on how you read them.

[Eaquae Legit]

Species wasn't even a word until the late seventeen hundreds so it would have been very difficult to notice changes over a given period.

"Species" is a very, very old word. It's one of the few we've lifted directly from classical Latin into English. It was often used to refer to different types of living beings. I have no idea where you got that information, but it's just flat-out wrong.

[neo-dragon]

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”

Experimental evidence supports creation? What experiments?? Besides, this guy's a physicist... You don't see biologists trying to discredit the big bang theory.

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. While I do believe that God created life through evolution, I wouldn't say that the whole idea falls apart if we take God out of the equation. As you point out, Lyons, a major problem seems to be the fact that at some point life must have come from non-life, and we've never seen that happen. But there's at least one major limitation in all of the experiments that have ever been conducted by human beings, and that's time itself. The Earth existed for maybe a billion years before even the simplest single-celled life appeared. It's the whole reason why we can't prove the theory of evolution, since it's based on processes that take too long to observe.

In any case, if you find a ball on the bottom of a hill and someone suggests that it rolled down, what started it rolling may be a mystery, but not so much as the one you're faced with if someone proposes that the ball happened to be created at the bottom of the hill, complete with all the scrapes and dirt that one would expect from a long tumble.

[lyons24000]

While I do believe that God created life through evolution, I wouldn't say that the whole idea falls apart if we take God out of the equation. As you point out, Lyons, a major problem seems to be the fact that at some point life must have come from non-life, and we've never seen that happen. But there's at least one major limitation in all of the experiments that have ever been conducted by human beings, and that's time itself.

The thing is, this supposed life that came from nonlife would have happened in an instant and not over a long period of time.

[neo-dragon]

It happened in an instant the same way it only takes an instant for a baby to take his first step or say his first word. You can't say that all the time leading up to that event wasn't crucial in making that instant possible.

Inorganic matter -> simple organic molecules -> polymers -> amino acids -> proteins -> simple cells -> life, certainly didn't all happen in an instant.

[CaseyJones]

The bible should be considered fiction, IMO. Now before this gets out of hand, let me explain: Look at how many kings, queens, and other rulers have changed and rewritten the bible to suit their own laws and views. Religions are only created to make people obey the founder, or even to inhibit organization and structure of a community. Now, when you look at the scientific facts, everything has evolved, and is still evolving. Evolution over very long periods of time, thousands to millions of years. It all starts by a varient or mutation of dominant traits passed on to offspring. Depending upon whether or not this trait aids in the creatures survival, survival of the fittest comes into play. This creature survives long enough to mate, passing the new trait onto its offspring, where even more variations can occure. Nature has a way of getting rid of bad traits in a species. A creature with bad genes probably will not survive to mate, causing its traits to die off.

[Eaquae Legit]

Look at how many kings, queens, and other rulers have changed and rewritten the bible to suit their own laws and views. Religions are only created to make people obey the founder, or even to inhibit organization and structure of a community.

Not all that many, really.

And your second statement there is just... ignorant. The origin of religions is complex, varied, and never straightforward.

[lyons24000]

The bible should be considered fiction, IMO. Now before this gets out of hand, let me explain: Look at how many kings, queens, and other rulers have changed and rewritten the bible to suit their own laws and views. Religions are only created to make people obey the founder, or even to inhibit organization and structure of a community.

I agree with E_L. The Bible is remarkably accurate when compared with what we do have. There are manuscripts dating back to the second and third centuries that are just amazing.

Then take the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls). Nearly every book of the OT is included in there (Except Esther) and they are amazingly the same as we have the Bible today.

While it is true about some religions started to make people obey the founder and inhibit organization and community structure, that cannot be said of all religions. (Jim Jones and maybe House of Yahweh)

Please, study the history of the Bible.

Now, when you look at the scientific facts, everything has evolved, and is still evolving. Evolution over very long periods of time, thousands to millions of years. It all starts by a varient or mutation of dominant traits passed on to offspring. Depending upon whether or not this trait aids in the creatures survival, survival of the fittest comes into play. This creature survives long enough to mate, passing the new trait onto its offspring, where even more variations can occure. Nature has a way of getting rid of bad traits in a species. A creature with bad genes probably will not survive to mate, causing its traits to die off.

Don't confuse evolution with adaptation and mutation.

[CaseyJones]

Every religion started somewhere. Even though the origins are unclear, still, they have an origin. It is true that there have not been very many variations in the bible, but that is because the ratio of royalty compared to the average persons is so great.

I agree with E_L. The Bible is remarkably accurate when compared with what we do have. There are manuscripts dating back to the second and third centuries that are just amazing.

There are easy explainations to the similarity of writings of the past to modern day. The earth goes through cycles that repeat with relativily unchanged conditions. Something that happened second or third century would likely repeat itself again and again, events such as natural disasters, famines, extinctions etc. All of which have been happening millions of years before humans ever even existed. 4.5 billion years is a long time, and we humans haven't even been around for 150000 years. We are just a grain of sand in the universe.

I am in no way stepping on someone's elses religion, I am just expressing my views and knowledge.

Don't confuse evolution with adaptation and mutation.

Adaptation and mutations IS evolution.

[lyons24000]

Adaptation and mutations IS evolution.

I guess adaptation and mutation can be considered evolution on a very broad spectrum but they are not the textbook defintion of evolution.

[lyons24000]

Did you get my PM? You should also check out the book "Did Man Get Here by Evolution or Creation?"

[CaseyJones]

You are right, Lyons. There is a lot more to evolution than just adaptations and mutations, but they are the main cause of genetic drift in a species. Well, a mutation is, anyway.
I've read most of Darwin's work, and find it absolutly facinating. Most of the science has been greatly expanded, but he was one of the few that stepped out of the boundaries of his religion to seek true scientific fact.

Lyons, I now have one question. What are your beliefs on why the bible is valid when compared to evolutionary theory?

[lyons24000]

Lyons, I now have one question. What are your beliefs on why the bible is valid when compared to evolutionary theory?

Since this is more a private conversation, I feel, I sent you a PM with my explanation. You can look for it.

[CaseyJones]

I apologize as that was a little personal. I just like to take in someone else's beliefs and research and form my own opinions and hypotheses. Beliefs are so diverse even between people of the same faith.

Again I apologize for being personal,
caseyjones

[John Locke]

I believe in a loving and caring God who can do anything, but He usually chooses not to interfere. I voted evolution and creation because I BELIEVE (the most important word in English) that God created the Earth through evolution, and God explained Evolution through Creation.

I BELIEVE, but I do not KNOW.

God can do anything and everything; who am I to tell others he can take only one form?

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

the probability of a SINGLE simple amino acid forming from pure chance is 1:10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (or 1:10^61)

to compare, the estimated number of particles IN THE UNIVERSE is around 10^40.

God did not create the Earth using evolution for the simple reason that the Bible does not say so. The 6 days were literal 24-hour days because: "There was evening, and there was morning, a (third, fourth, fifth) day" etc. NOTHING in the Bible indicates evolution.

For all you evolutionists out there: do a detailed study on the evolution of the Eye. It could not happen. What use is the retina without a pupil? or an optic nerve? How could they possibly have evolved separately?

A simpler question: which evolved first, the Brain or the Heart?

an even simpler question: why do we not see cross-species today? a man-ape, or a bird-lizard? if evolution were true, we would be seeing every variation of every evolution all the way from amoeba to man.

For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible