Creation vs. Evolution

[iouae]

All I can say is that I am unaware of any supernatural impact on this world and my life, I make my conclusions from evidence and hopefully rational thinking.
Without anything other than observations of life today, Darwinian evolution seems to make sense to me as a natural theory. With the evidential support it has from all natural sciences I find it utterly compelling even if there are many gaps yet to be filled.

If there were any evidence that complex life could suddenly appear out of thin air then I would have to rethink.
But what do we mean by sudden?
In geological terms a "sudden" change would often still amount to plenty of time for evolutionary adaptions to take place which from a human timescale probably wouldn't be sudden at all.
Fossils are only snapshots and cannot tell the whole story or how sudden changes really took. So Creatures appearing "suddenly" probably were in fact still very gradual in human terms. Creationists and "evolutionists" probably have their own version of "sudden", but I don't accept that anything in life ever happened as suddenly as creationists would have us all believe. That just isn't what happens in a natural world.

We can try.

What do you mean by "sudden"?
Do you think that complex creatures can instantly appear or could relatively rapid evolutionary adaptions that may well have produced no helpful fossil not have accounted for an apparently "sudden" appearance? Both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium can surely be part of Darwinian evolution imo, it depends on what the selective pressures happen to be.

Fossils are found when some catastrophe buries them suddenly in a layer of mud. They are generally not forming today unless they fall into tar, or some anaerobic place. This process means many layers form almost instantly. Thus even animals in different adjacent strata could be contemporaries. But we today might view them as millions of years apart.

This topic involves you and I continually asking ourselves "What is the chance of this happening?" For some things I rate them as certain, and you rate them as 50% or 10% chance of happening.

When I find no evidence of mammals in the Palaeocene but then in the Eocene, this is sudden.

When I see the Phyla appear in the Cambrian, that is sudden. And all I have heard about the type of fossils in the Pre-cambrian has not convinced me there was not a Cambrian explosion. Many Evolutionists admit there was one. Darwin admits it. On my certainty scale this is 90%.

I think that a creature either can survive, or it is stillborn.
That is why one never could find failures. All we ever find in the fossil record are the ones which make it and live. That is speaking as an evolutionist. As a Creationist, God only makes successes. Even so, animals die out if conditions change. So survival of the fittest does wipe out species as say climate changes. Thats not Darwinian, that's common sense.

My Dad was a lifelong atheist-evolutionist who felt religion was great for others, meaning those of a feeble mind who needed a crutch. So I know the mindset even if I do not understand it.

There is no such thing as rational thinking, just various degrees of prejudice. I used to call my Dad a man of great faith for believing in evolution. We think believing in reincarnation is nuts, or believing 13 is unlucky. You choose evolution as your option because it makes no pesky demands on you. It also offers no perks, like more of the same after death.

 

[alwight]

You seem to be avoiding my question at the end. What do you mean by sudden? Instant creation or rapid evolution?

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past. There is no new technology nor medical advancement made due to thos3 belief systems..... Although many of the fields of modern science were founded by a belief that Gods Word was true, and we could and should understand the world around us. Also, re beliefs, there are examples where evolutionary beliefs have slowed scientific progress and harmed people.*

I can't tell you how hilarious it is to see that you've descended to this....mindlessly repeating rote mantras as if having been programmed to do so, giving person to the term "fundie-bot".

 

[6days]

I can't tell you how hilarious it is to see that you've descended to this....mindlessly repeating rote mantras as if having been programmed to do so, giving person to the term "fundie-bot".

Love ya Jose. Glad you are here in TOL

 

[6days]

I know little of Kurt Wise, other than that he is a YEC so I disagree with him already

Yes... of course you diasgree with scientists who dont compromise.
Kurt Wise, paleontologist ".Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture."

 

[iouae]

You seem to be avoiding my question at the end. What do you mean by sudden? Instant creation or rapid evolution?

God creates instantly as in the Cambrian explosion, which is interpreted as rapid evolution.

He adds creatures as and when He wants. They are always complete and functional.

 

[iouae]

The "sudden onset of various fossilized animal phyla" is evidence of creation.

"This diagram depicts the occurrence of fossils of the major animal phyla over time. The diagram does not look very much like a tree ..."
http://www.genesisnet.info/dateien_en/i42842_cambrian_explosion.php

Let us not shy away from a close examination of the spindle diagrams above.

Know that some parts of it represent hard concrete science and other parts speculative supposition.

The hard concrete science is represented by the thick black spindle lines. These tell us the strata in which fossils have been found.

Now let's examine the interpretive parts of the diagram or speculative science. The dashed lines at the base connecting all Phyla into a tree are purely speculative. This is evolutionary interpretation that all species have a common ancestor. Evolutionists know better than to suggest that all the Phyla spontaneously burst into being separately, as creationists believe. For evolution to be true, these lines MUST connect. But they don't. Evolutionists then reach for a number of excuses to explain this such as bodies too soft to fossilise, gaps in the fossil record.

Another interpretive part of the diagram is how the Phyla come together at the base, like a bunch of flowers. The hard science is that we can spread each flower stalk apart and look at it not as an evolutionary tree, but as a piece of ground shooting blades of grass, each blade representing a creation event. We are allowed to do this since the bending of the flower stalks together is just the BIAS of the evolutionary diagram's artist. Any honest evolutionist will have to admit this.

Having removed the evolutionary bias from this spindle diagram, namely the dashed lines and the bent black vertical lines, what do we see? We see a whole lot of Phyla (groups of similar animals) springing out of the Cambrian layer like grass shoots, all separate and viable and abundant. This diagram is screaming "CREATION".

So why do some deny this? In the words of Paul ...
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

What are Professors if not "professors"?

To quote the website from which this spindle was taken...

"Living organisms from all known phyla, which have hard parts, are found as fossils of the Cambrian period (many already in the Lower Cambrian). These include sponges (Porifera), coelenterates (Coelenterata), annelids (Annelida), Brachiopod (Brachiopoda), arthropods (Arthropoda), mollusks (Mollusca), echinoderms (Echinodermata) and chordates (chordates, including the first vertebrates and jawless fish). The fossil evidence of these phyla in the Cambrian is so prolific that one can clearly differentiate the distinguishable sub-groups (classes). This fossil record is also widely distributed around the world."

So all these Phyla and Classes of animals popped into existence in what is called by evolutionists, the "Big Bang" of palaeontology, or "The Cambrian Explosion".

This is not to say that there were not a few animals (sponges, coelenterates or jelly-fish like animals) and many algae found in Pre-cambrian rocks. These were placed by God on earth before the "Cambium Explosion" to create oxygen so that animals could live in the now oxygenated waters. God terraforms. The whole of Genesis 1 tells us that God terraforms. Old Earth Creationists simply believe that He terraforms more than once.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Moses wrote it directly FROM God

I also agree with you patrick jane! The books are written and attributed to Moses. If God can tell Moses the 10 Commandments, He surely can handle that. He told Moses, to tell the people, 'tell them "I AM" is My Name.' He remembered that also. Thanks for sharing here!!

Much Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

:angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :cloud9: :singer: :guitar:
​

 

[alwight]

God creates instantly as in the Cambrian explosion, which is interpreted as rapid evolution.

He adds creatures as and when He wants. They are always complete and functional.

There is nothing to suggest that anything discovered in the pre-Cambrian was ever spontaneously or miraculously created fully formed. Miracles are not any part of science, so selectively mixing what you call "hard science" with something you suppose to be miraculous only makes a nonsense of science.
You simply turn science into something that isn't supportable, testable or falsifiable by the available evidence and thus into a poor belief, a farce.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

About this deluge! It was a Great Encompassing FLOOD. Noah took birds into the Ark also. If God was destroying all flesh off of the earth, then why wouldn't birds just fly to the nearest dry spot and stay there? I mean if there is dry land somewhere in this Great Flood, then the birds closest to it would fly to it. Noah would not need birds on the Ark. So now that you are wrong, are you sure that everything else that comes out of your head is wrong too? See Post #14573. Page 972. You missed it??

Michael

 

[iouae]

There is nothing to suggest that anything discovered in the pre-Cambrian was ever spontaneously or miraculously created fully formed. Miracles are not any part of science, so selectively mixing what you call "hard science" with something you suppose to be miraculous only makes a nonsense of science.
You simply turn science into something that isn't supportable, testable or falsifiable by the available evidence and thus into a poor belief, a farce.

I embrace science and scientific evidence.
I embrace God and miracles.

If you want to have a ten page rant at that, by all means do.
In the end, you are no better than a YEC who is blinkered to science.

In your case you are blinkered to the POSSIBILITY that God may have created the Phyla, even though the Cambrian Explosion sure suggests it.

There is no "hard science" proof of either creation or evolution, only "hard science" fossils found in rocks. In the end, you are just as much a prejudiced BELIEVER as I am. Difference is that when I am in trouble I do have Someone to cry out to.

And what is so awesome about God is this. He can remain resolute in His purpose over 13.8 billion years. Yet this unwavering resolution can be bent to listen to the prayers of specks of dust such as us. We can change that unwavering resolution such that He will perform a miracle for us. THAT is why I believe, NOT because I am persuaded by the fossil record. The fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion is just a cherry on top.

 

[TheDuke]

Look what I found

Look what I found

Now this is really a sad state of affairs.

 

[alwight]

I embrace science and scientific evidence.
I embrace God and miracles.

If you feel free to insert miracles at any point then you may say you embrace science but in fact you simply make a mockery of it.
Non-overlapping magisteria

If you want to have a ten page rant at that, by all means do.
In the end, you are no better than a YEC who is blinkered to science.

If I ever rant then be sure I'll use [/RANT] at the end.

The essence of science is that it is based on evidence and faulty science can be demonstrably wrong when it is.
Yes I am blinkered to that which is evidenced and not just to one of a number of different religious beliefs that each claims to have a handle on the Truth independent of any need for rationality, evidence and facts.

In your case you are blinkered to the POSSIBILITY that God may have created the Phyla, even though the Cambrian Explosion sure suggests it.

No, I simply say that the miraculous does not appear to ever happen outside of the imagination and fantasy while science clearly does. I therefore provisionally conclude that the miraculous does not in fact ever happen, so shoot me. Demonstrate that the miraculous does happen and then I will happily review my position.

There is no "hard science" proof of either creation or evolution, only "hard science" fossils found in rocks. In the end, you are just as much a prejudiced BELIEVER as I am. Difference is that when I am in trouble I do have Someone to cry out to.

Scientific theories are never proven, they either stand up to scrutiny of the evidence or they fail. Darwinian theory has stood the test of time and the evidence. It made predictions which have come true and remains un-falsified. Natural scientists overwhelmingly regard it as fact if not a formally proven one.
To claim that at some distant point in time where the evidence begins to thin out, becomes more difficult to find, that then you can start to introduce the mysterious or the miraculous is opportunistic smoke and mirrors.

And what is so awesome about God is this. He can remain resolute in His purpose over 13.8 billion years. Yet this unwavering resolution can be bent to listen to the prayers of specks of dust such as us. We can change that unwavering resolution such that He will perform a miracle for us. THAT is why I believe, NOT because I am persuaded by the fossil record. The fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion is just a cherry on top.

Your pick and mix approach to science doesn't do you any favours while your evidence free assertions of God are clearly based in the imagination but nothing more.

 

[iouae]

If you feel free to insert miracles at any point then you may say you embrace science but in fact you simply make a mockery of it.

So in summary, we are allowed to go to church and believe in God.
But if we ever claim He DID anything [like, God forbid, we claim He created everything], then we are poor scientists?

That is your claim right?

 

[alwight]

So in summary, we are allowed to go to church and believe in God.
But if we ever claim He DID anything [like, God forbid, we claim He created everything], then we are poor scientists?

That is your claim right?

Not exactly. I am more than happy with God creating anything at all by any rational naturalistic scientific means.
My objections only begin if miraculous events can freely be inserted at any arbitrary point that just happen to suit an individuals own personal belief.
If you can keep religious belief and science in separate mental boxes then I'll not be complaining.
The only other option is to demonstrate where the miraculous has happened so that I am reasonably convinced of it, but I suspect you won't be able to do that.

 

[6days]

If you feel free to insert miracles at any point then you may say you embrace science but in fact you simply make a mockery of it.

Science is knowlege. It is a study of the world around us by observation and experiment.*

Biblical creationists do not insert miracles *into everyday operational science. In fact most fields of operational science were founded by Biblical creationists who believed God created an orderly creation that could be discovered through investogation.*

 

[alwight]

Science is knowlege. It is a study of the world around us by observation and experiment.*

Biblical creationists do not insert miracles *into everyday operational science. In fact most fields of operational science were founded by Biblical creationists who believed God created an orderly creation that could be discovered through investogation.*

So Jesus didn't turn water into wine?

 

[6days]

So Jesus didn't turn water into wine?

Science is knowlege..... science does not deny the possibility of miracles. (Just ask any cosmologist although they often use words that are similar to miracle)
As i said Biblical creationists do not insert miracled into everyday operational science.

 

[alwight]

Science is knowlege..... science does not deny the possibility of miracles. (Just ask any cosmologist although they often use words that are similar to miracle)
As i said Biblical creationists do not insert miracled into everyday operational science.

So Jesus didn't actually turn water into wine, it was probably wine all along but miracles are rather more exciting to a story teller right?

 

[alwight]

science does not deny the possibility of miracles.

Yes it does.