Creation vs. Evolution

[iouae]

Humans arose from 8 souls who left the ark, diversified, specialised and filled every corner of the earth, just as God commanded.

As did all other species.

And each is perfectly suited to its role in each ecosystem.
And God gave multiple alleles, and mutation because He is a God of variety.

And in this variety and complexity, which science has only scratched the surface of, when we look at the beautiful complexity of it all, we see a bit of the nature and grandeur of God in every thing He created.

And the most glorious thing in all creation is that He opened our eyes to see Him, and blinded the eyes of others for now, since no man can come to the Father except He draw them.

To study biology seeing God in the complexity of every chemical pathway which He thought out.

And He used DNA, that beautiful double helix, that incredibly simple and wonderful code which He copied and pasted bits of into all creatures so that they all bear His signature in their code. And God gave us every one of his millions of creatures, each one more special than the next, to marvel at, and to see more of Him. We see His sense of humor in apes, caricatures of our likeness.

Luke 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

 

[alwight]

No. What you've observed is descent with modification via natural selection. That is not evolution (common descent).

Evolution is simply the gradual development of something, or the process by which different kinds of living organisms are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth. It doesn't require common descent or speciation, which are separate issues. lain:

 

[alwight]

Humans arose from 8 souls who left the ark, diversified, specialised and filled every corner of the earth, just as God commanded.

As did all other species.

And each is perfectly suited to its role in each ecosystem.
And God gave multiple alleles, and mutation because He is a God of variety.

And in this variety and complexity, which science has only scratched the surface of, when we look at the beautiful complexity of it all, we see a bit of the nature and grandeur of God in every thing He created.

And the most glorious thing in all creation is that He opened our eyes to see Him, and blinded the eyes of others for now, since no man can come to the Father except He draw them.

To study biology seeing God in the complexity of every chemical pathway which He thought out.

And He used DNA, that beautiful double helix, that incredibly simple and wonderful code which He copied and pasted bits of into all creatures so that they all bear His signature in their code. And God gave us every one of his millions of creatures, each one more special than the next, to marvel at, and to see more of Him. We see His sense of humor in apes, caricatures of our likeness.

Luke 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

If, say, you had never seen or heard of the Bible but science had nevertheless made all the same naturalistic evolutionary conclusions with the same evidence wouldn't you think it was quite compelling, that perhaps it was on to something?
Yet for some reason an ancient scripture is something that you give rather more credence to, even if you do try to fudge it as much as possible, or so it seems to me. :think:

 

[iouae]

If, say, you had never seen or heard of the Bible but science had nevertheless made all the same naturalistic evolutionary conclusions with the same evidence wouldn't you think it was quite compelling, that perhaps it was on to something?
Yet for some reason an ancient scripture is something that you give rather more credence to, even if you do try to fudge it as much as possible, or so it seems to me. :think:

I was born a believer so I was born biased.

My Dad was born an atheist and was a big pusher of evolution, died an atheist.

I studied evolution at university but came out unpersuaded.
In all honesty, I am unimpressed with evolution, and I had it crammed down my throat.

In all the years of debating evolution vs creation I wonder if one person ever changed sides?

 

[Jose Fly]

In all the years of debating evolution vs creation I wonder if one person ever changed sides?

I've only seen it happen once, and it was a pretty unique set of circumstances. The (former) creationist was truly open to the possibility of evolution, and was willing to do the work necessary to understand the subject.

I'm amazed at how someone like you who claims to have studied evolutionary biology at a university seems to have such a poor understanding of it.

 

[iouae]

I've only seen it happen once, and it was a pretty unique set of circumstances. The (former) creationist was truly open to the possibility of evolution, and was willing to do the work necessary to understand the subject.

I'm amazed at how someone like you who claims to have studied evolutionary biology at a university seems to have such a poor understanding of it.

When you see the great variety of humans on earth today, do you see that as evolution, or diversity within a species?

 

[Jose Fly]

It's diversity within a species, generated by evolution.

 

[iouae]

It's diversity within a species, generated by evolution.

And what if we just say that it is diversity coded into its genes by God.

I cannot see an impasse out of this.
We all know that every species has the genes to diversify.
And mutations happen.
We say God put it there, you say it evolved.

To me this IS-IS NOT will get us nowhere.
Cichlids have diversified in 10000 years to produce 1600+ different looking fish species suited to particular habitats.
This IS-IS NOT evolution......IS-IS NOT diversification is going nowhere slowly.

 

[Jose Fly]

And what if we just say that it is diversity coded into its genes by God.

It's the same as a Hindu saying the diversity is coded into genes by Shiva. IOW, a statement of one's religious beliefs.

I cannot see an impasse out of this.
We all know that every species has the genes to diversify.
And mutations happen.
We say God put it there, you say it evolved.

Do you believe God put all the genes in all the species that have existed?

To me this IS-IS NOT will get us nowhere.
Cichlids have diversified in 10000 years to produce 1600+ different looking fish species suited to particular habitats.
This IS-IS NOT evolution......IS-IS NOT diversification is going nowhere slowly.

Again, I'll just note the disconnect between you claiming to have studied evolutionary biology at a university, and your apparent ignorance of the subject.

 

[iouae]

Again, I'll just note the disconnect between you claiming to have studied evolutionary biology at a university, and your apparent ignorance of the subject.

This kind of comment may make you think you are smart, but it gets old and is just rude. Keep it up and I will just ignore you in future.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, a comment about someone's knowledge of a subject isn't a comment on their intelligence. Knowledge and intelligence aren't the same thing.

 

[badp]

Evolution is simply the gradual development of something, or the process by which different kinds of living organisms are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth. It doesn't require common descent or speciation, which are separate issues. lain:

Then why are evolutionists so bent on discrediting Creationism? According to what you just said, evolution isn't even a competing theory.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Then why are evolutionists so bent on discrediting Creationism? According to what you just said, evolution isn't even a competing theory.

Because creationists try to get creation taught in schools despite there being no scientific evidence proving, or even suggesting, that it's a viable hypothesis.

You see, in order to be allowed to be taught in schools as science a hypothesis must stand up to scrutiny of the scientific community so well and for so long that it becomes more or less irrefutable. The theory of evolution did just that. Creationism, on the other hand, doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of a freshman biology major. It hasn't earned its way to the dance.

Another important thing is that I, and many others like me, don't want to produce a generation who is ignorant of science and instead relies on superstition. That's the past. Not the future

 

[badp]

I was asking alwight. He seems to be saying something different than what you've said.

 

[Jose Fly]

Then why are evolutionists so bent on discrediting Creationism? According to what you just said, evolution isn't even a competing theory.

Let's be perfectly clear. Creationism is 100% irrelevant when it comes to actual science. And that makes sense, given that creationism hasn't contributed anything to science in at least a century.

The only time creationism is relevant is when creationists try to undermine science education. Then scientists take notice and fight back. Other than that, it's little more than a curiosity.

 

[patrick jane]

Michael has a good thread -

According to my loose calculations (quick), I see that over the course of the thread it averages about 500 posts per month, and 13,250 views per month.

It should reach 20,000 posts by the end of October 2016. In about 2 months it should reach 500,000 views !!


Kudos Cadry !! :think:

 

[DavisBJ]

Get bent Dude!! Patrick jane has no right to hand my thread over to you in a million years.

A brief diversion from the interminable pre-evolution, anti-evolution, pro-creationist, anti-creationist head-butting that has been the substance of much of this world-record thread. Arguments over who this thread belongs to are largely academic, unless you had the admins actually transfer control of this thread to Patrick a month or two ago. I suspect from day one only you and the admins could exert any real control over this thread, Patrick was never given that ability, now was he?

Additionally, for several years now you have seemed to be fine with the thread being a pretty free-ranging one, and if I actually were given the power, I would not endeavor to reshape it much at this late date.

But looking at it from the stance of both personal conduct and a quasi-legal stance, then it is not your thread. Once you give something away, the only way it becomes yours again is if that person gives it back to you. If you had given ownership of a car to Patrick, and he said he was going to give it to another person, is it then your prerogative to simply take the car back yourself? In legal terms, that is called stealing, and it is one of the few actions that God chose to specifically itemize as prohibited in the Ten Commandments. So, Michael, unless you can show us some fine print that dictated what Patrick could and could not do with the thread after you gave it over to him, then you are here more by my permission than I am by yours.

You are an atheist and I'm a creationist. There is a big difference.

Yes, there is a difference. From the example you are setting, being a creationist means you can take things that are no longer yours. That is not something I, an atheist, would do.

The last two paragraphs you mentioned were not even worth answering. You know Nothing about Miracles or God.

I do know that according to the responses I always get from Christians about scientifically validating miracles, I must be a really powerful person since God seems to be impotent at doing miracles in my presence. Kinda reminds me of James Randi and Uri Geller. You remember Uri Geller, your former mentor, the Israeli spoon-bender, who refused to perform when James Randi was in attendance?

God Help You If You Change Your Stance

Indeed, if I were to change my stance, then I would be in need of help. But till such a time, I am doing just fine, thank you.

 

[DavisBJ]

One mistake doesn't make a bad apple.

Would you like me to point (once again) to the specific posts where you flip-flopped on the old-earth vs. young earth question, and changed your mind even after declaring that in answer to prayer you had been told old-earth was the right answer?

You are the one that pressed upon me a date when He would return, so I gave you what I thought.

This is so reminiscent of those men who justify beating their wife by saying “She made me do it”. Come on Mike, time to stand on your own two feet.

Since No One Knows when it's going to be, I guess I am no different.

Which is what many of us have said all along. Turns out we were the ones who were right on that question.

BJ, For what you do scientifically, we pay anyway through other ways, like dying with Alzheimer's or Dementia, or whatever else. There's tons that Science doesn't know.

Even more, there is a probably a huge amount that science doesn’t even know enough to know what kinds of questions need to be asked. That does nothing to discredit what it does know.

 

[DavisBJ]

Yeah, you should be able to predict 7 in. of snow out of the blue. Who are you trying to fool?? It could have only snowed 3-5 inches, instead. Right??

Unless this was an extremely unusual snowstorm, I’ll bet I could have found many locations where it was 3-5 inches deep. You think snow is like water – with the surface pretty much at a common level? Weather reports commonly predict “one to two feet of snow”, and I can’t recall of a weatherman ever forecasting the snow depth to a specific inch.

Sorry if your "fulfilled prophecy" is so loosey-goosey, but thems the facts.

 

[alwight]

I was born a believer so I was born biased.

My Dad was born an atheist and was a big pusher of evolution, died an atheist.

I wouldn't accept that anyone is born Christian or Muslim etc, it's what they might become if the culture they are immersed in prevails. I wouldn't claim that anyone is born an atheist either but I would say that in a way we are all born "atheist" (without theistic belief), any belief in gods acquired will come along later.

I studied evolution at university but came out unpersuaded.
In all honesty, I am unimpressed with evolution, and I had it crammed down my throat.

You found a literal Genesis more compelling then?
BTW I'm unimpressed with the idea of a global flood being any more than an ancient myth.

It seems to me however that you simply didn't like Darwinian evolution for some reason, not that you could find fault with it, you'd just rather believe that the Biblical global flood was all true instead?

In all the years of debating evolution vs creation I wonder if one person ever changed sides?

Then again perhaps you mainly wanted to annoy your Dad when he pushed Darwinian evolution your way?