Evolution vs. Creation

[quote]PGA200X wrote:
Its funny how people belittle evolution because they claim there isn’t enough to prove it.[/quote]

It’s funny how people belittle creation because they claim there isn’t enough (evidence) to prove it.

We all have the same evidence, the difference is in one’s presuppositions and the assumptions and interpretations they make with it.

[quote]lothario1132:
In thermodynamiics alone, Entropy is also intertwined with Enthalpy… it is NOT a stand-alone property[/quote]

You can decrease the enthalpy of a system while maintaining its entropy. For example, an isentropic turbine. However, in reality an isentropic turbine doesn’t exist.

[quote]PGA200X wrote:
Its funny how people belittle evolution because they claim there isn’t enough to prove it. Where’s the proof there of a god? O wait, there isnt any, other than peoples “faith” and a few grilled cheese sandwiches and leaky statues.[/quote]

I suppose you believe that Jesus Christ is a fictional character also.

[quote]Mr. Bear wrote:
PGA200X wrote:
Its funny how people belittle evolution because they claim there isn’t enough to prove it. Where’s the proof there of a god? O wait, there isnt any, other than peoples “faith” and a few grilled cheese sandwiches and leaky statues.

I suppose you believe that Jesus Christ is a fictional character also. [/quote]

No, Jesus existed. I’m certain of that. He was a genius. I mean 2000 years after he died people are still talking about him. If he was alive today marketing departments would be going gaga over his talent.

[quote]edgecrusher wrote:
It’s funny how people belittle creation because they claim there isn’t enough (evidence) to prove it.

We all have the same evidence, the difference is in one’s presuppositions and the assumptions and interpretations they make with it.[/quote]

I didn’t belittle creation. If someone chooses to belive that then thats their business. Just dont dare try and push it off on me. If believing in god changes someones life for the better than more power to them.

Where is there one iota of proof of god other than somebody’s word? I think carbon dating pretty much debunks the whole 6/7 day creation “belief.”

Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan
One of my favorite books. His hypothesis is that the theology and science agree on evolution. I agree.

Is there any evidence documented in a scientific journal or paper written since the introduction of the theory of evolution which shows a “beneficial” mutation. Something which made a certain species better suited for it’s environment? Further, if there has been a documented case of a benefical mutation, was that particular species able to pass on that trait to it’s offspring?

I mean if evolution is happening all around us at all points in time, given our current scientific knowledge shouldn’t we be able to quantify it? Couldn’t we create conditions in a lab, perhaps with species that have an extremely short life span, and document benefical genetic mutations being passed on?

Don’t we find, at least with the human species, that most mutations are not beneficial? Aren’t people with genetic mutations usually worse off than a normal person. Aren’t they usually weaker, less apt to function normally, more suceptable to disease, etc.

Also, why is it that we don’t have a difinitive answer on evolution? Given the scientific advancements of man, the fact that our current body of knowledge doubles every 5 years, and the brilliant scientists we have today, why hasn’t someone either proven evolution or come up with a better theory for the diversity of life on the planet?

Evolution has in my opinion become more of philosophy than science. Darwin had an idea, one which cannot difinitively be proven or disproven and as a result has become a topic of philosophic debate rather than scientific study.

If you had to step into a court of law and present evolution as a theory could it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? You have no witnesses no conclusive evidence, no results that can be replicated in a lab. No all there is an idea, a theory. Is there really more evidence to back up evolution than creation? If you look at both of them from a scientific standpoint, neither of them have the evidence to back up their claims.

[quote]ConanSpeaks wrote:
Is there any evidence documented in a scientific journal or paper written since the introduction of the theory of evolution which shows a “beneficial” mutation. Something which made a certain species better suited for it’s environment? Further, if there has been a documented case of a benefical mutation, was that particular species able to pass on that trait to it’s offspring?

…[/quote]

Bacteria that are naturally resistant to antibiotics survive. This is becoming a big problem as antibiotics are becoming less effective.

So yes, “evolution” is still happening.

[quote]PGA200X wrote:
I didn’t belittle creation. [/quote]

I never said you did.

[quote]
Where is there one iota of proof of god other than somebody’s word? [/quote]

Prove that I exist.

[quote]
I think carbon dating pretty much debunks the whole 6/7 day creation “belief.”[/quote]

You probably would have rather said radiometric dating. I don’t think carbon dating debunks anything.

[quote]ConanSpeaks wrote:
Is there any evidence documented in a scientific journal or paper written since the introduction of the theory of evolution which shows a “beneficial” mutation. Something which made a certain species better suited for it’s environment? Further, if there has been a documented case of a benefical mutation, was that particular species able to pass on that trait to it’s offspring?

I mean if evolution is happening all around us at all points in time, given our current scientific knowledge shouldn’t we be able to quantify it? Couldn’t we create conditions in a lab, perhaps with species that have an extremely short life span, and document benefical genetic mutations being passed on?

Don’t we find, at least with the human species, that most mutations are not beneficial? Aren’t people with genetic mutations usually worse off than a normal person. Aren’t they usually weaker, less apt to function normally, more suceptable to disease, etc.[/quote]

Is this a joke? The evidence is the EXISTANCE of life. If any species fails to mutate it becomes extinct in most cases. Not a case of beneficial mutation? How about out little friend the snake? Did it not survive its move from water to dry land? O’yeah it did by “replicating” an aquatic environment inside its eggs so that it could SURVIVE on land.

Show me ONE, JUST ONE instance that proves there is a god. Ya can’t NOBODY can becuase its and IDEA/BELIEF not a theory. There is ZERO evidence that backs up the idea of Crutch err I mean god.

BUT there is evidence that “suggests” evolution. Its blatent to see but only to those that are not blinded by well blind faith.

I like how the Gawd lovers dodge questions by asking questions.

[quote]edgecrusher wrote:
PGA200X wrote:
I didn’t belittle creation.

I never said you did.

Where is there one iota of proof of god other than somebody’s word?

Prove that I exist.

I think carbon dating pretty much debunks the whole 6/7 day creation “belief.”

You probably would have rather said radiometric dating. I don’t think carbon dating debunks anything.[/quote]

You infered that I did.

Prove that you exist? Well this isnt the Matrix, well I dont think it is, so there must be a person on the other end typing. You think you’re some huge devine intervention? You’re a chemical reaction and thats all. Nothing more nothing less.

Its radioCARBON (shortened version…carbon dating) dating not radiometric dating. When someone looks at a fossil they’re not trying to measure radient energy…and yes it debunks the 6/7 day “creation” of everything as we know it.

[quote]PGA200X wrote:
ConanSpeaks wrote:
Is there any evidence documented in a scientific journal or paper written since the introduction of the theory of evolution which shows a “beneficial” mutation. Something which made a certain species better suited for it’s environment? Further, if there has been a documented case of a benefical mutation, was that particular species able to pass on that trait to it’s offspring?

I mean if evolution is happening all around us at all points in time, given our current scientific knowledge shouldn’t we be able to quantify it? Couldn’t we create conditions in a lab, perhaps with species that have an extremely short life span, and document benefical genetic mutations being passed on?

Don’t we find, at least with the human species, that most mutations are not beneficial? Aren’t people with genetic mutations usually worse off than a normal person. Aren’t they usually weaker, less apt to function normally, more suceptable to disease, etc.

Is this a joke? The evidence is the EXISTANCE of life. If any species fails to mutate it becomes extinct in most cases. Not a case of beneficial mutation? How about out little friend the snake? Did it not survive its move from water to dry land? O’yeah it did by “replicating” an aquatic environment inside its eggs so that it could SURVIVE on land.

Show me ONE, JUST ONE instance that proves there is a god. Ya can’t NOBODY can becuase its and IDEA/BELIEF not a theory. There is ZERO evidence that backs up the idea of Crutch err I mean god.

BUT there is evidence that “suggests” evolution. Its blatent to see but only to those that are not blinded by well blind faith.

I like how the Gawd lovers dodge questions by asking questions.[/quote]

Oh I have one. Since I’ve been writing an article about it, I thought I would share part of what I came to the conclusion about. Though I cannot go on and on about all what the article is about, one point to be made for the existence of God is the finite of the universe itself. If you take an idea like evolution, it just doesn’t sink. Evolution is the constant movement forward of the universe. A good question to ask here is where did we all begin? Evolutionist would say we came from monkeys. What about before then? The mud.

Ok fine keep running with your ideal. Where did the mud come from? Eventually with enough going backward, you have to get to a place of sheer pride and try to answer or admit you don’t know. As we look at the universe itself, its a cause and effect relationship where the universe is the effect. Its been set in motion. And this could only have been done by an intelligent higher being. Molecules didn’t wish themselves into existence as much as we cannot wish ourselves into a dog.

Life on earth is so accustomed to moving forward that we forget to look backward. Life on earth is like a timeline. Eventually, if we continue to look backward in time, however long you believe, you eventually must get to a starting point. Its the dot at the beginning of an arrowed line pointing in a direction. If you believe the evolutionist view, you start from nothing. And then suddenly, molecules appear? This does support the idea of a higher power though. As it is stated by people that believe in God “He is the Alpha and Omega” The beginning and the end.

Is there anything that brings out more misinformed posts?

  1. First of all, saying that something is “just a theory” as a point of argument immediately identifies the debater as misunderstanding the term. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, or an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena. To say that something is “just a theory” means nothing. Put more simply, it is the best explanation that fits all the available evidence. And theories can be supplanted by new theories - but only when they fit the evidence even better. By strict definition, there is a “theory” of electron movement. But I have no doubt that my PC works.

  2. As has been pointed out before, many scientists see no problem with a divine creation or prime mover, and do not find it inconsistent with evolution.

  3. If the mechanism for evolution is wrong, Genetech stock should immediately drop to zero. Much of modern medicine is based on evolution and genetics. Also, I guess the Ingrid Bergman roses my wife plants are not real, as they were supposedly created by a breeder applying his version of natural selection.

  4. In a debate, the opposing parties attempt to convince each other (not likely), an audience or a judging panel through rhetorical skill and arguments based on evidence that their position is the correct one, or at least that they won the debate. Creationists are at a grave disadvantage here. Whilst the evolutionist can point to literally thousands of pieces of physical evidence and peer reviewed scientific articles, the creationist is reduced to the argument from authority. Literally “because I said so” Or, in this case, because God said so.

They have a further problem in that there are many competing versions of creationism, many with their own “holy book” none of which have any evidence to support them, and they have to come up with a reason why their version is correct.

  1. Personally, I have no problem with the idea of a prime mover. In fact, I don’t see how it can be entirly discounted as a possibility. After all, all we have to study is the result of the big bang. Kind of hard to figure out what happened before it (If “before” even has any meaning here).

  2. It is interesting to note that many intelligent people beleive in the supernatural. This can be explained by the fact that many of the beliefs we have are inculcated in us at an early age by our culture. Thus, even the smartest among us will use our intelligence to defend positions which, were we unaware of them, and had them presented to us by strangers, we would immediately ridicule.

Witness the fact that although there are exceptions, you can predict a persons supernatural beliefs to a high degree of certainty if only you know their heritage. Most Japanese are Shinto. I doubt that they did a rational survey of available religions and chose the one that made the most sense.

  1. While I think the article title is needlessy offensive to those of faith, I reccommend the below, first appearing in Sciam in 2002.

ok5/pearly/htmls/gop-evolution.html

Creation = FM*

*Fucking Magic

God may be the beginning and the end, but he sure as hell isn’t the middle…

When the ELE “extinction level event” that wiped the dinosaurs out occured, 95 % of life on this planet went also. There were no bird, no elephants, no mokeys, no dogs, no cats, no hippos. none of these things were here before the ELE but anyways they certainly werent here right after it. They are here now… did god fly them in here? Did he make them appear in a puff of pink smoke? Why the hell would he do that when he already set up DNA to do it for him.

DNA’s sole purpose is to survive and pass itslef along. It’s like the ultimate virus that controls it’s surroundings instead of just tagging along for the ride.

So to flip the question back to the origional poster, I just gave you a logical, allthough not proven in the detail you would like because it can’t be, explination. Please give me your explination as to how the animals we have on earth right now came to be, also please prove this with as much hard evidence as possible just as you have asked me to. If you have no hard evidence like I had none, please theorize for me in a logical manner what mechanisms were used to bring these animals about. Thank you.

V

The burden of proof lies on both sides of this debate. At least the evolution side is actively trying to prove their theory, the creationists by what i’ve read are just sitting on their asses saying show me.

Well prove to me that creationist theory is correct. we need evidence on both sides, then a rational, logical person can decide for themselves.

[quote]Tank53 wrote:
PGA200X wrote:
Oh I have one. Since I’ve been writing an article about it…
…Evolutionist would say we came from monkeys. What about before then? The mud.
[/quote]

If you’re writing an article that mentions evolution you should know then that scientists DONT think we came from monkeys but we are cousins on the same branch of the evolutional tree. You knew that though right, right? Seems to me that if you’re doing an article that deals with evolution or the possible debunking of it you should know how the debunk’ee thinks…

Zap, point on the bacteria well taken. But has anyone ever documented a bacteria evolving into a more complex life form, like a multi-celled organism?

PGA200x, I asked questions to stimulate ingelligent discusson, but you really haven’t made any intelligent contributions to that discussion. How about some proof from you to back up your point. Carbon dataing? For every 10 people that swear by it, there are 10 that refute it. Carbon decay in a controlled environment may be relatively accurate, but over millions of years, and a diversity of environmental conditions, it’s not exactly a nail in the coffin of creationism. Do you have any better evidence to offer?

If the scientific community has solid evidence that evolution is in fact the explaniation for the diversity of life on the planet, why is it still considered a theory? Wouldn’t it be a fact.

Yes, I know there are other “theories” like the theory of relativity. That was that proven to be a fact with the first atomic bomb?

Where is the atomic bomb equivalent for evolution? If anyone has it, feel free to drop it.

I’m just trying to get people to think beyond their own personal dogma.

Besides, if you believe in evolution you need to realize that you can’t argue the point with someone who believes in the Bible’s account of creation. You’re using two different value systems for quantifying your beliefs.

A good analogy would be taking your girlfriend to a baseball game and she says “I think the blue team won because they had sexier uniforms.” and you say, “the blue team won because they had more runs than the other team.” If you us two different value systems to quantify the result how can you ever determine who really won the game?

Besides evolution vs creation is not a question that can be answered scientifically or ethically in a vaccum. If really there is no God, and as a result, no reward for morality, what is the point of leading a good life. If genetic dominance is the key then we should go out and plant our genetic seed in as many fertile females as we can. Further we should also elminate other males that are competing with us.

I personally believe creationsim. To me it gives my life more value than believing that I’m the result of millions of years of genetic mishaps. If you really believe that your existance servers no greater purpose then all I can say to you is “Hey, whatever makes your nipples hard buddy.”

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
Why Should Christians believe in Creation?

We believe in creation, first of all, not because of scientific evidence, but because of our faith in Jesus Christ and in His Word the Bible. The Lord Jesus is revealed in the Bible to be the Creator of all things (John 1:3, Hebrews 1:1-3), and He is for Christians the Lord of all and the Head over all things, including science (Acts 10:36, Ephesians 1:22). Our Head has said something about science in John 5:45-47, namely this: If we believe in Jesus Christ, then we must believe Moses’ writings. What did Moses write about first of all? He wrote about the creation of all things by God. So we judge science by the Bible and not the other way around. “We walk by faith, not by sight.” (I Corinthians 5:7)

God has given us Scientific Evidence for Creation

Since the beginning all men have been without excuse if they have not acknowledged the Creator God, for the evidence is all around them in the created world (Romans 1:19-20). And modern science has revealed a vast web of evidence which supports the biblical record of creation. Let us think first about the logic of the scientific argument for creation.

The Logic of the Scientific case for Creation

Creation is by definition a divine miracle, an act of God which is outside of and above the physical laws He has established in the world. Therefore, scientists who believe in creation do not try to devise theories to explain how God created, for human beings cannot understand how God created. On the other hand, evolutionary scientists say that they are devising theories to explain the evolution of all life and that they are discovering natural processes or mechanisms which can evolve new plants and animals. So we say to them, “The burden of proof is on you. Come on, now, give us theories which really explain evolution, and show us the natural mechanisms or processes which can produce new designs and evolve new plants and animals.”

Has evolutionary theory really explained evolution? No. Have they discovered any mechanism or process of genetics which can evolve anything really new. No, they have not. And, as long as this failure of evolutionary science continues, divine special creation continues to be an intellectually and scientifically viable belief for anybody, including scientists, to hold.

A Brief Look at the Evidence

The Fossil Evidence. Evolution is supposed to be a process of change. If some ancient species of worm or other creature without a backbone slowly changed into a vertebrate fish with a backbone, there should be a series of intermediate fossil species which document that actual process of change. These intermediate fossil forms are totally absent from the fossil record. Prof. Alfred Romer at Harvard University wrote that this evolution from invertebrate to vertebrate must have required 100 million years for which we do not have the fossil evidence.

Prof. Stephen Stanley of Johns Hopkins University wrote in 1979 that the known fossil record provides not a single example of a series of fossils which prove that a process of evolution really took place to produce a new kind of creature.

These systematic gaps in the fossil record mean that every basic type of plant or animal seems to appear suddenly in the fossil-bearing rocks. The fossils speak of sudden appearance of the kinds, not the slow, gradual change of one kind into another kind. But this fossil evidence appears more in agreement with special creation than with evolution, doesn’t it?

Biological Design. Nature is rich everywhere with biological designs which defy evolutionary explanation. Secular scientists, when pressed, have to admit that they cannot offer testable or even plausible explanations for the origin of biodesigns. For just one example, consider the little intestinal microbe, Escherichia coli. Each tiny single-celled microbe propels itself around with six corkscrew propellers which are connected by universal joints to six constant torque, variable speed, reversible rotary motors!

Evolutionary scientists have not the slightest idea how this complex assembly of complex, interdependent parts could have evolved. Yet, they believe it happened. They have faith in dumb atoms. Faith in the Creator God is far superior.

Genetics: For thousands of years intelligent humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals to develop varieties which are of special value to man. So there are 150 varieties of dogs, scores of varieties of roses, many different varieties of cattle and sheep, of apples and potatoes, etc. But they are still dogs, roses, cattle, sheep, apples and potatoes. There is much variation under artificial selection. Also, there is much variation in nature in the wild. But the changes are always limited.

Genetics teaches that there are barriers through which genetic change cannot go. Species of plants and animals exist in groups of species which are separated from all other such groups. And this is just what the Bible teaches in Genesis 1 where Moses tells us that God created the “kinds” of plants and animals to reproduce each one “after its own kind.” Genetics gives the lie to Charles Darwin’s notion that, given time, genetic variation has been unlimited, so that an amoeba could evolve into a university professor in 3 billion years.

Molecular Biology. In 1953 Crick and Watson demonstrated the helical structure of the DNA molecules which are the genes that control inheritance of characters. Since then the new science of molecular biology has opened up a vast new field of knowledge. The amazing accomplishments of molecular biologists are a tribute to the power of the human intellect and of the scientific method. The knowledge of cell biology at the level of the individual molecules is expected to give understanding of life and of evolution.

However, after over 30 years of molecular biology it can be said the evolutionary theory has yet actually to explain or demonstrate the origin of anything new. He can boldly say that today there are no testable scientific theories for inheritance, development of the embryo from egg to animal, formation of new species, or the evolution of anything new.

Evidences for Evolution. The standard evidences adduced for evolution can either be shown to be invalid or be reinterpreted within the framework of the creation model of origins. For example the stages and similarities of embryos of different species can be shown to be related to the condition and needs of particular species at each stage. Similarities revealed by comparative anatomy (of the vertebrates, for example) can be explained in terms of the Creator’s use of basic designs modified for particular applications.

Biological classification reveals the separateness of the kinds, and the data for alleged molecular evolution also shows the separateness of the kinds. Limited space forbids more discussion of these subjects in this brief paper.

Summary

The advocates of evolution are unable to adduce fossil intermediate forms which show an actual historical process of evolution of new kinds of organisms. They have failed to devise scientific theories which really explain evolution, and they cannot demonstrate the evolution of anything new by any known genetic mechanism or process. Furthermore, there is no evidence which proves that the alleged evolution of all life really occurred.

Throughout the history of the world no new complex design has been observed to originate except from an intelligent mind. In the absence of an evolutionary explanation, divine special creation remains as the only scientifically viable explanation for the origin of life and of all biological designs.

Conclusion

My fellow Christians and I are not being unscientific in the least because we believe that in the beginning God created the kinds of plants and animals, each to reproduce after its own kind. As Christian citizens we should openly avow our faith in the biblical record of creation. And we should work to stop the dogmatic teaching of evolution and the persecution of Christians in the tax-funded public schools and universities.
[/quote]
I believe in Jesus this i know because my bible tells me so…amazing.
The difference between science and faith, which you fail to point out, is that science is the act of questioning–always. What makes it science is the fact that it can be questioned and tested, ad nauseam. Even when the “facts” are presented in clear and concise manner and taken as “truth” they can be retested–and in fact many “truths” have been discredited in this manner.

Faith cannot be tested nor can it be proven. So be sure, just because you have not been given facts or evidence enough to satisfy your own curiosity does not lend your aforementioned statement any credence. It is purely from a lack of scientific understanding through which you speak. This is not to allude to the fact that science holds all the answers–clearly the really important questions cannot be answered in a scientific manner–this is where faith lends itself beautifully.

Also, you should be very carful when citing the bible as your only means of argument. People like myself will laugh you off this site.

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
Why Should Christians believe in Creation?

We believe in creation, first of all, not because of scientific evidence, but because of our faith in Jesus Christ and in His Word the Bible. [/quote]

You got to be kidding me.

Let me explain to you about the real world out there.

Some people claim creationism and evolution are basically on the same level. That both are scientific and are interchangable without much consequences.

These people are wrong. Evolutionism is something that is prooven. We have the fossiles to proove it. Evolution is something that explains why many different but similar species exist. Creationism doesn’t. Evolutions explains the changes we see in the real world today. For instance it explains why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. It explains why mice and rats become resistant to toxics used against them.

Evolution is not isolated in science. It is tied in with geology, with astronomy, with chemics, with physics. It is part of this engine called “science”, that allows us to understand the world around us. If you replace the part evolution with the part creationism, the engine simply will no longer run.

If you believe in evolution, you are an intelligent human being, the way God intended you to be.

If you believe in creationism, you’re a fanatic cavedweller. Even your God didn’t intend you to be like this.