Evolution OR Creation? (page 3)

drwtsn32

Why would this explanation be needed by creationist?

If a creationist can simply conclude that god didn't need a creator, why can't you do the same for the universe itself? It is inconsistent to say the universe is too complicated to have formed on its own but then say that god (an even more complex "thing") doesn't need a creator.

We have to start somewhere, evolution doesnt start at the beginning does it? Why is it ok for one not to go into the more complex things (how did life get here) and yet not ok for the other (how did God get here)? bare with me, I'm just asking questions as they arise.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Sure, you can explore "how God got here" but God by definition doesn't have a beginning, right? I agree that something had to be here at "the beginning" that wasn't created, otherwise you'd have a problem with infinite causality. But it makes more sense to me that something infinitely simple has always been instead of something infinitely complex.

blackout

Both and neither

LittleToe

Patio:
I'm surviving the rigours of life . Thank you for asking .

Regarding Gen.1:30, that was a comment made after Adam came on the scene.
Regardless of when that actually was (coz I don't buy the 6000 years ago thing, and wouldn't be keen to put my neck on the block and say that he was the first Homo Sapien, either), it is talking of a time when a fully sentient Homo Sapien Sapien named "Adam" walked the earth, complete with language.

Were dinosaurs around, when Homo Sapien Sapien started walking the earth?

Then, as Brummie commented, it doesn't say there weren't meat eaters as well. Just that vegetation had been provided so that nothing went hungry. I understand that even carnivores can eat veggies, if they really have to.

It just appears that Noah was invited to eat anything he wanted, including meat (Gen.9:3).
That doesn't mean that noone had eaten meat before, but now this race of man had been given permission (as he saw it) from his deity.

I should interpose that my understanding of the whole Genesis account, in connection to mankind, is that it deals with a specific race, and not necessarily the whole branch of Homo Sapien Sapien.

patio34

Thank you Little Toe for that explanation. I'm glad to hear you're enduring the rigours of life -- me too.

Pat

mattkoo

Hi Brummie,

I believe in creation. I debated a couple of skeptics that were more inclined to believe in evolution/big bang theory and we had a loooooooong discussion about it at

http://www.skeptictank.org/cgi-bin/spt/sporum/sporum/comments.cgi?session_id=494a35d12ee002d5&op=threadlist&cid=848#848

Matt.

donkey

Evolution is a fact, creationism is not.

Just because believers want something to be true - does not make it so. Science looks for evidence and if the evidence invalidates the hypothesis then science calls for intellectual honesty. Faith asks for no evidence and if evidence is presented it is denied anyway.

drwtsn32

donkey: You may be an ass, but that was very well said.

donkey

DrW,

It is actually pointless, you cannot use logic to argue with believers though. It is exactly the same frustration all ex-JW's have with JW's - they refuse to see the truth regardless how clearly it is pointed out for them. It is an innate need to feel validated in their current condition that causes most humans to refuse to change some of these major facets of their lives.

Jack

donkey

So if you show a believer something like the experiment performed by Paul Nurse and Melanie Lee in 1987 what is their reaction?

These British (not all evil people are American) researchers showed how Human's and Yeast share common genes. Human genes were inserted into yeast and the yeast remained just that - yeast. As the genomic evidence unfolds we are seeing more and more evidence (not speculation) that the evolutionary view of a single (and very ancient) origin of life is supported at the deepest level imaginable: the very nature of the DNA code in which the instructions of genes and chromosomes are written. Every species on Earth carries a genetic code that is, for all intents and purposes, identical and universal.

So would these same believers refuse to accept genetic "fingerprinting" in a court case? Do they deny the science on some things but reject it on others? Do you accept paternity test results as scientific?

Evolution is a proven fact....get over it.

The debate over belief in God vs Atheism is a different matter (which shows no evidence) from either side. Of course the fact that evolution is true has called into question the Christian beliefs about God and since the Christian dogma calls on creation vs evolution it is therefore as AlanF pointed out now in a conundrum because the whole structure of the belief system is in ruins in a logical sense. Of course in a practical sense believers cling to what they were raised with so we are probably a long way off from seeing the rejection of religion.

Jack

Jimmer

No credible scientist would assert evolution is a proven fact. A widely accepted theory, yes. But an inconsistant fossil record coupled with esoteric theories does not constitute proof. While I profess nothing, the problem of irreducible complexities gives me an opportunity to ponder evolution. Evolution, intellignet design? I would dare to say it takes a little faith to stand behind either.

Evolution OR Creation?

Share this