Evolution OR Creation? (page 4)

greenf

The Bible says God made the universe but leaves open if He did so directly or indirectly, either of which is awesome.

rem

No credible scientist would assert evolution is a proven fact.

Sure they would, just as a credible scientist would assert that gravity is a proven fact. The theory of how evolution works, though, is not a fact - just as the theory of how gravity works is not a fact. There is no question that gene populations change over time and the evidence for common decent is so great that it is indeed considered a fact.

rem

patio34

Well, just two of the scientists I've read seem credible, Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins. It seems to me that it's more difficult to find a scientist who would categorically deny evolution.

Donkey, in your brilliant posts that I enjoyed very much you made many excellent points. One, tho, kinda stuck in my craw. You said:

The debate over belief in God vs Atheism is a different matter (which shows no evidence) from either side.

Actually, it seems that atheists need offer no "evidence," as the burden of proof is on the one making an assertion that there is an invisible, unquantifiable, supernatural being. Of course, as Farkel (I think) has stated if you tell me there's an invisible, etc., purple unicorn controlling everything and created everything, how can i prove it's not so? The burden is on you to prove it IS so. N'est pas?

Pat

Skeptic

This is why creationists fail to acknowledge the evidence of evolution and defend creation in spite of the facts - because to accept them is to accept that their god is the only thing that has really been "created".

Nice way of putting it.

Brummie

I'm listening to the differing opinions here so if I dont address them its not because I have ignored it.

As to whether a person can scientifically prove there is a creator or not (I'm not reffering to the Christian God only) is a good question but also a straw man in many ways. How could scientist get God into a test tube to pick him apart and produce evidence? How could they capture him in a fossil? How can Science prove or disprove him? To say that there is no creator is a perogative but not a scientific fact. To say that God is a scientific fact is also a straw man for the same reasons. Dang I'm back to square one, but it makes for an interesting conversation.

:)

Plus, how can someone say that a person could never prove there is a God? Just because a lot of us do not ( a lot of people do) feel that question has not been answered sufficiantly yet doesnt mean it never will be does it?

Fact is, when a person says "you cant prove there is a creator", they are simply saying "You cant prove it to me", and thats ok, but its quite a stretch to then assume that it cant be proven to someone else with satisfaction. You cant prove a lot of things but that in itself doesnt disprove anything does it?

Truth is, we argue all sides by mostly using a set of truthful principles & logic, therefore, for a creationist, a satisfactory proof that a creator exsists would be that the universe began to exist at some point in time. Anything that has a beginning had come into being from an outside source. For instance, if there was nothingness in the beginning, then where did a single rock appear from, nothing? everything that comes into existance has to come from somewhere. I can see this is a proof that God exisits, not for you, but for others. it might be a satisfactory proof for some.

Believe it or not, I'm trying to research without a presupposition....!

Brummie

This is why creationists fail to acknowledge the evidence of evolution and defend creation in spite of the facts - because to accept them is to accept that their god is the only thing that has really been "created".

Nice way of putting it.

Could you now give a list of modern creationist who who fail to acknowledge the facts of evolution? I'd like to know of their books.

mattkoo

Hi Jack,

Thanks for your reply. I always look forward to learning more things and hearing others views.

>> Evolution is a fact, creationism is not.

** I beg to differ Evolution is a theoretical model just as Creationism is.

>> Just because believers want something to be true - does not make it so.

** This statement you make implies that believers believe with blind faith. This is not biblical.

Scripture tells us in 1 Thess 5:21 to test all things and hold on to that which is good.

Also 1 Peter 3:15 explains that we are to know and understand why we believe and be able to give the reason for our belief ie. it is not supposed to be a blind faith.

1 John 4:1 tells us to test everyone and every message and not just accept it blindly.

>> Science looks for evidence and if the evidence invalidates the hypothesis then science calls for intellectual honesty.

** Yes this is how it should be. In the case of Evolution/Big Bang theories, however, it has been portrayed under the banner of science as absolute fact for many many years even though there is a stack of evidence against those models.

I have no problem with science, good science strengthens good theology. Evolution/Big Bang theory makes some claims which if proven true would certainly give excellent cause to question the biblical accounts of creation. However, there are so many problems with Evolution/Big Bang theory that to believe in them you would have to throw out science as they break so many scientific laws and in fact scientists themselves are coming out to speak out against Evolution.

http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/scidoubtevol.htm
http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php/

>>Faith asks for no evidence and if evidence is presented it is denied anyway.

** Actually if you examine the scriptural accounts of the disciples evangelism in numerous cases when they went to evangelise they presented evidence and reasons for their belief, they did not ask the people to blindly believe them. Also when Jesus appeared to the disciples, Thomas did not believe and demanded evidence from Jesus, which Jesus gladly provided.

Having faith in something does not mean you do so irrationally or blindly as I've pointed out in the scriptures above and also with the examples the disciples give us. Faith is supported by reason, evidence and understanding. Biblical faith does not require you to check your brains at the door.

The biblical definition of faith is in Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see"

You may not realize it but everyday you place your faith in many things and accept many things by faith.
Eg.
You may have never been to China yet you believe China exists on the reliable testimony of books and others that have been there.

You get in the car and drive on faith. You don’ know if you’re going to make it to your destination alive or not, but you go.

You have faith that the food you buy that is grown by strangers is not harmful, so you eat it.

You have faith that the doctors you see are competent. So you put yourself in their hands.

If you did not have faith, if you did not trust others you wouldn’t be able to drive, eat, or get help in times of sickness. Your life would be very difficult.

The last half of your statement here seems to indicate that you have evidence that shows Christianity is false. Please let us know what it is rather than simply implying it is there.

>> 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.

** I guess you probably read my other post. I'm fairly new to Christianity and am trying to get the JWs side of the story in praciticing 1 Thess 5:21 but it seems that there aren't many JWs debating on line. I'm thinking I'm going to have to eventually drop in on a Kindom Hall or invite a couple of them over for dinner. So I don't have first hand experience reasoning with JWs so I'm not sure how frustrating it can be.

Your statements imply that there is logic that disproves God. I would like to hear it rather than simply see it being implied.

>> 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.

** How did you draw this conclusion? Regardless though, this does not show that God does not exist.

>> 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.

** I'm not sure what you're trying to point out. Evolution explains that monkeys turned into humans. Here just as you've stated yeast remained just that - yeast. The yeast didn't sprout legs and walk, it didn't grow wings and fly, there was no evolution demonstrated here.

>> 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.

** Well I'm not a geneticist up with the latest and greatest on the human genome project so let me show you what Jonathan Marks, (department of anthropology, University of California, Berkeley) explains to us about genetics.

"Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases—A,G,C, and T—only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent identical" (2000, p. B-7).

Here you must understand that human and any earthly DNA-based life forms must be at least 25% identical. Would it be correct, then, to state that daffodils are “one-quarter human” or in the example that you provide that yeast is one-quarter human? The idea that a flower or yeast is one-quarter human is neither profound nor enlightening; it is outlandishly ridiculous! There is hardly any biological comparison that could be conducted that would make daffodils human—except perhaps DNA.

Marks continues with the following.

"Moreover, the genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores qualitative differences among genomes.... Thus, even among such close relatives as human and chimpanzee, we find that the chimp’s genome is estimated to be about 10 percent larger than the human’s; that one human chromosome contains a fusion of two small chimpanzee chromosomes; and that the tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contain a DNA sequence that is not present in humans."

The truth is, if we consider the absolute amount of genetic material when comparing primates and humans, the 1-2% difference in DNA represents approximately 80 million different nucleotides (compared to the 3-4 billion nucleotides that make up the entire human genome). It would make sense that, if humans and chimpanzees were genetically identical, then the manner in which they store DNA also would be similar. Yet it is not. DNA, the fundamental blueprint of life, is tightly compacted into chromosomes. Chromosome numbers in living organisms vary from 308 in the black mulberry to six in animals such as the mosquito or nematode worm, additionally, complexity does not appear to ffect the chromosomal number. The radiolaria (a simple protozoon) has over 800, while humans possess 46. Chimpanzees, on the other hand, have 48 chromosomes. A strict comparison of chromosome numbers would indicate that we are more closely related to the Chinese muntjac (a small deer found in Taiwan’s mountainous regions), which also has 46 chromosomes.

If the blueprint of DNA locked inside the chromosomes codes for only 46 chromosomes, then how can evolution account for the loss of two chromosomes. The task of DNA is to continually reproduce itself.

Eldon Gardner summed it up as follows: “Chromosome number is probably more constant, however, than any other single morphological characteristic that is available for species identification” (1968, p. 211). To put it another way, humans always have had 46 chromosomes, whereas chimps always have had 48.

The differences between chimpanzees and humans are not limited to genomic variances. In 1998, a structural difference between the cell surfaces of humans and apes was detected. After studying tissues and blood samples from the great apes, and sixty humans from various ethnic groups, Muchmore and colleagues discovered that human cells are missing a particular form of sialic acid (a type of sugar) found in all other mammals (1998, 107[2]:187). This sialic acid molecule is found on the surface of every cell in the body, and is thought to carry out multiple cellular tasks. This seemingly “miniscule” difference can have far-reaching effects, and might explain why surgeons were unable to transplant chimp organs into humans in the 1960s. With this in mind, we never should declare, with a simple wave of the hand, “chimps are almost identical to us” simply because of a large genetic overlap.

>> Every species on Earth carries a genetic code that is, for all intents and purposes, identical and universal.

** This shows us that everything on earth had the same designer, ie God. Afterall it makes sense that if you come up with a good design you would reuse it. I've only touched on the many many fatal flaws of Evolution and Big Bang. We've only looked at one area of science. As I've mentioned Evolution/Big Bang has broken so many that scientists themselves have spoken up against it.

Even if Evolution were true, and I'm not suggesting it is. It does not explain how everything got here. The great philosphical question here is, why is there anything rather than nothing?

>> 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?

** I've never said that science is bad or useless. We can all see and atest to the great advances of science which has lead to our modern day computers, space craft, military might, entertainment. The problem is that Evolution/Big Bang has been placed under the banner of science as abosolute truth for many many years. As discoveries are made and the model is scrutinized we see that it falls apart with just some casual investigation.

God and his word have been under extreme scrutiny and criticism for hundreds if not thousands of years. Yet neither the bible nor God has ever been shown to be false as Evolution/Big Bang has, nor has its case been weakened, in fact as more and more discoveries are made and as time goes on the case for God and his word has only strengthened.

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

** Oh really! Please do tell how it is a proven fact.

>> 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.

** Actually if you really knew about all the problems Evolution faces, you would realize that it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than to believe in God. Once again I'd like to point out that there is nothing wrong with good science. There are two types of evolution that I know of, micro and macro. Micro teaches variation within a species, ie natural selection, this is something that has been observed and creationists agree fully with it. Macro evolution is the type that teaches that we are descendants of apes and simply matter in motion, this is not science, it has never been observed or recreated.

Evolution is nothing more than a terribly faulty theory, that I believe through the education system has indoctrinated its way into the masses. Unfortunately most people simply accept this is absolut fact from their science teachers. I personally think it happens like this as an example:

A student of science is in the science class because he/she does not have a background in science and is learning more about it. The teacher teaches and the student just accepts what is taught as that is what will be examined and the student does not know enough to challenge the teacher since he/she does not have science background.

This example may not be true for everyone, however, in my case it was definitely true.

God Bless,

Matt.

donkey

Brummie,

You need to separate the debate into its respective components. As I see it (in simple terms) there are two matters:

Evolution vs Creationsism (as defined by the Bible)
Theism vs Atheism

It would appear to me that you and others might be combining the two debates into one? My focus in this thread has been on the evolution vs creation debate since that is the title of your thread.

Now I will freely admit the problem evolution poses for theists (particualrly Christainas who believe the Bible). Once a professed Christian acknowledges evolution as a fact they have a dilemma (beside the fact that they have to recover from the intellectual honesty): Did God use evolution as a tool to "create" man? If he did then how does the Christian explain the existence of sin and/or the need to replace a "perfect" man with a "corresponding ransom" in the form of Jesus? I have never seen a Christian who could logically come to terms with this issue. Thus it follows that the second debate becomes the center of focus. But until that point it helps to clarify the issues at hand and treat the debates as 2 separate arguments.

Donkey - who is evolving into a mule

Brummie

You need to separate the debate into its respective components

I agree totally. I saw something and my mind went on one of its marathons and ran straight past the starting post. Yes, its evolution or creation that this thread is about and I did go of into theology.

Did God use evolution as a tool to "create" man? If he did then how does the Christian explain the existence of sin and/or the need to replace a "perfect" man with a "corresponding ransom" in the form of Jesus? I have never seen a Christian who could logically come to terms with this issue.

This is an excellent question, I'll think it through because right now I dont know, thats not to say that I am going to try to defend it without evidence, I will think it through.

My starting point is creation and evolution, I dont think its "either/or" as I pointed out in my original post, I'm leaning towards both. So i threw this open to get some perspectives on if evolution & creation can run smoothly together. (all the other theisms and off shoots of Bible doctrine are put into boxes for now, I'm kinda starting at the beginning again, when there was no Bible in existance)

Brummie (who may be evolving into a dog)

Brummie

the need to replace a "perfect" man

PS, on first thoughts, none of that would make sense if God did not start by creating a perfect man. I've got what you are saying.

Evolution OR Creation?

Share this