Evolution Vs. Creationism

[PolyHedral]

Unless God is deliberately playing tricks on us, evolution must be true. Why?

Because bacteria eat nylon, an entirely synthetic, man-made substance. Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Unchanging organisms simply can't do that.

 

[LuisDantas]

but creationists have an origin to life...the bible states 'in the beginning God created' ...

so thats not an issue for us.

And it seems to me that this is exactly why many, perhaps most Christians have no trouble in being true to their faith while also understanding and accepting the ToE.

Belief in God as the originator of life is not at all incompatible with the ToE. I would go so far as to say that it is not even what is generally understood by Creationism, but mileages may of course vary.

 

[Pegg]

But unlike science the bible doesn't hold any weight. The bible is only relevant to those who believe in its authenticity and who presume that literal interpretation was intended, whereas science is about experiencing, observing and testing the tangible.

yes that may be true, but that means a large majority view the bible as relevant... so you have a lot of convincing ahead of you lol

 

[Pegg]

Unless God is deliberately playing tricks on us, evolution must be true. Why?

Because bacteria eat nylon, an entirely synthetic, man-made substance. Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Unchanging organisms simply can't do that.

organisms can adapt to their environments, adapt their eating habits and modify themselves as needed...this is all within the realms of possibility

but genetics and dna will never allow the organism to become something its not... it cannot change so much that it becomes something entirely new.

 

[fantome profane]

organisms can adapt to their environments, adapt their eating habits and modify themselves as needed...this is all within the realms of possibility

but genetics and dna will never allow the organism to become something its not... it cannot change so much that it becomes something entirely new.

And what stops it? Where is this mysterious mechanism that says to an organism you can change this much but no farther?

 

[Pegg]

And it seems to me that this is exactly why many, perhaps most Christians have no trouble in being true to their faith while also understanding and accepting the ToE.

Belief in God as the originator of life is not at all incompatible with the ToE. I would go so far as to say that it is not even what is generally understood by Creationism, but mileages may of course vary.

yes i agree with that. I believe in evolution up to a point...only to the point where evolution says that one animal slowly changes into something entirely different

The dna allows for great 'variety' within each type of animal... but it doesnt allow it to become a completely different type of animal.

 

[Father Heathen]

yes that may be true, but that means a large majority view the bible as relevant... so you have a lot of convincing ahead of you lol

Yet biology will remain as it is regardless of how many choose to wallow in irrational and unsubstantiated superstition. It's intellectually dishonest to dismiss the insurmountable mountain of evidence that supports ToE just because it happens to conflict with the ancient mythology of primitive goat herders.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can agree with you to a point. However, you should realize that this is what makes creationists so skeptical of evolution in the first place.

We see things from the point of view of 'where they started' ... evolutionists see things from the point of view of 'where they are right now' and dont seem to be concerned with how they got there, iow, evolution is purely materialistic.

Sorry, I don't follow you.

It is true that evolution is a very naturalistic field of study. It, so to speak, does not take God into account. No argument there.

Bu how is that any different from any other field of scientific research? Belief in God isn't an issue for things such as medical research or the study of physics. Why is the Evolution of living beings to be treated any differently?

In both cases, one may easily and sincerely believe in God as the creator and yet realize that the natural universe has its own logic and workings, which are passible of study and research. One does not particularly need to either believe in or doubt God to research and learn about Evolution. The findings are not really any different.

Are they?

 

[Pegg]

And what stops it? Where is this mysterious mechanism that says to an organism you can change this much but no farther?

genetics.

 

[fantome profane]

genetics.

lol..

 

[Father Heathen]

I can agree with you to a point. However, you should realize that this is what makes creationists so skeptical of evolution in the first place.

We see things from the point of view of 'where they started' ... evolutionists see things from the point of view of 'where they are right now' and dont seem to be concerned with how they got there, iow, evolution is purely materialistic.

Because that's not what evolution is about. The Theory of Evolution is "materialistic" in the same way that The Theory of gravity is "materialistic". It's a field of study, not some all-encompassing ideology. Also, evolution and belief in god are not mutually exclusive. Literal interpretations of abrahamic holy texts don't hold a monopoly on the concept of god.

 

[Pegg]

Belief in God isn't an issue for things such as medical research or the study of physics. Why is the Evolution of living beings to be treated any differently?

In both cases, one may easily and sincerely believe in God as the creator and yet realize that the natural universe has its own logic and workings, which are passible of study and research. One does not particularly need to either believe in or doubt God to research and learn about Evolution. The findings are not really any different.

Are they?

because if the universe and living things originated by pure chance or undirected causes, then it removes the need for a creator all together. The God who is said to be the creator of all things (whoever the God may be to you) is no longer the creator at all... if he's not the creator, then why worship him, why adopt his views and why give him any acknowledgment at all? Religion, any religion, becomes the construct of man because there is no creator.

 

[PolyHedral]

genetics.

The same four bases are the foundation of every genetic code across the Earth. Therefore, genetics is essentially infinitely mutable. The only question is what does and doesn't form a surviving organism.

Try again.

 

[LuisDantas]

yes i agree with that. I believe in evolution up to a point...only to the point where evolution says that one animal slowly changes into something entirely different

I assume you are not denying that, say, seeds and embryos change into adult lifeforms.

So I take it that you mean that animals don't become different species of animals, such as reptiles gradually changing into birds?

In a way you are correct. One animal does not become an entirely different kind of animal. The ToE does not claim that.

What it does claim is that the offspring of lifeforms does sometimes differ from its parents in ways significant enough to accumulate along generations to the point that they become different species. Specific generations are, so to speak, "set" in their own species and won't change (there are somewhat esoteric exceptions, but I don't think they are helpful to this debate). But the difference among generations does build up with time.

The dna allows for great 'variety' within each type of animal... but it doesnt allow it to become a completely different type of animal.

That is not true, and has been proven untrue both in theory and in practice. For instance, some varieties of horse, fish and dog have been created or even recreated by selective breeding.

Maybe you object that the offspring of horses are still horses and never zebras, goats, bears or other kinds of animals?

 

[fantome profane]

because if the universe and living things originated by pure chance or undirected causes, then it removes the need for a creator all together. The God who is said to be the creator of all things (whoever the God may be to you) is no longer the creator at all... if he's not the creator, then why worship him, why adopt his views and why give him any acknowledgment at all? Religion, any religion, becomes the construct of man because there is no creator.

Parting comment.

Again we see that those who oppose evolution really have no idea what evolution is. Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe. It is not about pure chance. It has nothing to do with “God” one way or the other.

So often when talking with creationist about science they turn to topic to the existence of “God”. So let me give them a hint in trying to figure out what evolution is.

Evolution is not the theory that there is no “God”.
Evolution is not atheism.
You don’t have to be an atheist to accept evolution.
When you start debating about “God” you are no longer talking about evolution (or science).
If you want to debate the existence of “God” attacking evolution is not the way to do it.

 

[LuisDantas]

because if the universe and living things originated by pure chance or undirected causes, then it removes the need for a creator all together. The God who is said to be the creator of all things (whoever the God may be to you) is no longer the creator at all...

I just don't see it. Accepting the ToE and its supporting evidence in no way implies that there is no God, nor that he is not the creator. Nor does it imply that there is any, certainly.

There is no need for a creator, but not because of the ToE. And again, the origin of life is not really addressed by the ToE. It deals with changes in lifeforms along generations, not with the origin of life.

if he's not the creator, then why worship him, why adopt his views and why give him any acknowledgment at all? Religion, any religion, becomes the construct of man because there is no creator.

Maybe so, but that has no relation to the ToE that I can see.

 

[Pegg]

What it does claim is that the offspring of lifeforms does sometimes differ from its parents in ways significant enough to accumulate along generations to the point that they become different species. Specific generations are, so to speak, "set" in their own species and won't change (there are somewhat esoteric exceptions, but I don't think they are helpful to this debate). But the difference among generations does build up with time.

yep i dont have a problem with that at all, what i have a problem with is when those generations are said to slowly develop new features which its earlier parents didnt have... such as scales that became feathers or fins that became feet

That is not true, and has been proven untrue both in theory and in practice. For instance, some varieties of horse, fish and dog have been created or even recreated by selective breeding.

Maybe you object that the offspring of horses are still horses and never zebras, goats, bears or other kinds of animals?

thats what i meant by 'variety within a type' of animal. We've bred miniture horses from large horses through selective breeding and hairless cats from hairy cats and short nosed dogs from long nosed dogs

but the thing with selective breeding is that the horse is still a horse, the cat is still a cat and the dog is still a dog

 

[Father Heathen]

because if the universe and living things originated by pure chance or undirected causes, then it removes the need for a creator all together. The God who is said to be the creator of all things (whoever the God may be to you) is no longer the creator at all... if he's not the creator, then why worship him, why adopt his views and why give him any acknowledgment at all? Religion, any religion, becomes the construct of man because there is no creator.

How is it that science and evolution couldn't simply be guided by god's hand? And even if god existed/exists religion would still be nothing but a construct of man. Religion tries to bring god down toward man's level rather than trying to lift man up toward god's level.

 

[Pegg]

Evolution is not the theory that there is no “God”.
Evolution is not atheism.
You don’t have to be an atheist to accept evolution.
When you start debating about “God” you are no longer talking about evolution (or science).
If you want to debate the existence of “God” attacking evolution is not the way to do it.

I get what you are saying, however...

if i was to accept the ToE to the point of believing that animals evolved on this earth rather then were created, and that humans are products of that evolution, then i would have to logically discard my belief in a creator

it would just logically flow from evolution to atheism for me. Im not going to worship something that has been proven to not exist... i dont fly that way

 

[LuisDantas]

but the thing with selective breeding is that the horse is still a horse, the cat is still a cat and the dog is still a dog

That is mainly a matter of the difference being in the eye of the beholder. Dogs, for instance, are incredibly varied. The distinction between dogs, foxes, wolves, coyotes, dingos and hyenas isn't always clear and become very arbitrary.

But the main thing is that you are basically mistaken on that point. It has been demonstrated time and again that organisms can and do indeed gradually become what can only be considered entirely different species of animals.

Perhaps the most dramatic examples are the differentiation of fishes into amphibians, then of those into reptiles, who in turn gave origin to both avians and mammals. It can happen and it did happen. Fossils are one of the most easily understood forms of evidence, but IMO they are also one of the less convincing and, ultimately, less needed.

Still, it is still perfectly valid and legit to accept that and still believe in a Creator God. I just don't see any contradiction.