Creationism and how it can be true.

[Me Myself]

Evolution is not concerned with how life began? That's because it doesn't explain it. The scientists would love to have one theory about how life began and evolved, it just doesn't work so they say "Well, evolution is not concerned with it", bull, they wish more than anything that it did.

All of what you say there is right. Evolution is not concerned with how live began because it does not explain it. the scientist would love to have a theory on how life began and they do wish that evolution (or any other scientific theory) explained it.

Evolution is a process that we discovered while looking for something else, exactly like Europe discovered america while looking for something else, or how a lot of discoveries have been made looking for something else. Darwin wished to explain how life originated, but instead, he just explained why there are so many common traits on different species.

Nothing of what you said there contradicts all the evidence there is about evolution, and as you very well say, evolution does not explain the origin of life, at least not today. This doesn´t mean we should pretend we have no evidence of this process that species go through.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Because some people believe God uses science?

If someone is basing facts and opinions on science, then isn't God also to be science?

 

[Breathe]

If someone is basing facts and opinions on science, then isn't God also to be science?

It depends on how one defines God and science, I suppose.

 

[Father Heathen]

String Theory does have to do with mathematics because the scientists are having a tough time coming up with experiments to test it so other scientists are suggesting the whole idea should be abandoned because it's inherently non-testable.

But that is putting your made up rules higher than the truth. It's like saying "We don't care if string theory is true because there is no way to verify it".

Okay? Not sure what any of this has to do with evolution, which has an insurmountable mountain of evidence and is also observable.

 

[R34L1TY]

He thought the earth impact that caused the formation of the moon was the same that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs but there is a few billions years between the two.

What is your point? I never claimed myself to be an Astronomer and which I also quickly agreed that I made a mistake.

Evolution is not concerned with how life began? That's because it doesn't explain it. The scientists would love to have one theory about how life began and evolved, it just doesn't work so they say "Well, evolution is not concerned with it", bull, they wish more than anything that it did.

First off, let me just say that you appear to not be quite familiar with familiar science experiments. If you take H20, CO2, NH3 and CH4.. all simple compounds that have massive evidence that shows of their existence before life. And if you put these substances in a flask, supply a source of energy such as ultraviolet light or electric sparks (artificial simulation of primordial lightning). After a few weeks of this, inside the flask will be a brown soupy material. Look at the soup a little bit closer, you'l see a large amount of molecules far more complex than the ones originally put in. Amino acids, the building blocks of proteins; one of the great classes of biological molecules.

Scientists do not say, "we are just not concerned with it" and even if it was quoted from a reputable source. They would not have said that in the literal sense. There are many, many different ways as to go about how we first became. The evidence is there that we started our existence in water. Varieties of Replicators that shielded their molecules structure with proteins to protect their existence. Fatty Acids mixed in water with small salt components, BAM a vesicle made. These replicators would go on to build bodies, robots.. to protect their genes. These robots are found EVERYWHERE (You, Me, Tree's..anything that lives) . We are just Survival Machines built by our Genes to prolong the existence of the nucleotides found in our deoxyribonucleic acids. THAT is what we are.

Evidence of how life started? Yes, our existence does not necessarily link to how the Universe began, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a link and even if there wasn't, that still doesn't mean that we are not composed of star stuff. That the elements that are embodied inside us didn't originally come from the bodies of stars.

We take both of these examples, the simplicity of creating amino acids and the foundation of elements found within us which are also found in every single star in the universe.. what do you get??

 

[Super Universe]

Okay? Not sure what any of this has to do with evolution, which has an insurmountable mountain of evidence and is also observable.

Evolution is how God did it.

 

[Super Universe]

What is your point? I never claimed myself to be an Astronomer and which I also quickly agreed that I made a mistake.



First off, let me just say that you appear to not be quite familiar with familiar science experiments. If you take H20, CO2, NH3 and CH4.. all simple compounds that have massive evidence that shows of their existence before life. And if you put these substances in a flask, supply a source of energy such as ultraviolet light or electric sparks (artificial simulation of primordial lightning). After a few weeks of this, inside the flask will be a brown soupy material. Look at the soup a little bit closer, you'l see a large amount of molecules far more complex than the ones originally put in. Amino acids, the building blocks of proteins; one of the great classes of biological molecules.

Scientists do not say, "we are just not concerned with it" and even if it was quoted from a reputable source. They would not have said that in the literal sense. There are many, many different ways as to go about how we first became. The evidence is there that we started our existence in water. Varieties of Replicators that shielded their molecules structure with proteins to protect their existence. Fatty Acids mixed in water with small salt components, BAM a vesicle made. These replicators would go on to build bodies, robots.. to protect their genes. These robots are found EVERYWHERE (You, Me, Tree's..anything that lives) . We are just Survival Machines built by our Genes to prolong the existence of the nucleotides found in our deoxyribonucleic acids. THAT is what we are.

Evidence of how life started? Yes, our existence does not necessarily link to how the Universe began, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a link and even if there wasn't, that still doesn't mean that we are not composed of star stuff. That the elements that are embodied inside us didn't originally come from the bodies of stars.

We take both of these examples, the simplicity of creating amino acids and the foundation of elements found within us which are also found in every single star in the universe.. what do you get??

I'm not familiar with science experiments? What you described is the Miller-Urey experiment from 1952. Amino acids are not life. Finding amino acids and saying they brought about a human being is like finding an aluminum oxide deposit and saying "See, a Boeing 777 could have assembled itself!"

The evidence is that replicators built bodies to protect their genes? Name one experiment where a living organism formed itself from elements without the aid of human intervention.

I am not a replicating robot, you might be though.

I didn't say we're not composed of star stuff, why couldn't God do it that way?

Take the example of amino acids and the elements of stars found within us and what do I get? I get the idea that God uses the elements that He created to form His universe to also form life.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

The form of creationism that is usually criticized is a literalistic view of the Biblical creation stories. In particular, an extreme literalism, which often manifests itself in the Young Earth Creationism viewpoint, is critiqued, but more so, it is argued as if that is the only form of creationism. Often it is misconstrued as Intelligent Design, or pretty much the only form of creationism (or even the dominant form), which simply is incorrect on all three accounts.

If you say so.

What is often left out are the many forms of creationism, that make up the majority belief, that do accept part of all of the scientific explanation of evolution. This includes a variety of different forms of Pagan forms of creationism (which make up a considerable amount of adherents), to more deist views such as proposed by likes such as Thomas Morgan, which states that God created the world, but then left it alone (as in, he was the beginning cause). Even much of the ideas of Intelligent Design (there are different schools of thought within this group) accept evolution as a fact, but believe that God had a part in it.

I have no problem with this, since we don't know how life started.... yet.

This is where we get to the real meat of the discussion, as these forms of creationism in no way oppose evolution. Evolution does not tell us, nor can science tell us (at this point), how life first originated.

This is true, but I get tired of people who keep saying that the theory of evolution has to explain EVERYTHING. ToE aims to explain only one fact : the fact of evolution.

Evolution does not tell us that, but instead starts after life first originated and began changing or evolving.

Yes, and that is whole point of the ToE. Notice how it has the word 'evolution' in it?

Evolution also does not tell us how the world formed, or how the universe formed, as that is not what evolution is about.

Exactly, much in the same way that the theory of gravity does not explain how life started or how the universe was formed. Because that theory is aimed at addressing one specific phenomena.

More so, since science can not tell us how this all first began forming (the Big Bang is not an explanation as it only gets us to the a certain point, and does not explain how this matter first came to be, or how it all happened to converge), and really does not contradict the idea that a supreme being was the initial cause or the beginning. The two ideas do not need to be opposed, and in fact, most don't see it that way.

This is true. But what I always ask in this situation is, even if a supreme being created the universe, does that inherently make this being worth worship?

So when talking about evolution, it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. One can also accept creationism, and be very well-informed about the nature of evolution and the scientific theories that explain the formation of the world. One can accept creationism, and at the same time, accept evolution and have no actual problem there. One can even accept evolution, and that God created humans, and have no actual problem. It doesn't need to be an either/or situation, and future talks do need to actually realize that, as well as the diversity in the idea of creationism. Otherwise it just alienates people.

Agreed. Only niggle here is again whether this god you speak of is worth worship.
Evolution is a fact. It does not address how life started. It addresses how we evolved ONCE life started. There is no discussion about life's origins in evolution. We do not know how life started. God may have created life, but that is just one explanation. Truth is, we simply don't know. I think creationism movement started based on a misinterpretation of the scope of evolution.

 

[R34L1TY]

I'm not familiar with science experiments? What you described is the Miller-Urey experiment from 1952. Amino acids are not life. Finding amino acids and saying they brought about a human being is like finding an aluminum oxide deposit and saying "See, a Boeing 777 could have assembled itself!"

The evidence is that replicators built bodies to protect their genes? Name one experiment where a living organism formed itself from elements without the aid of human intervention.

I am not a replicating robot, you might be though.

I didn't say we're not composed of star stuff, why couldn't God do it that way?

Take the example of amino acids and the elements of stars found within us and what do I get? I get the idea that God uses the elements that He created to form His universe to also form life.

 

[crocusj]

Often, in debates concerning creationism and evolution, the argument tends to turn to an either/or mentality. Either you believe what I say, or you're wrong and ignorant (and ignorant is one of the nicer terms used). However, such a position is foolish, and only hampers actual understanding and acceptance. I am proposing here that a both/and solution is just as possible, where creationism is recognized not as opposed to evolution, but an idea that can peacefully coexist.

The form of creationism that is usually criticized is a literalistic view of the Biblical creation stories. In particular, an extreme literalism, which often manifests itself in the Young Earth Creationism viewpoint, is critiqued, but more so, it is argued as if that is the only form of creationism. Often it is misconstrued as Intelligent Design, or pretty much the only form of creationism (or even the dominant form), which simply is incorrect on all three accounts.

What is often left out are the many forms of creationism, that make up the majority belief, that do accept part of all of the scientific explanation of evolution. This includes a variety of different forms of Pagan forms of creationism (which make up a considerable amount of adherents), to more deist views such as proposed by likes such as Thomas Morgan, which states that God created the world, but then left it alone (as in, he was the beginning cause). Even much of the ideas of Intelligent Design (there are different schools of thought within this group) accept evolution as a fact, but believe that God had a part in it.

This is where we get to the real meat of the discussion, as these forms of creationism in no way oppose evolution. Evolution does not tell us, nor can science tell us (at this point), how life first originated. Evolution does not tell us that, but instead starts after life first originated and began changing or evolving. Evolution also does not tell us how the world formed, or how the universe formed, as that is not what evolution is about. There are other theories regarding the formation of the world and the universe, but they do not necessarily disagree with these other forms of creationism either.

More so, since science can not tell us how this all first began forming (the Big Bang is not an explanation as it only gets us to the a certain point, and does not explain how this matter first came to be, or how it all happened to converge), and really does not contradict the idea that a supreme being was the initial cause or the beginning. The two ideas do not need to be opposed, and in fact, most don't see it that way.

So when talking about evolution, it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. One can also accept creationism, and be very well-informed about the nature of evolution and the scientific theories that explain the formation of the world. One can accept creationism, and at the same time, accept evolution and have no actual problem there. One can even accept evolution, and that God created humans, and have no actual problem. It doesn't need to be an either/or situation, and future talks do need to actually realize that, as well as the diversity in the idea of creationism. Otherwise it just alienates people.

Letting some (albeit contemporary) bits go....ok? Clearly, all of what you are now positing is from science as we know it today and would, of course, have been dismissed out of hand not but a few years ago. Indeed, all of what you are saying would seem to me to require a line in the sand that you are drawing for yourself. Each time that you shift that line do you move further or closer to your god?

 

[George-ananda]

So when talking about evolution, it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. One can also accept creationism, and be very well-informed about the nature of evolution and the scientific theories that explain the formation of the world. .

Good point. I would say I believe in Creationism and Evolution.

One of RF's active subforums is called 'Evolution vs. Creationism'. Why is it a 'versus' when they're compatible for so many people?

When I look at plants and animals (including humans), the complexity of all the systems (Digestive, Circulatory, Neuro, etc. etc.) and the number of chemicals interactions and brilliant complexity I find it hard to believe these things developed through only the processes accepted by rigid science. With only the processes accepted by rigid science, I believe earth would look like every other planet and moon we have seen; just lifeless natural formations.

Now I'm not saying the chemical and system complexities are PROOF of anything but intelligent forces beyond those accepted by rigid science seem to me overwhelmingly more believeable (and yes I have heard the counter-arguments to my thinking).

 

[Skwim]

Good point. I would say I believe in Creationism and Evolution.

One of RF's active subforums is called 'Evolution vs. Creationism'. Why is it a 'versus' when they're compatible for so many people?

If one takes creationism as it's defined:

Creationism
"The belief that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing. Biblical creationists believe that the story told in Genesis of God's six-day creation of the universe and all living things is literally correct."
Source:merriam-webster.com (I was unable to find a creationist web site willing to define the word)
​

and evolution as it's defined:

Evolution
The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."
Source: Oxford Concise Science Dictionary
​

The two are mutually exclusive operations. So I find it interesting that you can believe in both.

When I look at plants and animals (including humans), the complexity of all the systems (Digestive, Circulatory, Neuro, etc. etc.) and the number of chemicals interactions and brilliant complexity I find it hard to believe these things developed through only the processes accepted by rigid science. With only the processes accepted by rigid science, I believe earth would look like every other planet and moon we have seen; just lifeless natural formations.

Can't argue with what you find hard to believe.

 

[George-ananda]

If one takes creationism as it's defined:

Creationism
"The belief that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing. Biblical creationists believe that the story told in Genesis of God's six-day creation of the universe and all living things is literally correct."
Source:merriam-webster.com (I was unable to find a creationist web site willing to define the word)
​

and evolution as it's defined:

Evolution
The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."
Source: Oxford Concise Science Dictionary
​

The two are mutually exclusive operations. So I find it interesting that you can believe in both.

I do not see where the two contradict?? (I'm not a biblical creationist)

The Creationist definition allows for creation through the big bang and evolution.

 

[Breathe]

Creationism
"The belief that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing. Biblical creationists believe that the story told in Genesis of God's six-day creation of the universe and all living things is literally correct."
Source:merriam-webster.com (I was unable to find a creationist web site willing to define the word)

Although, there's more than one form of Biblical creationism; there's "gap theory", old earth creationism (I don't know how this one works? Humans have been around for billions of years, or something? No idea), etc.

Not all creationists believe "out of nothing" either; no wonder it's so tricky to find a definition.

 

[Father Heathen]

Evolution is how God did it.

If there is a god, then of course.

 

[outhouse]

Humans have been around for billions of years, or something?

been evolving for 7 million "ish" from primates

 

[Skwim]

I do not see where the two contradict?? (I'm not a biblical creationist)

Ah yes. It does make a difference.

Although, there's more than one form of Biblical creationism; there's "gap theory", old earth creationism (I don't know how this one works? Humans have been around for billions of years, or something? No idea), etc.

Not all creationists believe "out of nothing" either; no wonder it's so tricky to find a definition.

Aint that the truth, but as I said to George, "(I was unable to find a creationist web site willing to define the word)," which is why I went with Merriam-Webster's definition.

 

[George-ananda]

Ah yes. It does make a difference.

Aint that the truth, but as I said to George, "(I was unable to find a creationist web site willing to define the word)," which is why I went with Merriam-Webster's definition.

So do you then agree it's not contradictory to be both an Evolutionist and a Creationist per Merriam-Webster?

 

[outhouse]

So do you then agree it's not contradictory to be both an Evolutionist and a Creationist per Merriam-Webster?

while true


its nothing more then trying to smuggle god in the back door of science

 

[Skwim]

So do you then agree it's not contradictory to be both an Evolutionist and a Creationist per Merriam-Webster?

Per Merriam-Webster, which defines "creationism" as

"The belief that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing. Biblical creationists believe that the story told in Genesis of God's six-day creation of the universe and all living things is literally correct."
​

the first sentence, "The belief that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing," doesn't conflict with evolution at all; however, the second sentence describing Biblical creationism, does. A literal interpretation of God's six-day creation of all living things flies in the face of evolution.

So, as long as one's creationism allows for evolution there's no problem. It's just that "creationism" as popularly used and understood does conflict with evolution.