• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creationists: How Would Evolution NOT Exist?

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
I know that there's not too many creationists on here - probably because many would not like the way the community is on here, or the rules got in their way and the trait of creationism cut down on this forum because of this interference.

But I ask because there are some, and many of them I enjoy talking with

Do you believe in genes? Yes?
In traits being spread through genes? Yes?
In genetic mutations? Yes?

Then, considering all this, how would evolution NOT exist? The traits that are passed more commonly genetically, were created by genetic mutation, and the ones less commonly will eventually stop being spread. In all of the time we had here, through how long species existed, how wouldn't there be gaining traits (mutation) and ridding traits (not being spread commonly)? If there is, how wouldn't we become different over time with this ongoing process?
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
I know that there's not too many creationists on here - probably because many would not like the way the community is on here, or the rules got in their way and the trait of creationism cut down on this forum because of this interference.
Forum evolution? I like it.

But I ask because there are some, and many of them I enjoy talking with

Do you believe in genes? Yes?
In traits being spread through genes? Yes?
In genetic mutations? Yes?

Then, considering all this, how would evolution NOT exist? The traits that are passed more commonly genetically, were created by genetic mutation, and the ones less commonly will eventually stop being spread. In all of the time we had here, through how long species existed, how wouldn't there be gaining traits (mutation) and ridding traits (not being spread commonly)? If there is, how wouldn't we become different over time with this ongoing process?

The common response to this is: oh, micro-evolution occurs, but not macro-evolution!

This is because they cannot deny various small phenotypic changes that humans have documented, such as wolf---> array of dog breeds. But, they say, we have never seen a wolf become a horse, and so feel they are justified in their distinction.

Their analysis fails, of course, because there is absolutely nothing to stop a bunch of small changes from accumulating over time to create "big" changes. The genes don't suddenly hit some biological wall and say "It's quitting time, fellas! One more change, and that would be macro-evolution, and we can't be doing that!"
 

ScuzManiac

Active Member
Another common response is as follows...

We can't see it happen or it isn't happening.

There are no slogs (sloth-frogs) or humonkeys (human-monkey).
 

John Martin

Active Member
[FONT=&quot]Evolution is a science and it should be taught as a science. It belongs to one level of truth. It should not be used to defame religions or eliminate God and create a godless or meaningless society. Creationism is not a science. It is poetry. It is a parable. It is a story. It tries to give meaning to our lives. It tries to create a meaningful society and meaningful human existence and relationships, even though this meaning might change as human beings evolve. Hence it should be taught as such and not as a science. Creationism should be not used to negate scientific discoveries and keep people in ignorance and in superstition. Evolution and creationism belong to different levels and communicate different truths. One belongs to the mind and another belongs to the heart. There should be no conflict as such between them. We need both. In order to create harmony between them both creationists and evolutionists need to have an open mind and open-heart. This is possible only when we transcend both material evolution and religious evolution and discover the eternal divine spark, the image and likeness of God, within us. It was there before the big bang and before the creation stories developed.[/FONT]
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
[FONT=&quot]Evolutionism is a science and it should be taught as a science. It belongs to one level of truth. It should not be used to defame religions or eliminate God and create a godless or meaningless society. Creationism is not a science. It is poetry. It is a parable. It is a story. It tries to give meaning to our lives. It tries to create a meaningful society and meaningful human existence and relationships, even though this meaning might change as human beings evolve. Hence it should be taught as such and not as a science. Creationism should be not used to negate scientific discoveries and keep people in ignorance and in superstition. Evolutionism and creationism belong to different levels and communicate different truths. One belongs to the mind and another belongs to the heart. There should be no conflict as such between them. We need both. In order to create harmony between them both creationists and evolutionists need to have an open mind and open-heart. This is possible only when we transcend both material evolution and religious evolution and discover the eternal divine spark, the image and likeness of God, within us. It was there before the big bang and before the creation stories developed.[/FONT]


Very well put.

Frubals
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
[FONT=&quot]Evolutionism is a science and it should be taught as a science. It belongs to one level of truth. It should not be used to defame religions or eliminate God and create a godless or meaningless society. Creationism is not a science. It is poetry. It is a parable. It is a story. It tries to give meaning to our lives. It tries to create a meaningful society and meaningful human existence and relationships, even though this meaning might change as human beings evolve. Hence it should be taught as such and not as a science. Creationism should be not used to negate scientific discoveries and keep people in ignorance and in superstition. Evolutionism and creationism belong to different levels and communicate different truths. One belongs to the mind and another belongs to the heart. There should be no conflict as such between them. We need both. In order to create harmony between them both creationists and evolutionists need to have an open mind and open-heart. This is possible only when we transcend both material evolution and religious evolution and discover the eternal divine spark, the image and likeness of God, within us. It was there before the big bang and before the creation stories developed.[/FONT]
I have no problem with your post except the use of the word "evolutionism". Evolution theory isn't an "-ism". Evolutionism is about your personal acceptance or view on evolution. It's not a science. "-ism"-s fall under cultural, historical, philosophical, and psychological areas, but not evolution theory.

An "-ism" is a belief.

Evolution Theory isn't a belief, it's a science

See the difference in the words?

Evolutionism.
Evolution.

Two separate things. Evolution should be taught, because it's a science, while Evolutionism is regarding a person believes about evolution which is a personal thing.

Princeton's description of "evolutionism" vs "evolution":
Evolutionism refers to the biological concept of evolution,[1] specifically to a widely held 19th century belief that organisms are intrinsically bound to improve themselves, and that changes are progressive and arise through inheritance of acquired characters, as in Lamarckism. The belief was extended to include cultural evolution and social evolution.[2] The term is sometimes also used to refer to acceptance of the modern evolutionary synthesis, a scientific theory that describes how biological evolution occurs. In addition, the term is used in a broader sense to cover a world-view on a wide variety of topics, including chemical evolution as an alternative term for abiogenesis or for nucleosynthesis of chemical elements, galaxy formation and evolution, stellar evolution, spiritual evolution, technological evolution and universal evolution, which seeks to explain every aspect of the world in which we live.[3][4]

Since the overwhelming majority of scientists accepts evolution[5], the term is seldom used in the scientific community. In the context of modern biology, to say someone is a scientist generally implies evolutionary views.[6] In the creation-evolution controversy, creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis "evolutionists" and the theory itself as "evolutionism." Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion.[7][8]

Contents

1 Modern use
2 See also
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
Modern use

In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are seldom used in the scientific community to refer to the biological discipline as the term is considered both redundant and anachronistic, though it has been used in discussing the creation-evolution controversy.[6]
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Evolutionism.html
 
Last edited:

Looncall

Well-Known Member
[FONT=&quot]Evolutionism is a science and it should be taught as a science. It belongs to one level of truth. It should not be used to defame religions or eliminate God and create a godless or meaningless society. Creationism is not a science. It is poetry. It is a parable. It is a story. It tries to give meaning to our lives. It tries to create a meaningful society and meaningful human existence and relationships, even though this meaning might change as human beings evolve. Hence it should be taught as such and not as a science. Creationism should be not used to negate scientific discoveries and keep people in ignorance and in superstition. Evolutionism and creationism belong to different levels and communicate different truths. One belongs to the mind and another belongs to the heart. There should be no conflict as such between them. We need both. In order to create harmony between them both creationists and evolutionists need to have an open mind and open-heart. This is possible only when we transcend both material evolution and religious evolution and discover the eternal divine spark, the image and likeness of God, within us. It was there before the big bang and before the creation stories developed.[/FONT]

So we are to obtain meaning by telling lies? Wouldn't it be better to base meaning on something better than the campfire tales of ignorant savages?

Creationism is presented as fact by its promoters. I suspect that it is a political ploy by those promoters to maintain the unearned priviliged position of religion in society.

Hearts pump blood. Why not say what you mean, even if it would sound less impressive?
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I know that there's not too many creationists on here

Depends on how many is too many, I suppose. :p Creationism is not entitled to "equal opportunity" or anything.


- probably because many would not like the way the community is on here, or the rules got in their way and the trait of creationism cut down on this forum because of this interference.

Then again, Creationism is supposed to be rare in the first place, what with being based on the denial of readily available knowledge. That ought to be the decisive factor, regardless of any forum circunstances. If anything, this forum is way too patient with so-called Creationism (more accurately named anti-Evolutionism).


But I ask because there are some, and many of them I enjoy talking with

Do you believe in genes? Yes?
In traits being spread through genes? Yes?
In genetic mutations? Yes?

Then, considering all this, how would evolution NOT exist? The traits that are passed more commonly genetically, were created by genetic mutation, and the ones less commonly will eventually stop being spread. In all of the time we had here, through how long species existed, how wouldn't there be gaining traits (mutation) and ridding traits (not being spread commonly)? If there is, how wouldn't we become different over time with this ongoing process?

Pretty relevant questions. I look forward to the answers.
 
Last edited:

John Martin

Active Member
I have no problem with your post except the use of the word "evolutionism". Evolution theory isn't an "-ism". Evolutionism is about your personal acceptance or view on evolution. It's not a science. "-ism"-s fall under cultural, historical, philosophical, and psychological areas, but not evolution theory.

An "-ism" is a belief.

Evolution Theory isn't a belief, it's a science

See the difference in the words?

Evolutionism.
Evolution.

Two separate things. Evolution should be taught, because it's a science, while Evolutionism is regarding a person believes about evolution which is a personal thing.

Yes, I will change the evolutionism into evolution. Thank you so much for enlightening the difference.
 
Top