• 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!

Evolution vs Creationism?

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
HOW these things came about no one on earth knows. Again, there is no proof these organisms the bones came from evolved. From or to. Fossils do not prove evolution. They can show that a bone or bones were part of an organism which died.

An organism that lived and died. And, we can say *when* that organism lived and died. And we can then compare when it lived and died to when *other* organisms llived and died. We can then look at similarities over time and place to determine which organisms are related to which other organisms.

And *that* does say that populations of organisms change over time: and that is evolution.

A *single* fossil does not prove evolution. But the whole collection of fossils, along with genetics, does.
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
Why the hell is it even a debate/discussion*?

Isn't the simplest explanation and solution to this debate (for those of Creation slant) be that God or Gods created the universe AND evolution?

Nothing had to be created "as is", that's a ridiculous notion, considering none of us are the same person, we were yesterday. Everything and everyone is constantly changing.

Edited*

I understand what you refer to as creationism. But that's not universal.

In my perspective, evolution vs creationism is a false dichotomy.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I understand what you refer to as creationism. But that's not universal.

In my perspective, evolution vs creationism is a false dichotomy.


It's fairly standard in the EvC debate to have 'evolution' mean *biological evolution* and 'creationism' mean young Earth creationism. There is a very clear distinction between these views.

Old Earth creationism and evolutionary science have far fewer points of disagreement.

There is also the view, expressed in this thread, that includes any type of change over time under the term 'evolution'. So, we can talk about galactic evolution, or the evolution of planets. These are quite distinct from biological evolution and, while they can inform some of the EvC debate, they are not central from the scientific perspective.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
It's fairly standard in the EvC debate to have 'evolution' mean *biological evolution* and 'creationism' mean young Earth creationism. There is a very clear distinction between these views.

Old Earth creationism and evolutionary science have far fewer points of disagreement.

There is also the view, expressed in this thread, that includes any type of change over time under the term 'evolution'. So, we can talk about galactic evolution, or the evolution of planets. These are quite distinct from biological evolution and, while they can inform some of the EvC debate, they are not central from the scientific perspective.

Again, in my paradigm, its a false dichotomy.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Yeah. I very specifically explained about creationism. Not YEC.


Fair enough. It is certainly possible to consistently believe the universe was created, even directed, by an intelligence and still be consistent with science. It isn't what I believe, but it is at least potentially consistent.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Fair enough. It is certainly possible to consistently believe the universe was created, even directed, by an intelligence and still be consistent with science. It isn't what I believe, but it is at least potentially consistent.

I agree that you don't have to align with anyone's faith. All I gave was Poly, a whole wide world of creationism that is almost non-existent in some of the western polemics. That's all. Although, western scholars have studied and expounded on it for many many years. And this world existed way before what we would call "modern science" if there is such a thing. I am only shedding light. Not proselytising. Let's say 900 years ago, a school was opened in Morocco by a princess, and in it they taught the exact same thing. Their version of creationism is absolutely different to the YEC movement which was a flippant reaction to Darwin's advent and his fame. That was just one example.

Cheers.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There is nothing "good enough" about cheep semantic games.
What semantic games? Evolution refers to more than just biological evolution. Those were examples of it. Creationism is not just about biology, but earth creation. So to speak of evolution in terms of earth's creation is more than appropriate. Don't know what your gripe is.

When I am told that my use of the word evolution is wrong, I'll support it. Are those examples good enough, or do you need more? I'm surprised sometimes how some people don't understand things like this.

BTW, if I someone had said the Theory of Evolution, than that is about speciation. But that was not what we were talking about. Some may have assumed that, but I didn't, and for good reason.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What semantic games? Evolution refers to more than just biological evolution. Those were examples of it. Creationism is not just about biology, but earth creation. So to speak of evolution in terms of earth's creation is more than appropriate. Don't know what your gripe is. When I am told that my use of the word evolution is wrong, I'll support it. Are those examples good enough, or do you need more?
It was. Evolution without a qualifier refers to biological evolution. You are trying to equate a word that on its own has one meaning and when used with qualifiers has a very different meaning. Context matters.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It was. Evolution without a qualifier refers to biological evolution. You are trying to equate a word that on its own has one meaning and when used with qualifiers has a very different meaning. Context matters.
It does? The Theory of Evolution refers to biology, but not saying evolution by itself automatically by default means the ToE, and that alone. Evolution is a process. That is what evolution is. The term is defined by the context. If I am talking about the evolution of the cosmos, that is absolutely a correct usage.

Do you believe that Creationism is only concerned about biology? It's not. So the context covers cosmology as well when talking about evolution in response to Creationism. I don't automatically assume they are referring to speciation when speaking of evolution. Why should we?

BTW, what started this was this erroneous comment. "Evolution is not about the earth.". That is false. It is about the earth, as well as biology, as well as culture, as well as anything that evolves. That is a false statement to say it is not about the earth.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Really? How very enlightening --- NOT.

In a thread titled "Evolution vs Creationism?" the 'evolution' of flatbread from Greek plakous to Chicago-style Pizza it less than relevant.
What do you believe Creationism is about? Biology? It's not. So then evolution is a counter to Creationism when you speak about the evolution of the cosmos. No? I'm sorry you don't, but I sure do. Sorry that troubles you so.

BTW, I see biological evolution as just evolution doing biology.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You are certainly free to "see' whatever you find convenient.
What I find reasonable. Sorry you're married to one way of thinking in narrow corridors. I find that limiting. But suit yourself.

BTW, I noticed you ignored my pointing about Creationism. Seeing what is convenient for yourself there?
 
Top