Evolution vs Creationism?

[Windwalker]

It is not thinking in narrow corridors. It is understanding context.

Is Creationism about biology only? Yes, or no? The Context is Creationism, isn't it?

So, evolution in that context, refers to more than just biology. I sure does in my mind. You don't see that the earth evolved through natural processes pertains??

How many times have you heard Creationists talking about evolution, and they are referring to the Big Bang? I do all the time. I can't imagine you've never heard that yourself. So frankly this who dispute seems a bit ridiculous to me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is Creationism about biology only? Yes, or no? The Context is Creationism, isn't it?

Unless, of course, one is talking about creating pizza (or a good Chianti).

 

[Windwalker]

Unless, of course, one is talking about creating pizza (or a good Chianti).

I see you ignored the question again. That's fine. You've made my point for me.

 

[Audie]

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.

The false is your equivocation fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is Creationism about biology only? Yes, or no? The Context is Creationism, isn't it?

So, evolution in that context, refers to more than just biology. I sure does in my mind. You don't see that the earth evolved through natural processes pertains??

How many times have you heard Creationists talking about evolution, and they are referring to the Big Bang? I do all the time. I can't imagine you've never heard that yourself. So frankly this who dispute seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Are you arguing that since some incredibly dishonest creationists use this argument that it is a valid one? I do like to think a bit better about my fellow interlocutors than that.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm sorry, you are wrong:

The Evolution of the Universe

Cosmic Evolution

Earth's Evolution: Continental Crust as Historical Record | AMNH.

Evolution of Plate Tectonics

evolution of the atmosphere | History, Composition, Changes, & Facts

Cultural Evolutionary Theory

Social evolution - Wikipedia​

Good enough?

The term evolution is often used to designate that something goes through several stages in sequence in its change.

The the EvC debate, though, it is usually specifically biological evolution, although because of the belief that the universe is young, other sciences also are attacked.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

the problem, of course, is that biological evolution has very little to do with stellar evolution or cosmic evolution or the evolution of the Earth or atmospheric evolution.

All that evolution in the more general context means is 'change'. And yes, things change over time, sometimes dramatically.

But the problem Creationists generally have is with an old Earth or universe and that humans are related to other apes. Because they reject the age, they also reject radioactive dating, geology, much of astrophysics, and cosmology. Because they reject that humans are related to animals, they reject most of biology and anything related to change of species over time.

 

[firedragon]

I'm sorry, you are wrong:

The Evolution of the Universe

Cosmic Evolution

Earth's Evolution: Continental Crust as Historical Record | AMNH.

Evolution of Plate Tectonics

evolution of the atmosphere | History, Composition, Changes, & Facts

Cultural Evolutionary Theory

Social evolution - Wikipedia​

Good enough?

Mate. The theory of evolution is not about the earth, universe, mountains, or anything of the sort. It is biology.

People use the word evolution for all kinds of things. That is not the theory of evolution.

But if you are using it like this, that's fine.

 

[YoursTrue]

And so, for example, once a star forms, it can undergo change because of how it uses up its fuel over time. That is called stellar evolution (as opposed to biological evolution).

Once you have a living thing, the next generation will be a little bit different. And the generation after that will be a little different still. And there will be variations because of different environments. So, over the generations, those small differences add up and we get different species in different places, all descended from that one original species. And, of course, each of those also changes slightly from one generation to the next.

We actually see these small changes in the lab. We see the development of different species, still closely similar to the original. But there is no 'species barrier' that prevents changes from adding up over the generation.

And that is why large scale changes can happen: small changes adding up over time *are* large changes.

How stars and planets were formed in detail is, I believe, beyond the knowledge or recognition of any scientist. Now I go back to my teen questioning years and ask, how was something "always there," such as the material that provided the "Big Bang?" How was something always there? So the mystery goes on. It just doesn't make sense to say that nobody created the material that caused what scientists think is the Big Bang. Nobody made God. HE was always there. Do I comprehend this in my obviously finite and limited mind? No, I do not. Yet something like the material that caused the Big Bang is supposed to have come from??? ???? nothing? Something which always existed? ???

 

[YoursTrue]

the problem, of course, is that biological evolution has very little to do with stellar evolution or cosmic evolution or the evolution of the Earth or atmospheric evolution.

All that evolution in the more general context means is 'change'. And yes, things change over time, sometimes dramatically.

But the problem Creationists generally have is with an old Earth or universe and that humans are related to other apes. Because they reject the age, they also reject radioactive dating, geology, much of astrophysics, and cosmology. Because they reject that humans are related to animals, they reject most of biology and anything related to change of species over time.

As far as relation goes, it is said in the Bible that the first man came from the dust (soil) and would go back to the dust. Soil has many elements. Gorillas go back to dust after a while too. So do beetles. So again -- how God did it is not something I believe anyone can find out no matter how brilliant he may be. But to say that Adam came from the dust is not unfeasible as a person may understand it.
Before I studied the Bible and see such wonderful things and thoughts, I left all forms of religion. But then things happened but each one can find out for himself.

 

[Windwalker]

Are you arguing that since some incredibly dishonest creationists use this argument that it is a valid one? I do like to think a bit better about my fellow interlocutors than that.

I've heard countless creationists speak of denying evolution, while talking about the age of the universe, the Big Bang, and whatnot. As I've said, while they are particularly bothered by the idea of biological evolution, that is not the sole area of disagreement about evolution from creationists. They oppose all forms of science, all forms of natural evolution in regards to all things that challenge their ideas of spontanous, supernatural creation. I've provided links showing just that.

I'll leave it at this: Creationism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"Here, Creationism means the taking of the Bible, particularly the early chapters of Genesis, as literally true guides to the history of the universe and to the history of life, including us humans, down here on earth (Numbers 1992).

Creationism in this more restricted sense entails a number of beliefs. These include, first, that a short time has elapsed since the beginning of everything. ‘Young Earth Creationists’ think that Archbishop Ussher’s seventeenth-century calculation of about 6000 years is a good estimate. Second, that there are six days of creation – there is debate on the meaning of ‘day’ in this context, with some insisting on a literal twenty-four hours, and others more flexible. Third, that there was a miraculous creation of all life including Homo sapiens...."
​

There are of course other citations I can provide. And as I said, no, when I hear Creationism versus Evolution, I am not restricting that to just biology. As you can see, that is not what Creationism is limited to. They reject all evolution as the cause of everything, as the article says, as my countless experiences with creationists have shown, etc. You may have have limited it to biology, but they don't, and I don't, and that article doesn't. Take it or leave it.

But the real thing here is this. I feel it is more than appropriate to speak of evolution and what it is as a process to creationists, as it's not just about biology, but about all of creation itself, biology is just another example of how it does what it does. Surely, you can't disagree with that can you? So why not focus in on the process itself, rather than quibbling about 'transitional fossils' and whatnot? That's what I'm proposing, and doing. You see an issue with this for some reason? I really don't get it.

 

[Windwalker]

the problem, of course, is that biological evolution has very little to do with stellar evolution or cosmic evolution or the evolution of the Earth or atmospheric evolution.

It doesn't? Isn't it all creation through the same process? Isn't it all about formation of higher orders, and greater complexities?

But the problem Creationists generally have is with an old Earth or universe and that humans are related to other apes. Because they reject the age, they also reject radioactive dating, geology, much of astrophysics, and cosmology. Because they reject that humans are related to animals, they reject most of biology and anything related to change of species over time.

I don't think it's because they are worried it lends credence to the ToE to accept the methodologies. I think it's because it strips away the supernatural in their minds, because they read Genesis literally. They see it as all supernatural magic, and stars exploding, and causing dust, forming planets, and cooling carbon rises to the surface to form the bodies of biological life and whatnot, is not "poof", magical creation myths enough for them.

It means it happened naturally, and that's not magical to them. Their imaginations aren't inspired by such dry data as that, which is a failure of their faith, in my opinion. They reject all of it, for that reason, not because they are worried it means we might have evolved from apes. It's the whole idea of modernity in general, because it "demythologizes" their narrative structures.

That's much more of a finer point on it. If we were created by evolution, if all of it, the planet and everything was just an "accident", just like our biologies, then we aren't really all that special anymore. We're not created by God as his special creation, in their reasoning. None of that is real anymore, they fear. That's the crux of the deal right there.

That's also why I try to point out that that's faulty thinking about evolution. How is all of it not incredibly inspiring in and of itself? And if this isn't about Creationism versus Evolution, I don't know what else really is! But suit yourself if you disagree with all of this. I'm satisfied it is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The topic is talking about Creationism vs. Evolution.

Yes. And in that "debate", evolution is the biological theory. Not the colloguial use of the word, but the scientific theory.

Creationism believes the earth was magically created, instead of formed out the dust of exploded stars.

In the creationism vs evolution "debate", it is specifically about the origins of species. Homo Sapiens in particular.

Yes I am. The same process that created the earth, created biological life.

No.

The topic is neither the origin of planets nor the origins of life.
It is the origin of species.

Are you simply going to keep on denying this?
If you are, please say so... then I can just ignore this intellectually dishonest charade.

Creationism is about all of it, not just Adam and Eve.

In the topic of creationism vs evolution, it is not.


The earth is 6000 years old, and not 4.5 billion years, you know that argument of Creationists, don't you?

It's not?? The Evolution of the Universe

Our understanding of the genesis and evolution of the universe is one of the great achievements of 20th-century science. This knowledge comes from decades of innovative experiments and theories. Modern telescopes on the ground and in space detect the light from galaxies billions of light-years away, showing us what the universe looked like when it was young. Particle accelerators probe the basic physics of the high-energy environment of the early universe. Satellites detect the cosmic background radiation left over from the early stages of expansion, providing an image of the universe on the largest scales we can observe.​

That's the title of an article.
Not the name of a scientific theory.



Again, we are not talking about colloquial use of the word "evolution".
The "debate" of creationism vs evolution, is specifically about the origins of species.
Not about the "evolution" of soccer or tennis.

"Not even a thing", you say? Do you not understand what evolution actually is?

In the context of this OP - yes.
It's you who seems confused.

No it's not. The OP says Evolution vs. Creationism. That means everything, not just biology.

It does not.

Simple Google search yields some easy info: Cosmic Evolution

Cosmic evolution is the study of many varied changes on a universal scale, a subject that seeks to synthesize the reductionistic posture of specialized science with a holistic view of systems science. It is a story about the awe and majesty of twirling galaxies and shining stars, of redwood trees and buzzing bees, of a Universe that has come to know itself. But it is also a story about our human selves--our origin, our existence, and perhaps our destiny.​

Again, that's a topic. Not a theory.
Evolution theory is a theory that deals with the origins of species.
Cosmological theories are theories like big bang theory etc.

You seem to have great difficulty grasping the difference between colloquial use of english words vs scientific terms.

Correct. You have no idea what I'm talking about, because you have no idea what you are talking about. Hopefully now with this new knowledge you were unaware of for you, if you reread my posts you might understand them and offer a more appropriate response.

No need.
I can only repeat myself.

The creationism vs evolution thingy, is specifically about biological evolution theory.

Creationism is about God creating everything, including the cosmos, versus evolution creating them, or "natural processes", which is precisely what evolution is.

Evolution, in that context, is a SINGLE natural process. That process dealing with how species change over time.

That is what this topic is in fact about.

It is not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

So how do you explain that paleontologists were able to find a fossil like Tiktaalik by prediction?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no proof or realistic evidence that fish evolved to tetrapods and then to humans.

That can only be the result of honest ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

And considering the many many many many times people have provided you with said evidence, yours truly included, only one of those 2 options remain.

"The first tetrapods are four-legged, air-breathing, terrestrial animals from which the land vertebrates descended, including humans." Evolution of fish - Wikipedia
(I no longer believe that. I used to.)

Regardless of your beliefs or lack thereof, Tiktaalik was still found by evolutionary prediction.
If that's not evidence in your opinion, then I can only conclude that you have no idea what evidence actually is.

 

[Polymath257]

How stars and planets were formed in detail is, I believe, beyond the knowledge or recognition of any scientist.

I guess that depends on exactly how much detail you want. We can see stars and planets in the process of forming right now. Our instruments don't give perfect detail, but we can actually see a lot.

Now I go back to my teen questioning years and ask, how was something "always there," such as the material that provided the "Big Bang?" How was something always there? So the mystery goes on.

Why do you think any scientist says something was 'always there'? Why do you think that the science says there was anything before the Big Bang?

And, do you realize that *everything* before the period of nucleosynthesis in the Big Bang is speculation at this point?

It just doesn't make sense to say that nobody created the material that caused what scientists think is the Big Bang. Nobody made God. HE was always there.

it looks to me like this has exactly the same problem as above: how is it possible for God to 'always be there'? What is so different about God that it is OK for God to 'always be there', but not 'materials' (which would be much simpler)?

And why does a *somebody* have to make things? Consciousness is a very complicated process that requires a LOT of underlying materials. So to postulate a conscious being seems to me to say you have a LOT of other things prior to that being.

Do I comprehend this in my obviously finite and limited mind? No, I do not. Yet something like the material that caused the Big Bang is supposed to have come from??? ???? nothing? Something which always existed? ???

Whatever you imaging about God in your system, just replace it by 'materials' in the scientific system and ask the same question. if it is OK for God to come from nothing, why is it not OK for 'materials' to come from nothing? if it is OK for God to always exist, why it is not OK for 'materials' to always exist? And, because God would have to be very complicated to have thoughts and desires and abilities, to postulate a God is even more unlikely than to postulate whatever materials that make up God, right?

 

[Polymath257]

As far as relation goes, it is said in the Bible that the first man came from the dust (soil) and would go back to the dust. Soil has many elements.

And where did those leements come from?

Gorillas go back to dust after a while too. So do beetles. So again -- how God did it is not something I believe anyone can find out no matter how brilliant he may be. But to say that Adam came from the dust is not unfeasible as a person may understand it.

It becomes more unfeasible when you look at exactly what is in dust and compare it to what is in living things like humans.

And I *do* think we can figure out how things happen. We don't have to take old ideas on faith, but we can test them and modify them and learn new things.

Before I studied the Bible and see such wonderful things and thoughts, I left all forms of religion. But then things happened but each one can find out for himself.

 

[Polymath257]

It doesn't? Isn't it all creation through the same process? Isn't it all about formation of higher orders, and greater complexities?

In a word, no. There are many different processes all depending on the time scale and materials involved.

I don't think it's because they are worried it lends credence to the ToE to accept the methodologies. I think it's because it strips away the supernatural in their minds, because they read Genesis literally. They see it as all supernatural magic, and stars exploding, and causing dust, forming planets, and cooling carbon rises to the surface to form the bodies of biological life and whatnot, is not "poof", magical creation myths enough for them.

It means it happened naturally, and that's not magical to them. Their imaginations aren't inspired by such dry data as that, which is a failure of their faith, in my opinion. They reject all of it, for that reason, not because they are worried it means we might have evolved from apes. It's the whole idea of modernity in general, because it "demythologizes" their narrative structures.

That's much more of a finer point on it. If we were created by evolution, if all of it, the planet and everything was just an "accident", just like our biologies, then we aren't really all that special anymore. We're not created by God as his special creation, in their reasoning. None of that is real anymore, they fear. That's the crux of the deal right there.

That's also why I try to point out that that's faulty thinking about evolution. How is all of it not incredibly inspiring in and of itself? And if this isn't about Creationism versus Evolution, I don't know what else really is! But suit yourself if you disagree with all of this. I'm satisfied it is.

I tend to agree here. Creationism is based on the desire to feel special. Science is based on the idea of finding the truth even if it hurts our egos.

But yes, to say it is all an 'accident' seems to miss the point of just how majestic it all is.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes I am. The same process that created the earth, created biological life.

Not even close. the Earth was formed by collisions and gravity. Life was formed by chemistry.

The processes are not the same by a LONG shot. In fact, I have a hard time understanding why you see them as the same.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How stars and planets were formed in detail is, I believe, beyond the knowledge or recognition of any scientist. Now I go back to my teen questioning years and ask, how was something "always there," such as the material that provided the "Big Bang?" How was something always there? So the mystery goes on. It just doesn't make sense to say that nobody created the material that caused what scientists think is the Big Bang. Nobody made God. HE was always there. Do I comprehend this in my obviously finite and limited mind? No, I do not. Yet something like the material that caused the Big Bang is supposed to have come from??? ???? nothing? Something which always existed? ???

This post doesn't make much sense. You question how it's possible that "something was always there," as though it's impossible.
Then like, a sentence later you claim that God "was always there."