Evolution vs Creationism?

[Windwalker]

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

Both are coming together to form more complex higher order systems through the process of evolution. Doesn't matter if the elements were star dust or chemicals. It's still the same process of evolving higher order systems from lesser order systems.

That's my point. I'm looking at it from an overall process of evolution itself, not the details of how in each case. They're all doing the same thing essentially, which is creating higher order systems from relative disorder, or simplier, less complex forms.

I'm looking at it all from a bird's eye, or in this case a "god's eye" view. It doesn't matter if it's cosmology, biology, or sociology, it's all the same process of evolution with their own respective elements, that creates these in greater, more adaptive ways.

 

[Windwalker]

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

Says who? First of all, my use of evolution is not the colloquial use of it. It's the standard use of it, used by all the branches of the sciences referring to everything from the evolution of the earth to cultural evolution. It's the 2nd definition of the word found in standard dictionaries, which is the process of change over time.

Unless it specifies the Theory of Evolution, which is about biology and speciation specifically, then context may be used. And as I've already pointed out, which you seem to ignore, Creationism is about all of it, not just biology. So the context of speaking of evolution as the process that created everything, including biology as well as the sun, the moon and the stars, is more than appropriate when contrasting evolution with Creationism, since creationism is about all of that.

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

No it's not. Can you show where Creationism is only about biology? References please?

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

Read the OP. I don't see that there. It clearly is open to everything that Creationists believe, which includes the formation of the universe, as well as biological life. Go read it again.

Again, my real point is, it is more than appropriate to speak about how everything is formed through evolution, when speaking to Creationists, as they believe none of the explanations of the scientific explanations for how things came to be, naturally, through evolution. Not sure why this is such a huge deal for you. Does it scare you to think of evolution as "the creator", or something?

 

[firedragon]

Says who? First of all, my use of evolution is not the colloquial use of it. It's the standard use of it, used by all the branches of the sciences referring to everything from the evolution of the earth to cultural evolution. It's the 2nd definition of the word found in standard dictionaries, which is the process of change over time.

Unless it specifies the Theory of Evolution, which is about biology and speciation specifically, then context may be used. And as I've already pointed out, which you seem to ignore, Creationism is about all of it, not just biology. So the context of speaking of evolution as the process that created everything, including biology as well as the sun, the moon and the stars, is more than appropriate when contrasting evolution with Creationism, since creationism is about all of that.


No it's not. Can you show where Creationism is only about biology? References please?


Read the OP. I don't see that there. It clearly is open to everything that Creationists believe, which includes the formation of the universe, as well as biological life. Go read it again.

Again, my real point is, it is more than appropriate to speak about how everything is formed through evolution, when speaking to Creationists, as they believe none of the explanations of the scientific explanations for how things came to be, naturally, through evolution. Not sure why this is such a huge deal for you. Does it scare you to think of evolution as "the creator", or something?

Okay. So you are using the word evolution in general to refer to everything. Fine. Thats your wish.

Nevertheless, your version of creationism is the YEC movement. I come from a completely different school of thought.

 

[Balthazzar]

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*

Even a xerox machine is required to take steps in forming an image. Paintings evolve as you paint as long as there's a painter still painting. I guess if the painters quit painting, the paintings will quit evolving, but then why would a painter just quit painting? Sometimes painters inspire other painters to paint. One painter replacing another painter will keep the paintings alive, but if the painters quit painting what will come of the paintings?

Levon - Elton John song

It's a good one

 

[Balthazzar]

You and I are a transitional species between what was and what will be. Everything living thing is a transition from one thing to another.
It's not like lining up crayons into a rainbow order. It's more like a rainbow where there is no clear distinction when red becomes orange and so on.

Transitional transfiguration of transitioning temporal species - Yup, that sounds about right. Do you remember your first breath? I don't. I don't remember not breathing either, but apparently I lived that way for about nine month's. Prior to that, I can't say I remember swimming, but I apparently swam pretty good before a single cell consumed me and my transitioning transfiguration processes began. Being born seems trivial in terms of evolution to some people, but I'm pretty sure that's the way of the universe and everything in it.

 

[Colt]

Its only a debate becuse

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*

Holy books inform beliefs. Holy men say the books that they wrote were written by God and to question the book is to question the God.

I believe that the same designer of life via evolution also designed the evolution of religion using fear as both a preservative and a brake system. Evolved religion was the scaffolding for revealed religion.

"Evolution unerringly achieves its end: It imbues man with that superstitious fear of the unknown and dread of the unseen which is the scaffolding for the God concept. And having witnessed the birth of an advanced comprehension of Deity, through the co-ordinate action of revelation, this same technique of evolution then unerringly sets in motion those forces of thought which will inexorably obliterate the scaffolding, which has served its purpose." Urantia Book 1955

 

[Messianic Israelite]

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*

If evolution happened, then death existed for a billion years before man evolved. Death would not be a consequence of Adam’s sin; Adam’s sin would simply be a fiction, believed only by “literalists.” And if sin is a fiction, we don’t need a Savior! (Also, if there is no such thing as sin—or a Creator—there are no moral absolutes.) There is no way that a Yahweh would wait billions of years for mankind to evolve. It's sadistic. It's ridiculous and it's going to destroy your faith by adhering to such a view. Why not believe in the Bible? You can't have it both ways, that is, simultaneously believe in the Bible yet also believe in the theory of evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If evolution happened, then death existed for a billion years before man evolved. Death would not be a consequence of Adam’s sin; Adam’s sin would simply be a fiction, believed only by “literalists.” And if sin is a fiction, we don’t need a Savior! (Also, if there is no such thing as sin—or a Creator—there are no moral absolutes.) There is no way that a Yahweh would wait billions of years for mankind to evolve. It's sadistic. It's ridiculous and it's going to destroy your faith by adhering to such a view. Why not believe in the Bible? You can't have it both ways, that is, simultaneously believe in the Bible yet also believe in the theory of evolution.

The better question is, why should anybody believe what the Bible says? And why take the Bible literally?

There are good reasons to go with the scientific consensus and that is .... EVIDENCE.

And of course you can believe in the Bible and still accept the theory of evolution. Lots of religious-minded people do just that and have no problem with the idea that the God they worship is intelligent enough to have created evolution.