I believe in Creation ...and Evolution

[michel]

call me a dreamer, call me a (introduce bad word), call me what you will but I think that Evolution and Creation can go hand in hand. I mean, why can't our Creator (whoever he may be ) have created the amiba or paramecium first? and then we could have evolved into what we are today. You first need the seed to grow the plant. Why are we so egotistical as to believe that He created us as we are today? He just planted the seed and let mother nature (Evolution) do the rest.

If you're a dreamer, then so am I - there's no need for you to 'tiptoe' about your beliefs; if you 'feel' that something is right then it probably is, for you. As you can see from the response, you're not the only one.

 

[Lady Crimson]

to robtex: I cannot call it just mind, because it is mind and soul all in one. they don't rule separatly, but share the power. they are not two brothers that bicker on what each other is doing but try, as best as they can, to command correctly and in the best order they can. do not separate them in your thought and do not love one more than the other. That is what leads two brothers to bicker in the first place.

 

[Samloyal23]

It is intellectually "lazy" to just accept that God created the world without exploring the real way in which the world was created. The answer to "who?" is God. The answer to "how?" and "why?", that takes effort to comprehend, and many people do not stretch beyond blindly reading the Bible as a literal, scientific account, which it clearly is not. The Bible is poetry and metaphor used to describe true ideas and principles, it not a verbatim account of Creation...

 

[Scuba Pete]

Samloyal,

Why is it lazy? Not everyone has the same interests in biology/evolution as you. There are TONS of concepts to explore INCLUDING personal spiritualiy. Don't make the mistake of assigning attributes to people just because they disagree with you as to what is important in life.

BTW,

I completely agree with Deut's last statement... Evolution does not seem to indicate the origins of our "soul" or our beliefs in a higher power.

 

[SarahBeara]

call me a dreamer, call me a (introduce bad word), call me what you will but I think that Evolution and Creation can go hand in hand. I mean, why can't our Creator (whoever he may be ) have created the amiba or paramecium first? and then we could have evolved into what we are today. You first need the seed to grow the plant. Why are we so egotistical as to believe that He created us as we are today? He just planted the seed and let mother nature (Evolution) do the rest.

I also believe in both evolution and creationism. I don't think that evolution could have been possible without God, and I think there's too much proof of evolution to deny it's existance. I therefore believe in both.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I also believe in both evolution and creationism.

So, you apparently believe either ...

• some supernatural deity kick-started nature with little if any concern about the results, rendering homo sapiens a random and fortuitous quirk, or
• some supernatural deity, intending to create homo sapiens, created a mechanism requiring some 3.9 billion years of seemingly random sifting and experimentation, involving at least 6 major mass extinctions (not including the Biblical biocide), all played out in a universe which is overwhelmingly hostile to life.

What a kidder!

 

[painted wolf]

I personally tend to lean closer to A.

Or perhaps God is the process. I personally try not to fuss over it too much, I just try to be thankful that it happined. If I'm thankful for a random quirk then I'm thankful for a random quirk.

Personally evolution/evolutionary theory has always facinated me. So much debate over such a simple idea. I wonder if they realy fought this much about the shape of the Earth and its position in the Univerce

wa:do

 

[Tawn]

I completely agree with Deut's last statement... Evolution does not seem to indicate the origins of our "soul" or our beliefs in a higher power.

No not exactly. Although Evolution (as a concept applied to other non-biological things) combined with Anthropology can provide a framework for explaining how these beliefs might have come about (assuming an Atheistic stance).
Evolution can fill in a few gaps - for instance, why do we fear things we dont understand? Why do we react to certain stimuli in certain ways? These can build up a picture to explain why we believe in things like God..

 

[Scuba Pete]

Like you Deut,

I have no idea HOW it got started.

Unlike you,

I am pretty sure who actually started it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Like you Deut, I have no idea HOW it got started.
Unlike you, I am pretty sure who actually started it.

As are the followers of every religion dissimilar to yours.

 

[spoken4]

LC, I too think that one day we will see that Evolution and Creation by a deity (whatever deity that maybe, and in my limited knowledge nearly all belief systems have some version of a creation) go hand in hand. I have spent several years in my life trying to find a logical way to incorporate these two theories, but I don't know enough about either to do so. But I remember the first time my science class looked at the periodic table, and I can distinctly remember thinking how incredible it was that all those pieces fit together so well and how hard it was for me to belief that there was no higher power to do that. However, I'm no scientist so I don't if they have come up with an explanation for the intricacy of such things as periodical tables. But at the time of my high school freshman biology class, they had not. I am amazed that there is a God out there big enough to have planned out our universe. . .

 

[Yerda]

I have spent several years in my life trying to find a logical way to incorporate these two theories, but I don't know enough about either to do so.

Did you try reading?

I'm no scientist so I don't if they have come up with an explanation for the intricacy of such things as periodical tables. But at the time of my high school freshman biology class, they had not.

I am rather confused. You're talking about the periodic table of elements?

 

[Passerbye]

What I am wondering is why would you want to combine them. They work by themselves. Combining them confuses everything. Either we were made separately in six days, each animal by it's own kind, or we evolved over millions of years, all from bacteria. Either all the fossils are from millions of years of carnage or they are a result of the flood where only Noah and the animals with him were saved. Either the continents separated over billions of years or they happened from the great pressures of the flood. Either there have been many Ice Ages over millions of years or there was one after the flood when only Noah was saved. Forget all the things taught in biology class over the years, most of them have been discredited by now. Forget all the things about people going through animal stages before they are born. Forget about carbon dating and other dating methods, they are not objective and many different results come from the same piece of matter. Either we came from bacterial sludge or from God and all data points to it. If this sounds harsh or judgmental I am sorry. I don't mean to judge. But they cannot mix. It's sludge or God. Who is your creator? Who is your judge? The Great and Mighty Bacterial Sludge, or The Almighty God?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Forget all the things taught in biology class over the years, most of them have been discredited by now. Forget all the things about people going threw animal stages before they are born. Forget about carbon dating and other dating methods, they are not objective and many different results come from the same piece of matter.

Yeah! Forget about all of the empirical evidence favoring natural selection and abiogenesis! Forget about analogous structures and allopatric speciation! Forget about the reproducible laboratory experiments that validated everything in those textbooks! Forget about common reason and information gathered from observation! Forget about the scientific method and standard problem solving techniques! Most importantly, forget about the fact that there is no evidence for creationism or a "Great Initial Mover", and there never will be.

 

[Passerbye]

Natural selection has never been recorded to produce more advanced DNA data, only to get rid of data that is useless or hinders the creature. Abiogenesis has never been proven in the lab that I know of. Not reproduced, or observed, only hypothesized about. The information I was speaking of in text books is the data that states that when a baby is still in it's first few stages of development it goes through a fish stage, reptile stage... and so on. However there is other data that is in schools these days that is incorrect, has been stated as incorrect, and is still in classrooms for some reason. Maybe because the school doesn't want to replace the books. The scientific method I have no problem with, nor common reason and gathered information. I have a problem with speculation and "jumping to conclusions". Such as I always learned in school that an electron orbited around the center of an atom like a planet around the sun, even though it was disproved before I was born. I think it was before 87. Not sure. Anyway, just to let you know, there is evidence for creationism and a young earth. For one people have found dinosaur bones with red blood cells in them. How does that fit into evolution? Didn't they die out before man? Why would there be red blood cells in a dino bone?

 

[Passerbye]

PS: You can get to the information by going to: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0325rbcs.asp
It has the information on the dino bone blood cells. This is a later article on it. The first article on it is this:
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp

 

[painted wolf]

bood cells can be preserved just as anything elce can :banghead3:

There is ample evidence of mutation adding new information and new DNA.
DNA is added in other means as well...
Viruses add DNA when the attack the body (thier own as well as DNA picked up from previous hosts)
Bacteria add new DNA to themselves quite often in a process known as Lateral Gene Transfer.

by the way can you please give me a definition of the term 'kind'?
I've always wanted to know what a 'kind' is.

wa:do

 

[Yerda]

The information I was speaking of in text books is the data that states that when a baby is still in it's first few stages of development it goes threw a fish stage, reptile stage... and so on. However there is other data that is in schools these days that is incorrect, has been stated as incorrect, and is still in classrooms for some reason.

PW, do you know anything about evo-devo being discredited? As far as I was aware books, studies, theories are still being published on it.

 

[painted wolf]

the embryonic development illustration is frankly grossly over simplified IMHO.
Not nessisarily useless, but trying to sum up a complex idea in one picture is bound to be trublesome.

Sadly for some reason primary schools in the USA are scared to go into such theories in any real depth... I wonder why?

Evolution itself is a wonderfully active field... only growing more so with the development of modern DNA anlysis.
Its a good time to be a Evolutionary scientist. :jiggy:

wa:do

 

[Passerbye]

Lateral gene transfer is between bacteria and other bacteria in order to share information. It is no different than a person talking to another person, sharing information. Only bacteria adapts after talking to each other. This is how they get more complex. If one bacterium knows more than the other and they come into contact they can share and not die. Lateral gene transfer can only share information that already exists, not make more. If for some reason bacterial DNA gets damaged it can talk to some other bacteria and repair itself, or if it can't survive something and something else can it can talk to it and find out how. No new information is made, just shared. I would like it if you would tell me the location of the article on adding DNA through mutation. It sounds intriguing.
Oh, and blood cannot be preserved for 65 million years. I have heard no theories on how it could have stayed the way it was. If you have I would like to know. Be a good little bacterium and share.
Here is another twist, no bridges have been found between the basic kinds, such as birds and reptiles or mammals. Darwin said he expected them to be in every rock layer. None have been found. They did say they found a bird reptile but that was discredited. They said they found proof it had feathers but it didn't and is now presumed it was a digging dinosaur like a mole.

You wanted the definition of kind:
kind1 (kīnd)

adj., kind·er, kind·est.

1. Of a friendly, generous, or warm-hearted nature.
2. Showing sympathy or understanding; charitable: a kind word.
3. Humane; considerate: kind to animals.
4. Forbearing; tolerant: Our neighbor was very kind about the window we broke.
5. Generous; liberal: kind words of praise.
6. Agreeable; beneficial: a dry climate kind to asthmatics.

[Middle English, natural, kind, from Old English gecynde, natural.]

SYNONYMS kind, kindly, kindhearted, benign, benevolent. These adjectives mean having or showing a tender, considerate, and helping nature. Kind and kindly are the least specific: thanked her for her kind letter; a kindly gentleman. Kindhearted especially suggests an innately kind disposition: a kindhearted teacher. Benign implies gentleness and mildness: benign intentions; a benign sovereign. Benevolent suggests charitableness and a desire to promote the welfare or happiness of others: a benevolent contributor.


kind2 (kīnd)

n.

1. A group of individuals linked by traits held in common.
2. A particular variety; a sort: What kind of soap do you like best?
3. Fundamental, underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.
4. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category: fashioned a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color.
5. Archaic. Manner.

idioms:


all kinds of Informal.

1. Plenty of; ample: We have all kinds of time to finish the job.

in kind

1. With produce or commodities rather than with money: pay in kind.
2. In the same manner or with an equivalent: returned the slight in kind.

kind of Informal.

1. Rather; somewhat: I'm kind of hungry.

of a kind

1. Of the same kind; alike: My father and my uncle are two of a kind.

[Middle English, from Old English gecynd, race, offspring, kind.]