Does evolution contradict creationism?

Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

[shubi]

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

[shubi]

cc:Negative. I am saying atheists have nothing to gain from a god if one exists. Not that people who believe in evolution. Personally I accept that however the universe was created, is secondary to the need of salvation. It does not matter if the creation was literal or figurative, it happened and must have happened.

Atheists have nothing to gain from god is a given.

"Not that people who believe in evolution", is incoherent.

I agree with your last thought, but know by the evidence for biological evolution that creation was not the literal nonsense espoused by the various classes of creationuts.

[conservative_crusader]

However, my point is, that the atheist would be in trouble if indeed there is a god, but if there is a god then the atheist's chances of reward are infinitely lower than the chances of a believer would be.

[balrog666]

Did he ever answer this question?

Indirectly, yes.

His answer was "abject ignorance and personal incredulity".

This is, of course, insufficient.

Grade: F

[conservative_crusader]

If there are laws that do not hold true before the BB took place, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction," is not one of them. In order for anything to happen there must be a cause. If ever there is a reaction without a reaction, not only is it a violation of this law, it is also a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

[Jehu]

I care about truth. I can assemble facts and still tell a lie. I can easily Google "alleles" I remember something from college: Here is the dictionary meaning:

Allele- Alternate forms of a gene which may be found at a given location (locus) on members of a homologous set of chromosomes. Structural variations between alleles may lead to different phenotypes for a given trait.

Once again I know dedicated priests of TOE will find all manner of the creation of new species in this...the latest in an ever changing stream of myopic focus on physiochemical process. It simply bores me.

I know there is variety of species. You can geographically isolate species and over time they will develop distinct traits, there is some plasticity within life. Look at dogs, which man has been breeding for thousands of years. But stop breeding for certain traits and within a few generations dogs will revert back to the wolf.

Evolutionists just carry the role of man (in isolating traits in dogs so you get all the different breeds...from Saint Bernard's....to Toy Poodles) to an indescribable physical force that not only produces various breeds...but creates whole new species. At least man represents a directing intelligence and has to work with what is already here just to get his toy poodle's.

But evolutionists give us a poorly explained hodgepodge of "forces?" without any objective intelligence that simply works by a happy conspiracy of physical laws and chance. A marvel that such an ignorant blind force could even create the dim intelligence of the proponents of TOE!

[conservative_crusader]

Good try, but I've proved over and over again that #2 must apply, whereas you and your surrogates, have yet to prove that evolution is even a significant idea.

And #5 is the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy. If it's not entirely stated you ought to know better than to debate a technicality.

[conservative_crusader]

""Not that people who believe in evolution", is incoherent."

Sorry about that, I think what I meant to say was: "Not that people who believe in evolution can't believe in God."

[Jehu]

On the other hand I am leery of voting into office any man that thinks his greatest accomplishment is to get a blowjob from the help.

I thought that would make as much sense as your reference to Noah.

[Jehu]

The fossil record and irreducible complexity are better evidence for special creation. The life sciences are the equivalent of the medieval church.

Priests that speak in unintelligible riddles and mumbo jumbo.

They both worship relics and bones.

They both built big huge nearly empty buildings to house their relics and propagate their religion.

They are both intolerantly of other views.

They both claim exclusive knowledge of the truth.

They both suckered the innocent into the order, only telling them of the problems once their lives are vested in preserving the order.

Speak ill of the doctrine and you are ridiculed, scorned and defrocked.

They both labor mightily to obscure the truth, all the while pretending to be the sole defenders of the truth.

The both cause men to become suspicious and hostile to God.

The comparisons are endless. Squawk, squawk, "evolution is a fact" "evolution is a fact!"

[shubi]

Noah was a reference to literalist nonsense they are attempting to use to argue against TOE.

[shubi]

Now, we are getting somewhere. Biological evolution is not a belief. It is a rational decision based on mountains of intertwining evidence that leads any honest person to see it as "scientific fact". It is reality.

Unless you can falsify the TOE, you cannot substitute the literal Bible interpretation or put a creator in the mix that is not in the TOE to begin with. So, your task is to falsify the biological theory of evolution. So far, your attempts have been largely philosophical, attacks on cosmology and physics. While these subjects have confirmed parts of the TOE, they are not in the TOE themselves.

No one has been able to falsify the TOE, since its inception. They have been able to get the TOE modified since Darwin proposed it, because that is how science works. As we learn more, we modify. However, Darwin was essentially correct in the main concept, that life has diverged from some single primary source, probably a unicellular organism.

If you want to say this primary organism was "designed" by God, there is no one to contradict you. However, that is an argument of abiogenesis which is not in the TOE. You also run the danger that if science discovers that abiogenesis did create the first life form, you are left without a god. This happened when the world was proved round, to those that asserted the Earth was designed flat.

[shubi]

Because you don't want to study the real TOE, or are unable to understand the science behind it; is not falsification of the fact of biological evolution.

Your position rivals the Flat Earth Society in embarrassing stubbornness.

[Safrguns]

On the 2000 year bible and literal interpretation post... I seriously doubt that you consider the bible to be the authoritative word of God. Therefore, using it to prove or disprove evolution is moot and useless, unless we could both agree upon it's origins. I seriously doubt the poster of this thread believes in it either, and is simply using the concept of creation from a christian perspective to generate a heated argument. On your second post to me... Perhaps you should learn something more about the Bible, if you intend on using it to support evolution. On your third post to me.... You just so happened to stumble into the very point i've been making all along. Tell me... is there ANYTHING you DONT understand? Is there or has there ever been any man or woman who understands everything? (omniscience) Is there any being in the universe more intelligent than man? At what point do you break away from what you know in order to accept what must be accepted by faith? If man is not intelligent enough to understand everything, then logic suggests that there must be SOME intelligent being who does, and is more than likely responsible for the creation of man. It is illogical for anyone to use a book they believe to be written by man to prove the existence of God. It is just as illogical for the same person to use the same book to prove or disprove arguments made by another man. It all boils down to who YOU consider to be the authority on the origins of life. If your authority is Darwin, then don't violate the very charges you bring against me by using incredulous arguments about God.