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.

[kipita]

I wouldn't hold your breath. The search space is large and our search-range is tiny. SETI can only find intelligent life and the evolutionary evidence is not strong that our kind of high-intelligence is particularly successful. We've been around for an eyeblink in evolutionary terms and already we're in danger of destroying our planet (and no, I'm not a tree-hugger, just a realist).

I don't think the current version of SETI will find much either, it's like looking into a bucket of sand along the 6 mile beach.

Evolution is not controversial at all in mainstream science. The argument inside science (ie amongst the people who spend their lives studying this) ended over a hundred years ago. Starting processes (abiogenesis) still attract some debate within science because we haven't yet fully explained how they could have happened. Most of that debate is about possible mechanisms rather than Behe style "throw your hands in the air and declare God did it"

I tend to agree with the statement that the "continual alteration of life into more efficient/adaptable/complex life forms" is not controversial at all in mainstream science. The Abiogenesis argument is where I disagree. Personally, I think the intellectual, Jesus, was attempting to explain life, compassion, and a higher existence to simple people. But in the end, they choose a common criminal. Sadly, I think the same would happen today. Being a simple guy, I can't understand the complexity of God. However, I try to follow the understanding, compassion and higher intellectual existence advice Jesus spoke of and live accordingly.

[kipita]

PP: There are many ex-christians that are now atheists. Does that convince you to become an atheist?

Simply because there are converts is not an argument.

No it's what said in the article that makes the argument. My beliefs are meaningless.

PP: What ORDER is that? How do we know it is unique? What does a ball rolling uphill have to do with evolution? I saw that analogy in one of your previous posts and found it unsatisfying. I'll dissect it later when I have more time.

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

Now that's what I call a good dose of ORDER. Balls can only roll up hill via unknown forces. I don't know what forces can do that but there must be some force we simply cannot explain.

[shubi]

But no other gods exist except the real God, so whatever you decided to call it would be ok with God I am sure.

What would you like to call it? Barbi?

[shubi]

The force that does it comes from the Sun. Doh! LOL

[shubi]

Balls?

[kipita]

I'll assume you're joking.

[shubi]

Sort of, but life exists on Earth because of the input of the Sun's energy. For some reason, creationists forget about that input when they propose unknown forces for life changing over time, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics nonsense or whatever.

I think if the creationists keep going, they might start to worship the Sun, like their forefathers did.

[kipita]

I think Abiogenesis scientist would say life started on Earth due to the Earth's core and Evolutionist would say it increases ORDER due to the Sun's energy. As I said earlier, I tend to agree with the latter statement. With 29 of the 30 or so wars around Earth being fought on behalf of God(s) and beliefs, to have a unifying Sun God to worship may not be a bad idea.

[Jehu]

You have claimed to be a believer, yet what part of the Bible do you actually believe? The copyright? Noah was real, the flood a real event. Know this, every single culture on the earth has a flood tradition, every single one! There is also only one celebration that is universal to humanity, and that is what we celebrate as Halloween. About death.

Both indicate that at sometime in the past humanity had a universal experience that was so traumatic it was impressed upon a small population to be carried on to every family, group, tongue and tribe. Only Noah's flood would account for such a universal tradition.

Once again the Biblical account is justified, and your ignorance and unbelief is exposed. Tell me was the flood all over the earth, or just in the location where the human race existed? Even we have a saying, (I did in Vietnam) where we would say to one another, "I can't wait to get back to THE WORLD!" Meaning back to America. You have no way of knowing if the flood covered the entire earth or just the portion that humanity inhabited.

As for the animals on the Ark how many species would have to be on the Ark? Certainly most insects would survive, most birds could fly away. No fish would have to be preserved. Bet it adds up that a ship the size of the Ark would work quite well.

[shubi]

If the flood only covered part of the Earth it would not have killed everything and it would have been unnecessary to make Noah go to all the trouble. LOL

I love it when they do stuff like this. Trying to bully someone into a silly interpretation is foolish.

[Thatcherite]

The literal biblical story of the flood is quite clear. Every living thing except those carried on the ark was killed. Most biblical literalists accept this.

So you need space for amongst other things at least 2,000,000 species of insects along with all their food for the story to be true. Your comment about the fish.... LOL was the flood saline or not? If it was saline the land would be killed for generations so the disemb-ark-ers would have nothing to live off. If it was not saline then Noah would have to provide for all salt-water fish including those that need enormous pressures to survive. What on earth did all the predators live off after the disembarkation? sea weed?

Even now with our modern understanding of nautical engineering a 450ft wooden boat would not work. It would break apart in a light swell.

Who built this boat? Such an undertaking would require hundreds of people to be tricked into helping only to be left behind and drowned.

Even without the insects and fish 8 people to look after all the animals, feed them, muck them out, exercise them (all through a single hole about 2 ft across, the bible states that the ark was otherwise completely sealed). Yeah, right. A true story. I've got a bridge for sale, interested?

[kipita]

If the flood only covered part of the Earth it would not have killed everything and it would have been unnecessary to make Noah go to all the trouble. LOL

Actually, if you think a bit and read scripture, the flood was probably the Black Sea (as the glaciers in Europe melted) and building an ark was probably the best thing to do to preserve the culture and the livestock.

And one last thing, primitive cultures around the globe worshiped the Sun God centuries ago and the world was relatively united in worshiping what gave life. The ancient virgin Mary was a "Rubinest(sp?)" woman with the testicles of bulls wrapped around her body. Things changed when men stopped hunting animals and started taking control. Now, people worship different flavors of Male Gods and kill each other based of those flavors. Supposedly, it's the Male human’s interpretation of God that is the driver. If you go to any city within the States and read through the local yellow pages, there are many twists of the different flavors of God. Moreover, there is competition for new recruits. All this is a perfect example of Entropy, maximum disorder. This makes the forces that drive modern mankind equal to the forces that drive the universe.

[conservative_crusader]

You're saying that my argument fell because of something you assume... Are you aware of what happens when you assume that matter can be created during inflation. I'll let you know this much you're making a "this" out of you and me.

"Where does the force come from? "

This is a simple enough answer. The only place a force could from is a force that exists outside the scope of the universe. That force is the god, or in my personal belief "God," that I have been writing of.


Seriously PP I appreciate your input, but I think you're assuming way to much in your arguments. I assume Laws that are canonically accepted, and you begin assuming theories that have yet to be witnessed in action. I am certain that if at some juncture we find matter being created, that is definitely a possible reason behind it, but as of now we have yet to witness the creation of matter. Therefore you cannot assume that, as the creation of matter has not even been witnessed once, where every Law that I assume has been witnessed an uncountable number of times. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm saying that your arguments ought to be viewed with skepticism until they've been seen in action at least once.

[kipita]

No, we can’t just stop there. Let’s look at what drives the male and female species on this rock we call Earth. What drives male heterosexual men? Porn! And I will be the first to say that it is an evolved product of demand-supply market forces. We want to deliver the product of our existence anywhere that is convenient given the energy that the supply gives us. That’s evolution but without order. What drives the female species, romantic movies, romantic diners, romantic dancing, and other things that I don’t know and don’t care to know. That’s evolution with order. And just what created this ying-yang existence that ties us to our male (some 75% of bloggers are men) demands? That, I don’t know, but I think it’s God. If God is a male entity, then send me on the first bus to hell. If God is a female entity, then I hope she is attractive with a nice figure. I think humans are still just simple creatures on this rock and have no concept of the complexity of God.

And to Mr. Balrog666, 666 was actually the name of Julius Caesar. Before names were common place, numbers were given in the place of names. The book of Revelations almost didn’t make it into the good book because of the retaliation against Rome via the demonization of 666. Bible politics, go figure.

Phew, Now I’m done and I have truly expressed myself. It’s time for market forces……

[UCANSEE2]

Evolution does not include first creation of life.

Good point. Hard to evolve from something until it exists. IT had to be 'created' first.

Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes?

[bigdakine]

You're saying that my argument fell because of something you assume... Are you aware of what happens when you assume that matter can be created during inflation.

B: I don't know about matter being created during the inflationary epoch, although quarks may have been springing into existence at this point.


I'll let you know this much you're making a "this" out of you and me.

B: From where I stand, its just you.

"Where does the force come from? "

B; What force? The false vacuum? Many, if not most cosmologists think that our universe is but a "brane" within in a higher dimesnional manifold.

Google "M-brane theory"


This is a simple enough answer. The only place a force could from is a force that exists outside the scope of the universe. That force is the god, or in my personal belief "God," that I have been writing of.

B: I see, "I assert, therefore I'm right". Now try and write something that can at least pretend to be a logical argument. I suppose if one wants, they can view God as a collision between "branes". Not strictly orthodox, mind you.



Seriously PP I appreciate your input, but I think you're assuming way to much in your arguments. I assume Laws that are canonically accepted,

B: Like what?


and you begin assuming theories that have yet to be witnessed in action.

B: Ah yes, the old creationist chestnut "seeing is beleiving". One wonders what creationists said about atomic forces before the A-bomb? One doesn't have to witness events. They can be inferred by what remains in the aftermath.

And by the way spontaneous generation of matter from the vacuum is a measureable phenomena. Google "Casimir effect" or "Lamb shift"


I am certain that if at some juncture we find matter being created, that is definitely a possible reason behind it, but as of now we have yet to witness the creation of matter.

B: THe creation of matter can be witnessed by anyone interested in experimental phsysics. Like most creationists, you're at least a few decades behind the times.




Therefore you cannot assume that, as the creation of matter has not even been witnessed once,

B: Its been "witnessed" in every major physics institute since the invention of the cloud chamber. Google "particle pair production", and "witness" the spontaneous creation of an electron-positron pair from a gamma ray.

You are ig-no-rant. It remains to be seen as to whether or not you are inculcatable.