Skip to comments.Does evolution contradict creationism?
Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at talkorigins.org ...
"Darwin proposed the theory of evolution to explain the diversity of species in the Families, Orders and Geni established by zoologists decades earlier."
" It provides evidence for how the process of evolution works, not why."
Darwin did not know about genetics, but he speculated on it. He was close in some aspects. Darwin predicted the sort of mechanism genetics entails. Now with Mendel and DNA (Watson Crick) the why is pretty well understood.
" Evolution does not (and cannot) explain how life originated."
NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION PROPOSES HOW LIFE ORIGINATED!!! WHY CAN'T YOU GUYS GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS? Maybe your thick skulls are a speciation event. ;-)
" You're asking more of the theory than it can provide, something an honest scientist, or student of evolution would not do."
You're putting words in science mouth it did not say. I expect that from creationists. Lying for God won't get you very far with Him. Why can't you just admit that the silly literalist position is wrong? It would seem a lot simpler than taking untenable positions all the time, unless you have some financial incentive for promoting making God look powerless.
the theory of gravity can't be proven either.
No scientific theory can be proven.
Why do you make points that are obvious? Will you tell us next that noone can make a 3 sided square?
"So, please falsify the Fact of Creation for us. No one has been able to do so in over 5600 years."
The fact of creation is not falsifiable, since life exists.
The who of creation is unknown. I personally ascribe to the God did it, here.
However, the real question is if the literal interpretation of the Bible is falsifiable. It is. It has been down many times. Just one: Dinosaur bones are in chronological order in the strata and dated to millions of years, showing species change over time.
This falsifies the notion of special creation of each species (or kind). This one fact falsifies creation science and ID insofar as its notions of speciation or macroevolution are stated.
"So far you have been batting a .000 on the simple questions concerning your religion of Evolution. It seems that no one has been able to prove the Theory of Evolution (hence it is only a "theory" and generously allowed to be so) in one hundred and fifty years."
Why do you keep asking the same ignorant questions repeatedly? Are you attempting some sort of "big lie" propaganda technique?
We tell you that science doesn't "prove", yet you insist on proof.
You call it "only a theory", yet biological evolution is a magnificent Theory that explains how life changes over time on Earth, after you have been told time and again that a Theory is the most exalted position in science and tantamount to fact.
AAAArrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!! cough cough
The Big Bang Theory is disproved using basic physics.
And try not to attack someone that may have a different point of view, you sound like a liberal. :-)
I am glad to see that you made use of a Bible tool to aid you in your attack on Scripture and the gospel, for now you have no excuse for not doing an Englishman's search on Strong's #3117 and see for yourself the fruits of your attack on the word 'Yowm'. You may want to review that "quaint" grammar rule that you hold in contempt and see how it really works.
If Moses really wanted to express a literal day in the Genesis 1 narrative, how would he do so differently than by enumerating the individual days, making clear demarcations between the creative events and by throwing the phrase "evening and morning the ____ day"? As a bonus question: How do you mangle the phrase "evening and morning" such where in context it is compatible with "billions of years"? Better still, traditional Darwinian evolution, catastrophism and PE (whatever your version of "truth" you choose for the moment) demand evolution in ALL species ALL the time. According to the Genesis narrative, if for some totally idiotic reason one could swallow the lie that "day" means "billions of years", you have all evolution of aquatic and aviary creations finished at the close of Day Five, and you have evolution of the plants completed on Day Three. To extend the formation of new plants and new critters beyond the "Day-Age" that they are assigned would make for a blurring of the demarcations of time to which they were assigned. To blur the distinctions such as your pet theories would demand would make the allegorical, metaphorical or illustrative purpose of Genesis 1 totally pointless. Or is that your intention, to try to deconstruct Scripture such where it is rendered pointless?
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Are you going to continue this parade of foolishness of yours and tell us that 'yowm' means "billions of years" in this passage?
The alleged contradiction is only in your mind. For thousands of years, there was no contradiction, there was no problem with the Jews and the Church regarding this matter. But you come along at this day and age and with a wave of your hand declare all of the People of God for thousands and thousands of years to be all wrong and the modern athiests are all right.
I gave you ample opportunity to square the circle regarding how evolution doesn't attempt to destroy the gospel message (that whole death and sin thing) - and you were silent. I gave you opporunity to explain how plants could live and thrive for billions of years before the sun was created to provide light and warmth, and again you were silent. It is quite obvious to everyone that you prefer real contradictions to reason and logic, that you prefer to see violence to the gospel message because you are too arrogant to recognize that you have absolutely no idea on how to execute proper hermeneutics and language study.
Perhaps when you get out of grade school you will recognize that you have much to learn i.e reading crap and garbage on a web site that caters to the Christophobic Cabal proves the GIGO theory.
Evolution is as true as any concept of science. It has attained the highest status in science-Theory.
Clinton attained the highest office in US politics....That didn't make him a good President.
"There is not one piece of evidence that indicates that the theory of evolution is correct. All they find are bones of species that have become extinct and claim they are are of an evolving landscape of creation."
There is not one piece of evidence for the roman empire. All they find is ruined buildings and pots that used to once exist and claim they are part of some "roman empire".
"There are too many holes in the theory that leave too many unanswered questions."
There are too many holes in the theory of roman empire that leave too many unanswered questions. Sure, this is a totally subjective assertion without back up and I have no authority and am ignorant of the subject. But I am gambling that noone will actually find that out before I run off.
"The Creation Theory is just as valid as the Evolution Theory. As a matter of fact any theory you may come up with is just as valid."
Any theory is valid. Scott Peterson should have been let off because another theory, that his wife was actually killed by aliens visiting earth is just as valid. Noone was there to observe the murder so noone can know!
"The Big Bang Theory is disproved using basic physics."
Gravity is disproved using basic maths
Would you be kind enough to elaborate on this please?
Interesting that taxonomy was introduced to the scientifc world by a Creationist, Carolus Linnaeus... Charles Darwin, hated Christianity and sought ways to destroy it - science via an agenda of hate is sure to lead to bad science. That is why "evolution" is not science nor does it adhere to scientific priciples
Evolution does not (and cannot) explain how life originated.
I see this claim all of the time, yet we all know that this is weasel language. Any discussion of evolution presumes a foundational background of cosmogony. Big Bang and God are mutually exclusive. Evolution and Creationism are mutually exclusive. If Evolution was only one attempt of many plausible attempts to "explain the diversity of species" then it would be treated that way. But take a look at the person like the one who started this thread - they treat it as a religion, a whole world view. Evolution willfully cripples itself by categorically denying Intelligent Design, never allowing anything that might point to a Creator. I would say that Evolution denies miracles, but it demands compound miracles: matter ex nihilo, order from chaos, information from no information, and a legal pad full of other necessary miracles. Why I say that your argument is weasel language is that in order to even take evolution as a possible explanation seriously, one has to fundamentally agree to a whole world view that is antagonistic to God, and given the history and the list of adherents to evolution, it is undeniable that those who find evolution plausible have a common contempt for God.
I understand many Christians who get sucked into the State sponsored lie of evolution, but that can be cured by simply exposing the fraud that it is. Fortunately, due to the many spokespeople of evolution, the job is quite simple.
"I understand many Christians who get sucked into the State sponsored lie of evolution",
What about getting sucked into the creationist cult and losing your Soul?
Avoiding the obvious question of where did all that matter come from, and how did it get all compressed into a dot the size of the period at the end of this sentence, the looming problem is how does order come from chaos or does the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics no longer apply?
Of course along the Midway we have other sideshows, like retrograde spin of planets, the problems associated with laws of presevation of momentum and Jupiter, why galaxies aren't showing their age when they should be less organized.
Heck, I still have so much sun-light that I would like to do something with it other than watch it raise my air-conditioning costs. I would like to convert all of that energy into matter - like bars of gold. Scientists claim that they can figure out energy into Hydrogen, but how does energy make itself into heavy metals? The explanation sounds like a description of how to stand a puddle on its end.
I try to avoid stepping into the arena defined by the evolutionist/Big Bang theorists because they are so given over to serial lies and gratuitous insults. People who have sold their soul to evolution seem to be attracted to the bark of trees when their whole forest is a mirage. Its difficult to reason with folks like that. Evidence of the original poster of this thread - totally unwilling and totally unable to deal with the large trees that defy evolutionary cosmogony.
Evolution is as true as any concept of science. It has attained the highest status in science-Theory.
Clinton attained the highest office in US politics....That didn't make him a good President."
Do you have any idea how unrelated those two statements are?
I cannot even begin to explain the multiple flaws in logic and common sense you have created with this post.
Why do evolutionists continue to attack and bludgeon Creationists if neither "side" can prove their world views? The answer is simply this: Evolution is allegedly the antidote to Christianity, and the secularists, in their never ending quest to purge morality from society must first kill the originator of Morality.
It is so much more easier to slaughter children in the womb if the biomass inside a woman is not human life. It becomes much more easier to exterminate people groups from the earth (ie, Jews, the unborn, old people, the terminally ill and deformed) if we are all animals of the same level as beasts and bugs. It is much easier to enslave people to a State government if mankind is not a special image of his Creator, but is simply an accident of Chance.
Evolutionists are on a desperate quest to dehumanize mankind. Environmentalists will say that mankind is simply a destructive animal, and thus will reverse God's command for man to dominate the earth by claiming that man is subservant to the earth because man is nothing more than a temporary accident of Chance.
Feminists will come forth and reverse the hierarchal order because both females and males are accidents of Chance not special creation from the hand of a personal God.
Because mankind is an accident of Chance, some species of man are more human than others, which makes it perfectly fine to incarcerate aboriginals in zoos and make lampshades out of others.
Does this make sense to you?
It doesn't matter who introduced it. It is necessary to be able to classify animals into groups. In reality however, life often defies being put into distinct compartments.
Charles Darwin, hated Christianity and sought ways to destroy it
This only deserves mockery.
"Diary - hmm will go round world tommorow in boat and see if it will inspire me with an idea to finally destroy christianity"
Any discussion of evolution presumes a foundational background of cosmogony. Big Bang and God are mutually exclusive
No. Did darwin have a foundational background of cosmology? Oh wait no, The Big Bang theory didn't even exist in darwins day.
But take a look at the person like the one who started this thread - they treat it as a religion, a whole world view
I think they just enjoy mocking people who attempt to refute science they haven't even bothered to understand. Like the guy who posted just above this post about how the Big Bang isn't a valid theory, not realising that some of his sentences show he has basic lack of understanding with BB theory.
Excuse me? There is zero evidence for this statement.
I hate to say this, but spamming the threads (and yes, I think you are spamming the threads) with lots of loud rhetoric that is not thoughtfully organized into a reasonable argument (and I use that term in its literal sense) does not serve you well here.
Just my two cents.
I can take the time to answer some of your arguments this evening. I apologize in advance for not taking the time now, however, I must be in the lab shortly.
I thank you shubi for finally revealing yourself. I figured that if I picked the scab long enough the puss of Christophobia would manifest itself.
In respect for true believers, please refrain from identifying yourself as one who believes in God. Its embarrassing for us, and it shameful for you.
Thanks in advance. Maybe someday you will have the courage and integrity to actually defend your faith in evolution rather than deploy a volley of lies and insults against the Word of God.
And exactly what advance in technology has come about because of an evolutionary world view? I dare say that because evolutionary thinking has corrupted the prejudices of scientific investigators, true advances have been brought to a halt.
For instance, evolutionary thinking tells us that things improve with age, that information is added to biological systems through beneficial mutation. Creationism tells us that over time, biological systems degrade and lose information. Which worldview do you think gives us better pesticides? Creationism. How? Because the advances in pesticides have banked on the fact that resilient strains of critters come about because of a loss of genetic information rather than the organism mutating beneficially to resist the chemicals.
A critter used to die because the chemical effected a particular enzyme within the organism. When strains of critters resisted the chemical and populated without competition with their enzyme equipped counterparts, it required researchers to find another enzyme to exploit. The bottom line is, the resisting critter has less genetic information than the nonresisting critter.
This is why we have more resistant foods that have significantly lower nutritional value. As science is forced to deal with making resistant strains of crops, the resulting products continue to lose genetic information. This is why you can't let your hogs loose in the corn fields after the harvest like grand-daddy did, they will end up malnurished.