Creation and Evolution

[Nikich103]

Ok guys please don't get confused here. This thread is NOT for debate. I might open that thread a little later in the year. This thread's purpose is very simple: Define what is creation and what is evolution!:
Seems a little stupid doesn't it? Well I cannot even begin to explain how many times I've talked to evolutionists who call me an ignorant, prideful, uncaring, etc. Christian who really doesn't care to find out what they believe in. It really makes me angry because I really thought I knew what they believed in. So... evolutionists.... I am proving to you all that I am NOT an ignorant, prideful, uncaring Christian and that I actually care about what you guys believe in and I would really like to know the answer to this question: What is Evolution?

Now about creation... I asume that most creationists would agree with me that creation states that God made everything and I mean EVERYTHING! if you don't agree with my definition of creation please share your own beliefs! All I want to do is finally determine, once and forever, What is Creation and What is Evolution?

ok evolutionists.... you may now begin... i am listening... intently

[Monarchist]

You can start by reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. When you're finished, burn it; in fact, throw it into the deepest bowels of the Earth and throw a match into the abyss.

After that, come back here and slap the wacky evolutionists down, because they believe in a gradual movement. It started with the beginning of time, moved to rays of light, developed a gigantic wall of heat, coalesced dust particles into larger and larger parts, and eventually lead to water on this particular dust ball. There was nothing for the first 1.4 billion years or so, and around 4.6 billion Y.A. the grandparents of single-celled organisms began to appear. A long while later, after many harrowing chases in colorful jungles, underwater sexcapades, and generally playful slaughter, apes started walking about on the ground and became human beings. For the unabridged version, please contact the Bible.

Basically, rays of light became Einstein. I'll leave it up to the real evolutionary biologists to make it sound right complex.

[Taiji]

You can start by reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. When you're finished, burn it; in fact, throw it into the deepest bowels of the Earth and throw a match into the abyss.

After that, come back here and slap the wacky evolutionists down, because they believe in a gradual movement. It started with the beginning of time, moved to rays of light, developed a gigantic wall of heat, coalesced dust particles into larger and larger parts, and eventually lead to water on this particular dust ball. There was nothing for the first 1.4 billion years or so, and around 4.6 billion Y.A. the grandparents of single-celled organisms began to appear. A long while later, after many harrowing chases in colorful jungles, underwater sexcapades, and generally playful slaughter, apes started walking about on the ground and became human beings. For the unabridged version, please contact the Bible.

Basically, rays of light became Einstein. I'll leave it up to the real evolutionary biologists to make it sound right complex.

That sounds like a dumb approach. Kinda like reading the dead sea scrolls then assuming to know anything about modern christianity. If you wanna get schooled in a scientific discipline there typically isn't a single book you can rely on. Frankly you're being ignorant about science, and your religion is at fault. Not christianity in general, of course, your special version of it.

It's flawed, your version, because you're using it to misunderstand science. Darwin's christianity was better than yours, in simple practical terms. He is not sticking it where it doesn't belong. He's actually making the required effort to understand things rather than blathering over the difficult stuff with the weak-minded mantra of 'god did it'.

The guy is a scientist afterall. But then if you don't understand science (or religion for that matter) then you can't appreciate that. If Darwin were alive today, he'd have a ton of reading to do in order to catch up with his own discipline. He wouldn't have to do as much to catch up with his theological studies, I doubt he'd be surprised by the current style of religiously motivated willful ignorance.

So become an evolutionary scientist if you want to know what it's all about. Don't just read an old book on it, that's religion, silly, not science.

edit:

Although having said that I realise that reading an old religious book does not give much insight into another person's religion. It's subject to interpretation and many intelligent minds have discovered many different angles to exploit for personal or societal gain. Reading the bible does not give one the wisdom of christianity as a whole. Reading a dated science book likewise does not endow one with a sufficient education in science. Questions raised may already have been answered by subsequent investigations, etc.

[mrcrusty]

That sounds like a dumb approach. Kinda like reading the dead sea scrolls then assuming to know anything about modern christianity. If you wanna get schooled in a scientific discipline there typically isn't a single book you can rely on. Frankly you're being ignorant about science, and your religion is at fault. Not christianity in general, of course, your special version of it.

It's flawed, your version, because you're using it to misunderstand science. Darwin's christianity was better than yours, in simple practical terms. He is not sticking it where it doesn't belong. He's actually making the required effort to understand things rather than blathering over the difficult stuff with the weak-minded mantra of 'god did it'.

The guy is a scientist afterall. But then if you don't understand science (or religion for that matter) then you can't appreciate that. If Darwin were alive today, he'd have a ton of reading to do in order to catch up with his own discipline. He wouldn't have to do as much to catch up with his theological studies, I doubt he'd be surprised by the current style of religiously motivated willful ignorance.

So become an evolutionary scientist if you want to know what it's all about. Don't just read an old book on it, that's religion, silly, not science.

edit:

Although having said that I realise that reading an old religious book does not give much insight into another person's religion. It's subject to interpretation and many intelligent minds have discovered many different angles to exploit for personal or societal gain. Reading the bible does not give one the wisdom of christianity as a whole. Reading a dated science book likewise does not endow one with a sufficient education in science. Questions raised may already have been answered by subsequent investigations, etc.

sarcasm: 1

Taiji: 0



If you read his later posts, you'll see that Monarchist is simply having fun with the OP trying to see whether it's a troll post or not.

Marcus, how does it go against the Laws Chemistry, Physics etc.? And if an omnipotent God sent his inspired Word down to earth I would not want to ignore it.

Geocentrism?

Not something that's explicitly stated by the Bible, but very easily defended from a Biblical standpoint, when taken literally.

[Monarchist]

That sounds like a dumb approach. Kinda like reading the dead sea scrolls then assuming to know anything about modern christianity. If you wanna get schooled in a scientific discipline there typically isn't a single book you can rely on. Frankly you're being ignorant about science, and your religion is at fault. Not christianity in general, of course, your special version of it.

It's flawed, your version, because you're using it to misunderstand science. Darwin's christianity was better than yours, in simple practical terms. He is not sticking it where it doesn't belong. He's actually making the required effort to understand things rather than blathering over the difficult stuff with the weak-minded mantra of 'god did it'.

The guy is a scientist afterall. But then if you don't understand science (or religion for that matter) then you can't appreciate that. If Darwin were alive today, he'd have a ton of reading to do in order to catch up with his own discipline. He wouldn't have to do as much to catch up with his theological studies, I doubt he'd be surprised by the current style of religiously motivated willful ignorance.

So become an evolutionary scientist if you want to know what it's all about. Don't just read an old book on it, that's religion, silly, not science.

edit:

Although having said that I realise that reading an old religious book does not give much insight into another person's religion. It's subject to interpretation and many intelligent minds have discovered many different angles to exploit for personal or societal gain. Reading the bible does not give one the wisdom of christianity as a whole. Reading a dated science book likewise does not endow one with a sufficient education in science. Questions raised may already have been answered by subsequent investigations, etc.

Taiji, I appreciate your vehemence and conviction, but that entire post was mere cheek. I haven't even read On the Origin of Species; the intro to that post, silly as it was, is a sarcastic reflection on the stereotypical Biblical literalist view. Your anger is startling to me, because the lack of seriousness in that post seems evident, at least in my eyes.

Of course, I do consider it valid to ask how photons became amoeba, let alone how photons became me. It has probably already been answered elsewhere, so I apologize.

[Taiji]

Taiji, I appreciate your vehemence and conviction, but that entire post was mere cheek. I haven't even read On the Origin of Species; the intro to that post, silly as it was, is a sarcastic reflection on the stereotypical Biblical literalist view. Your anger is startling to me, because the lack of seriousness in that post seems evident, at least in my eyes.

Of course, I do consider it valid to ask how photons became amoeba, let alone how photons became me. It has probably already been answered elsewhere, so I apologize.

'Anger' is a bit strong. I'm typically a very tolerant person but I refuse to tolerate propagation of an ignorant view on science. In other words I am happy to jump on anyone that threatens sensible understanding of science.

I'm not angry as I do it, it's done with some relish

Whether you're being serious or not doesn't matter to me. The meaning you created was worth stamping on. The problem is that, as much as you can say stuff like that and be joking, you're actually representing the views of certain religious idiots that would love to dismantle 'unholy' science.

Foolish literalists who believe that the bible is the word of god. Believe that they have access to the ultimate knowledge and no further investigation is needed. And if they are sat there happily nodding as they read your post then I hope my post gives them cause to think beyond their selfish religious mental mistakes and insecurities.

It also lines up in my mind with the kind of patronising idiocy I have experienced from certain ignorant religious types - 'if god didn't make us then who did?' Or even more enlightened 'if god didn't make us then what did? Asking the question as if they cannot proceed without an answer to what is probably one of the most irrelevant question for human function and well-being.

Also I find it a deceitful approach, at least on the surface. It's playing from ones own perspective and projecting it on others before asking why. So the question becomes 'why do we need a creator to feel OK' rather than 'why do I need a creator to feel OK'.

So I hope you don't take it personally, I don't know what you personally believe about knowledge and about requirements for feeling OK. It's just that there's a hint of a disgusting trend I often see promoted by the willfully ignorant religious amongst others. So I jumped

sarcasm: 1

Taiji: 0



If you read his later posts, you'll see that Monarchist is simply having fun with the OP trying to see whether it's a troll post or not.

No actually it is impossible to lose to sarcasm in text. And what you are counting as a loss is actually a counter anyway

Sarcasm is based on deceit, you pretend to have an idea you don't really have. It's neutralised by assuming good faith, the sarcy one has to revert to honest communication and explain himself for fear of being misunderstood.

Anyway sarcasm is such a crap passive-aggressive patronising form of wit. I do use it occasionally but not in text and not without a good rapport.

[Holger Danske]

You can start by reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. When you're finished, burn it; in fact, throw it into the deepest bowels of the Earth and throw a match into the abyss.

After that, come back here and slap the wacky evolutionists down, because they believe in a gradual movement. It started with the beginning of time, moved to rays of light, developed a gigantic wall of heat, coalesced dust particles into larger and larger parts, and eventually lead to water on this particular dust ball. There was nothing for the first 1.4 billion years or so, and around 4.6 billion Y.A. the grandparents of single-celled organisms began to appear. A long while later, after many harrowing chases in colorful jungles, underwater sexcapades, and generally playful slaughter, apes started walking about on the ground and became human beings. For the unabridged version, please contact the Bible.

Basically, rays of light became Einstein. I'll leave it up to the real evolutionary biologists to make it sound right complex.

Since you are likely one of those people who believe in the old bearded man who got bored and then created Everything in 7 days theory, you have a lot more to explain than the evolutionists.

Edit: Nvm Good one!

Though the point still stands. The creationist have a lot more to explain than those who believes in evolution, given the fact that evolution has evidence, plenty of it, to support the theory, while creation only has the Bible and a small bunch of very disturbed minds to show for.

[Nikich103]

I didn't read it... i read about it... it actually was a little bit different than today's evolutionary theory... It also nice to point out that at the very end of his life, Darwin cried and cried and begged God to forgive him for the theory he created...
Well that is one person's interpretation of evolution... anyone else?

[Lovejoy]

I didn't read it... i read about it... it actually was a little bit different than today's evolutionary theory... It also nice to point out that at the very end of his life, Darwin cried and cried and begged God to forgive him for the theory he created...
Well that is one person's interpretation of evolution... anyone else?

Hehe no. He didn't. There is no single evidence he did, its just a common myth. Not that it matter if he did.

[Nikich103]

like there is no single evidence for evolution! wow... i found another connection between darwin and evolution!!

[Manco]

like there is no single evidence for evolution! wow... i found another connection between darwin and evolution!!

I guess you never took biology then.

[Yaga Shu Ra]

And lo, he spoke the winged words; "nothing good will come of this thread" and there was much rejoicing.

[Justinian]

like there is no single evidence for evolution! wow... i found another connection between darwin and evolution!!

There's a mountain of evidence the size of Everest for evolution in comparison to actual evidence for creationism (absolutely none, ever, anywhere, at any time).

[Lovejoy]

Just report the thread so its locked please, this have been discussed to death, and the OP is clearly trolling. And it's in the wrong forum section...

[Monarchist]

Just report the thread so its locked please, this have been discussed to death, and the OP is clearly trolling. And it's in the wrong forum section...

I'm not so sure that he is trolling. The statements and questions proposed in the O.P. seem pretty serious to me. I just had to be sarcastic, but the topic is about his question. Probably, the thread could be more about the relationship between evolution and creationism. Are there any possible links between them or parallels that we might use to reconcile the two?

Also, the fact that something has been discussed to death doesn't stop us from talking about it. Capitalism has been discussed to death, and yet we keep trying it. The age and number of discussions about something don't define the thing itself. We need to be ever-vigilant; besides, new people come to the forums and they want to put their opinions into each subject. How can they be expected to do that when their questions are answered with "that's been done"?

[Manco]

I'm not so sure that he is trolling. The statements and questions proposed in the O.P. seem pretty serious to me. I just had to be sarcastic, but the topic is about his question. Probably, the thread could be more about the relationship between evolution and creationism. Are there any possible links between them or parallels that we might use to reconcile the two?

While the OP started serious, he kind of blew it with this

like there is no single evidence for evolution! wow... i found another connection between darwin and evolution!!

and this

It also nice to point out that at the very end of his life, Darwin cried and cried and begged God to forgive him for the theory he created...

The latter being a myth, usually told with a clear bias and intention, and the former wilful ignorance or indeed an attempt to troll.

[Fiyenyaa]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution/evolution1.htm

Pretty basic stuff.

Now, the important point the OP raises is the fact that evolution doesn't account for the origin of life.
There are several hypothesis - lightning striking primordial ooze creating single-celled organisms, or a comet landing on earth containing single-celled organisms; I'm sure there are a more.
The important thing as far as I'm concerned is not to jump the gun. What creationists are doing is saying "The theory is incomplete, therefore we are right."

That is not due scientific process. That's like saying 4+4 doesn't equal 9, so it must be 7. Science is essentially a few people making discoveries then loads of people pointing out errors in them so they are refined and honed.

You can start by reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. When you're finished, burn it; in fact, throw it into the deepest bowels of the Earth and throw a match into the abyss.

After that, come back here and slap the wacky evolutionists down, because they believe in a gradual movement. It started with the beginning of time, moved to rays of light, developed a gigantic wall of heat, coalesced dust particles into larger and larger parts, and eventually lead to water on this particular dust ball. There was nothing for the first 1.4 billion years or so, and around 4.6 billion Y.A. the grandparents of single-celled organisms began to appear. A long while later, after many harrowing chases in colorful jungles, underwater sexcapades, and generally playful slaughter, apes started walking about on the ground and became human beings. For the unabridged version, please contact the Bible.

I'd say the biblical account is pretty freaking abridged - it's a few lines long.
Also, I wouldn't start burning books... it has unfortunate parallels.

[Tankbuster]

It is the branch of biology which explains biodiversity.
The word, “evolution” simply means “change over time.” But in the context of science, that word refers to an aspect of biology. Specifically, it is a process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphological or physiological composition, which –when compiled over successive generations- can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins. Or more simply, it is how life forms diversify via “descent with modification”.

As for the legitimacy of this theory (I can't resist):
It is a fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity does increase, that both occur naturally only by evolutionary means.
It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.
It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance.
It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that multiple independent sets of biological markers exist to trace these lineages backwards over many generations.
It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs the same way humans are a subset of apes, primates, eutherian mammals, and vertebrate deuterostome animals.
It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development.
It is a fact that everything on earth has definite relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record.
It is a fact that the fossil record holds hundreds of definitely transitional species even according to it’s strictest definition, and that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed.
Evolution is a fact!

Evolution has survived every test the greatest minds of the modern age have ever been able to pit against it. It’s been demonstrated myriad ways with lab and field experiments, and is further enhanced by compounded revelations in paleontology and systematics, as well as developments in embryology and advances in genomic research and bioengineering. Evolution is now one of the strongest theories in science. There is no fact it doesn’t agree with, and it’s never failed any test.

(Credit goes to AronRa)

I didn't read it... i read about it... it actually was a little bit different than today's evolutionary theory... It also nice to point out that at the very end of his life, Darwin cried and cried and begged God to forgive him for the theory he created...
Well that is one person's interpretation of evolution... anyone else?

It's also nice to point out that that is a complete load of bull.
Darwin might have cried, but he sure as hell didn't beg God to forgive him for the theory he had created.
What this myth is, is just another example of 'lying for Jesus': creationists love to use misquotations, quotes out of context, or just downright lies and slander (like the above claim) to discredit actual facts and legitimate science.

You can start by reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. When you're finished, burn it; in fact, throw it into the deepest bowels of the Earth and throw a match into the abyss.

After that, come back here and slap the wacky evolutionists down, because they believe in a gradual movement. It started with the beginning of time, moved to rays of light, developed a gigantic wall of heat, coalesced dust particles into larger and larger parts, and eventually lead to water on this particular dust ball. There was nothing for the first 1.4 billion years or so, and around 4.6 billion Y.A. the grandparents of single-celled organisms began to appear. A long while later, after many harrowing chases in colorful jungles, underwater sexcapades, and generally playful slaughter, apes started walking about on the ground and became human beings. For the unabridged version, please contact the Bible.

Basically, rays of light became Einstein. I'll leave it up to the real evolutionary biologists to make it sound right complex.

You already pointed out that it was sarcastic, but that doesn't spare me of the obligation to point out how none of this has anything to do with evolution itself. You pointed out (or rather: greatly oversimplified) some of the results of evolution, and you managed to include some total garbage that hasn't even got anything to do with biology (like, the first two sentences).
I hope you were joking.

[Monarchist]

You pointed out (or rather: greatly oversimplified) some of the results of evolution, and you managed to include some total garbage that hasn't even got anything to do with biology (like, the first two sentences).
I hope you were joking.

Oh, yes. I was definitely joking. Knowledge and opinion are precious things which must be kept at all costs.

In my paragraph, I was rather more concerned with how rays of light became human beings than with the later stuff. It is the very beginnings of the process and how it managed to make its way from electrons to hands with five digits which truly perplexes and awes me. Evolution - that is, change over time with no cause other than a vague "big bang" - is a truly amazing institution, but I can't see how it begins.

[MaximiIian]

I am confused. I thought Monarchist over there was a Roman Catholic?
The Roman Catholic Church fully accepts science and evolutionary theory.