Creation vs. Evolution

[Perfect Balance]

I am basing my opinions on what I believe and my faith. Neither of the 2 ways of how life was created has been proved yet, but until I see some proof, not some assumptions people made from past observations in science, I am going to stick with my beliefs.

 

[Famine]

I am basing my opinions on what I believe and my faith. Neither of the 2 ways of how life was created has been proved yet, but until I see some proof, not some assumptions people made from past observations in science, I am going to stick with my beliefs.

Yes. Your personal beliefs are right and thousands of years of ongoing scientific investigation are wrong.

The proof is THERE. The problem is, it tends to be written in sciencese.

 

[Keef]

You're right, PB, most science is based on theories, ideas, assumptions, etc. But religion is a bunch of assumptions, too. You and others "assume" that there is a God who created all. Science has been documented and written about in thousands of notebooks and reports throughout teh few thousand years humans have conducted experiments and understood that it was important to tell others. But religion has also been written about for thousands of years by people who understood it was important to tell others. I'm not religious, so I don't know who these people are, but it's easy to find out who wrote what scientific report. Do we actually know the people who wrote the Bible, Kuran, and other religious text?
All I know is that splitting a sea in two is physically impossible unless it were some freak natural event. I don't think a human would live through a natural event powerful enough to do something like that, though. I can't even think of a known natural event that could cause that.

 

[Danoff]

I am basing my opinions on what I believe and my faith.

Why? What reason do you have to believe your faith over carefully documented and repeatable experimentation that has been reviewed and validated by many.

More fundamentally, why do you think you can believe your emotions over your observations?

Neither of the 2 ways of how life was created has been proved yet,

And they never will be, not in the most absolute sense of the word. But if you don't mean "proved" in the unattainable sense, then your above statement is simply incorrect. You're faced with one of two possible outcomes.

1) You meant "proved" in the most literal sense, in which case your quote above is completely meaningless since it isn't possible to achieve.
2) You meant "proved" as in, "show to be extremely likely" or "the preponderance of evidence suggests" or "any reasonable person would be convinced", in which case you're just wrong.

but until I see some proof, not some assumptions people made from past observations in science, I am going to stick with my beliefs.

Here we are with this tricky "proof" word again. You use it here as though you mean "evidence". There is a ton of evidence. It's all around you, you can't escape it. You're practically being smacked in the forehead with evidence.

Nobody is making assumptions based on "past observations in science". Science is all about repeatability RIGHT NOW. You can go out and recreate the experiments done by the scientists that have come before you, and if they did their job right, you'll get the same answer. Science is rigor, not assumption. Religion is assumption. Religion is based on "past observations" and assumptions.

 

[240SXRacer]

One of my teachers said we are all made of star dust(which is creation) but he was always a little crazy before he got fired. But I think we are just formed from different stuff because where did the first human come from? He didnt just appear out of no were but he did evolve over the years for adaptive purposes. I just think the answer is in both

 

[Kylehnat]

One of my teachers said we are all made of star dust(which is creation)

How is that creation?

We formed from the same stuff that made the first stars, so yes, we're made of star dust. Since energy is conserved, the energy that went into making you is 15 billion years old. Did I just blow your mind?

 

[Perfect Balance]

You use it here as though you mean "evidence". There is a ton of evidence. It's all around you, you can't escape it. You're practically being smacked in the forehead with evidence.

What we see it evidence of evolution, which I already said that it was a fact, right now The topic is more about the creation of life, which there isn't any evidence from, and current observations and studies have not been able to produce a living organism from a single cell. So it has not been recreated, and there is not enough evidence to prove that it is true.

The reason I take my beliefs over science, is because I have seen many things(that I would not like to share) that just make me believe that there is some sort of higher power. Science has not provided me with something that could make me believe that we "evolved" from nothing.


( I think I'm about done here, my 15 year old mind can't keep up with the knowledge of some of the people here, I'm getting more lost as we go.)

 

[Kylehnat]

current observations and studies have not been able to produce a living organism from a single cell.

It's not creating a living organism from a single cell, it's creating life from a single-celled organism.

 

[Keef]

Danoff, you're right about the repeatability of scientific experiments. I didn't think of that in my earlier statement, I was just thinking of most of the theories, especially about the universe, that you'd learn about in school. Much of that is still theory. Thanks for getting the stuff I missed.

What we see it evidence of evolution, which I already said that it was a fact, right now The topic is more about the creation of life, which there isn't any evidence from, and current observations and studies have not been able to produce a living organism from a single cell. So it has not been recreated, and there is not enough evidence to prove that it is true.

You can watch the creation of many cells from one in a petri dish. One bacteria (a cell) is all you need to soon have a cancerous mass. If there is enough "supplies" readily available for their life to occur, they will multiply to no end. I'm not sure about animal/plant reproduction, since a sperm and egg are each individual cells, but once they connect the zygote is still a single cell. I forget how that works. Anyway, you only need one cell to make the rest. The world and life is nothing but chemicals reacting with one another. The complex actions of your brain is just a side effect of certain chemical reactions. It's crazy, and it doesn't really give life any meaning, but I'm pretty sure that is what's going on.

One of my teachers said we are all made of star dust(which is creation) but he was always a little crazy before he got fired.

Well, he wasn't crazy, actually. It's the truth. Mass and energy are always conserved, except, I believe, in extreme situations that I don't understand, so what was here when the universe "started" is still here today, though most likely in a different form. Everything is made of elements, which make up all sorts of chemicals, which react to form substances and life. Everything can be narrowed down to the atom. Those atoms have always been here, to, they are infinite.
The whole expansion and contraction of the mass in the universe is an infinite process, I believe. Fusion starts, it explodes and expands violently and rapidly, gravity finally slows these masses to stop the expansion after trillions of years, this gravity starts to pull it all back together, gaining tremendous velocity, it collides into a single point so dense and small that you could say "it isn't there", this compression makes it super hot, hot enough to start fusion again, it explodes and expands.....
That has been going on since never, or always, depending on how you look at it, and will keep going on until never, or always, depending on how you look at that. It has been, is, and will always be infinite.
That's just a little side note.

 

[240SXRacer]

Alright now I understand
Kylehnat-we were formed by something therefore creation

 

[Famine]

Depends what you mean by "creation". In any case the word implies a conscious act, so no.

 

[Perfect Balance]

Depends what you mean by "creation". In any case the word implies a conscious act, so no.

I think it should be how life was formed.


The main reason I don't believe in that theory of how was formed is because I just don't think that life can be made from nothing, they say, "no, making life from the single celled organism". Well where did that come from? they say "bacteria", that came from somewhere too. Theres just not enough to convince me that we came from something so small, as for all I know, when cells reproduce, they remain the same thing, but more of them, I don't see how, no matter what time amount, that they could form something like me or any other animal. I see your viewpoints, and the evidence, but for me thats not enough.

 

[niky]

I think it should be how life was formed.


The main reason I don't believe in that theory of how was formed is because I just don't think that life can be made from nothing, they say, "no, making life from the single celled organism". Well where did that come from? they say "bacteria", that came from somewhere too. Theres just not enough to convince me that we came from something so small, as for all I know, when cells reproduce, they remain the same thing, but more of them, I don't see how, no matter what time amount, that they could form something like me or any other animal. I see your viewpoints, and the evidence, but for me thats not enough.

Then I guess it follows that pregnancy is all a sham, too, as basically in pregnancy, we evolve from a single celled organism into a fully functioning human being within the span of forty weeks.

Neat note, we take on many characteristics of the creatures we've evolved from during different phases of pregnancy. At a certain point, human embryos are indistinguishable from other mammalian embryos. Pregnancy is sort of a slideshow of different aspects of evolution.

 

[Perfect Balance]

Then I guess it follows that pregnancy is all a sham, too, as basically in pregnancy, we evolve from a single celled organism into a fully functioning human being within the span of forty weeks.

The baby comes from another living organism just like it, with all the DNA and everything. What about the first ever living organism, where did that come from, you have to say that it came from another single celled organism. You need life to make life as I see it. I don't see how a bunch of rocks and stuff could make bacteria, and then evolve into cells, and then into huge animals and plants, no matter hw much time it takes.

 

[Kylehnat]

Pregnancy is sort of a slideshow of different aspects of evolution.

Or a freak show... Come one, come all, to see the flipper baby!!

The main reason I don't believe in that theory of how was formed is because I just don't think that life can be made from nothing, they say, "no, making life from the single celled organism". Well where did that come from? they say "bacteria", that came from somewhere too. Theres just not enough to convince me that we came from something so small, as for all I know, when cells reproduce, they remain the same thing, but more of them, I don't see how, no matter what time amount, that they could form something like me or any other animal. I see your viewpoints, and the evidence, but for me thats not enough.

The most difficult leap is not from the oldest bacteria to us--that makes perfect sense (to me anyway). The hardest thing to grasp is how that bacteria was formed in the first place, which seems to be one of the things you're hung up on. The funny thing is that life is little more than carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen; all of which were plentiful on this planet shortly after it formed. Combine these four atoms together (along with some others), and you've got organic molecules, the blueprints for life. Now if you've got an ocean full of organic molecules (after a long time, of course), they will start to combine with each other to form larger organic molecules. After a while, you've got proteins. Start combining these together, and suddenly you've got a molecule that actually does something. Maybe it's just an enzyme, but it does something. Start throwing these together, and now you've got a ball of stuff that does several things. Give it the protein that codes flagella, and now it can move around. Let DNA develop, and now it can split. Life is born.

It is not just a coincidence that all of these molecules formed in just the right way to make life. These molecules all had to be thermodynamically stable, or they would not have held together over time. A "creator" did not push these together with a finger; physics did that.

 

[Famine]

The baby comes from another living organism just like it, with all the DNA and everything.

Not quite. That'd be cloning.

What about the first ever living organism, where did that come from, you have to say that it came from another single celled organism.

Nope. This is all covered in this thread. Granted there's a lot of it to read through, but it's all* there.

*By which I mean all that is required to understand it. We're not talking quoted papers and sciencese, but simplified versions which are easier to understand, if not wholly true.

You need life to make life as I see it. I don't see how a bunch of rocks and stuff could make bacteria, and then evolve into cells, and then into huge animals and plants, no matter hw much time it takes.

Then it is your perception that is at fault, not the evidence. The evidence IS all there,

 

[niky]

Take this, then. Organic material is found in many different places in the solar system. Relatively complex organic materials may form from natural processes.

Over time, it's possible for something with structure to arise from those materials, and possibly something with coherent structure. Something not alive, yet, but very complex. Viruses are a good example of something primordial, organic, complex, but not alive. From there, you have them forming more and more complex hierarchies of structure, until you have one that can replicate.

It's a process that relies on chance, but with billions of years, and tons of organics, the chances are great. And it only has to happen once.

By the way... you can understand how DNA can tell each and every specific cell what position, function and morphology to take? Even when each cell in the original blastocyst is indistinguishable from the others? Wow. I can't.

Just because you can't understand how something happens, doesn't mean that it doesn't... especially when it has, already.

EDIT: Hehehe... triple post... seems like kylenhat and Famine have answered this a bit better than me.

@kylenhat: I just loved that freakshow. Had an ultrasound almost every two weeks when my wife was pregnant.

 

[Keef]

It is not just a coincidence that all of these molecules formed in just the right way to make life. These molecules all had to be thermodynamically stable, or they would not have held together over time. A "creator" did not push these together with a finger; physics did that.

Actually, I think it is a coincidence that all this stuff worked. This planet just happened to have the right temperatures, the right atmospheric makeup, the right climate(s). "S.hit happens" goes the saying, and I think that stuff really did just happen. It just worked. There were so many mutations of DNA through the span of time, and the good ones just happened to win out over the bad ones. I agree that physics mandated what happened, and everything that did happen followed the laws of physics. What you say about the molecules being stable is right, but I think whatever was around back then just came across the correct combination, and they didn't control that, of course. It just happened, and it has stuck since then. We are getting to the point with our technology where we can keep this combination stuck so we can continue living and keep bad, life threatening events from happening.
I'm just clearing up my point of view, because, at first, you made it sound as if something knowingly controlled what changes took place when you said:

It is not just a coincidence that all of these molecules formed in just the right way to make life.

Then you seemed to contradict that statement with:

A "creator" did not push these together with a finger; physics did that.

I couldn't tell which statement you were supporting.

 

[Kylehnat]

It is not just a coincidence that all of these molecules formed in just the right way to make life.
...A "creator" did not push these together with a finger; physics did that.

I couldn't tell which statement you were supporting.

My statements are not contradictory at all. There seems to be some confusion about evolution. It is NOT random. Nothing on earth is random. Earth itself is not random. It is not just a happy occurance that the earth is round and it rotates. There are physical reasons for this, namely the law of conservation of angular momentum. It happened for a "reason", and that reason is that it must, according to the physical laws of the universe.

Chemistry is no different. It has rules. These rules were not handed down from God; they are intrinsic to the universe itself. The soup of organic molecules I described earlier had to adhere to these rules as well. Only the physically-possible combinations were able to react and increase molecules in size.

I think that stuff really did just happen. It just worked.

Well, it worked because the universe allowed it to.

This planet just happened to have the right temperatures, the right atmospheric makeup, the right climate(s).

This is actually quite an interesting topic. If the temperature, atmosphere, and climate were different (though not massively so), how would life look today? The Earth has just the right combination to support us (though this is not a coincidence either), but what would have happened to the evolutionary path if gravity were larger, the temperature higher, the atmosphere thinner, etc...

 

[Small_Fryz]

This planet just happened to have the right temperatures, the right atmospheric makeup, the right climate(s).

We are what we are because of the planet and climate, if it was different so would we. The earth was here 1st, not us. People seem to think that the earth was made to suit us, when its the other way around, we evolved to suit earth.

 

[Keef]

That is very true, and I often wonder what life would be like with slightly different climates. Maybe if the average temperature was 10 degrees higher or lower, if the oceans were smaller, if the rain and storms were a little more harsh, if the planet was still perpetually rocked by earthquakes and volcanoes and stuff. And why do most living things need oxygen to breath? Why couldn't they use nitrogen? What if they did use nitrogen? There would probably be much more and much larger life forms, since nitrogen is the most plentiful gas on the earth. what if earth were another million miles closer to the sun? There are all sorts of things that could have made drastically different life forms evolve. I wonder.
I realize that everything (we think) has to abide by the laws of physics, and everthing does with minimal complaining. But there is no law of physics that says the earth had to be ~93,000,000 miles from the sun. If there were a few more rocks and a little more gravity concentrated halfway to mars, this planet could have been formed there, and it might have been to far away to support complex life. That is what I mean by being random; the earth didn't have to be where it is, but it is. Although unlikely, we could be the only planet in the universe that supports complex and intelligent life. I think that is just a crazy coincidence. If only those space rocks were twirling around the sun 40,000,000 miles from where they were. That's not a very long distance in space trems, either; its like a baby step. If a couple ran into each other while they were floating in circles it could have easily happened, the earth forming further out.
As a side note, if God is real, He's probably Asian. He'd have to be if he was smart enough to understand how this whole "life" thing worked.

 

[niky]

Dude... if any of the conditions were different, and life formed anyway... you would be arguing that it's too convenient for the Earth to be so close to the sun... or that the surface temperature is exactly 80 degrees Celsius.

 

[Touring Mars]

I often wonder what life would be like with slightly different climates. Maybe if the average temperature was 10 degrees higher or lower, if the oceans were smaller, if the rain and storms were a little more harsh, if the planet was still perpetually rocked by earthquakes and volcanoes and stuff.

There are plenty of examples of life forms right here on Earth right now that are good examples of what life is like in 'alien' surroundings... and the planet is still an active one (albeit geologically more stable than billions of years ago), and hence the environment is in a constant state of flux - fortunately for us, the process of evolution affords every species on Earth the ability to adapt to their surroundings, as and when those surroundings change around us...

 

[Canadian Speed]

There are plenty of examples of life forms right here on Earth right now that are good examples of what life is like in 'alien' surroundings... and the planet is still an active one (albeit geologically more stable than billions of years ago), and hence the environment is in a constant state of flux - fortunately for us, the process of evolution affords every species on Earth the ability to adapt to their surroundings, as and when those surroundings change around us...

Some yes, some not so well... But even if things did change, a life form would likely arrive that could deal with what ever problem it was faced with, given enough time to do so. That wasn't the case with dinosaurs... Oooops, forgot this was the creation thread... They never existed

I realize that everything (we think) has to abide by the laws of physics, and everthing does with minimal complaining. But there is no law of physics that says the earth had to be ~93,000,000 miles from the sun. If there were a few more rocks and a little more gravity concentrated halfway to mars, this planet could have been formed there, and it might have been to far away to support complex life. That is what I mean by being random; the earth didn't have to be where it is, but it is.

Had every planet shifted down one spot... just say. There's a very good chance that life and everything you see here, plants, animals, insects would either be on Venus or Mars, depending on which way you moved them. But the rules of physics are very much real and everything does go along with them. But yes, it appears a bit "random" but exactly as it's variables allowed it to be when it was made. And given these rules of physics, I'm sure there are other forms of life out there on other planets, no doubt on planets with a relatively similar disatances to their main star, as us on ours. That's not to say that there is life on every "third" planet, around every star. But the chances of it are greater then not... Now that would throw a wrench in this whole "creation" thing... wouldn't it?

 

[Touring Mars]

Some yes, some not so well... But even if things did change, a life form would likely arrive that could deal with what ever problem it was faced with, given enough time to do so. That wasn't the case with dinosaurs... Oooops, forgot this was the creation thread... They never existed

Lol.... actually, even the Creationists admit (because they have to) that dinosaurs did exist - asked to explain how Noah managed to get two Brachiosaurs on to the Ark, Creation Museum curator Ken Ham said that Noah must have taken young ones Imagine holding a couple of baby velociraptors or T. Rex's for 40 days and 40 nights... imagine trying to steal two young from a mother Velociraptor... Now that would have been tricky...

Dinosaurs did, of course, evolve and had plenty of time to do so... 160-200 million years - compare that to the fact that mice and humans shared a common ancestor some 75 million years ago - that would leave plenty of lee-way for adaption of dinosaurs. Even though the vast majority of dinosaurs did not survive the last mass extinction event, they did survive at least one earlier mass extinction - and they lived/evolved to tell the tale. The dinosaurs that did survive the last mass extinction would later become modern day birds...

But of course, you're right - according to Creation Theory, apparently none of this ever happened at all...

 

[Canadian Speed]

Lol.... actually, even the Creationists admit (because they have to) that dinosaurs did exist - asked to explain how Noah managed to get two Brachiosaurs on to the Ark, Creation Museum curator Ken Ham said that Noah must have taken young ones Imagine holding a couple of baby velociraptors or T. Rex's for 40 days and 40 nights... imagine trying to steal two young from a mother Velociraptor... Now that would have been tricky...

Dinosaurs did, of course, evolve and had plenty of time to do so... 160-200 million years - compare that to the fact that mice and humans shared a common ancestor some 75 million years ago - that would leave plenty of lee-way for adaption of dinosaurs. Even though the vast majority of dinosaurs did not survive the last mass extinction event, they did survive at least one earlier mass extinction - and they lived/evolved to tell the tale. The dinosaurs that did survive the last mass extinction would later become modern day birds...

But of course, you're right - according to Creation Theory, apparently none of this ever happened at all...

If a T-Rex existed while other animals were around, guess what would happen? The ark would have found land and a big fat T Rex would have gotten out and starved to death soon there after... or... And Jesus came across a Brachiosaurs with a splinter is it's pawh. And Jesus did remove this spliter and the animal raised it's self up because Jesus was his friend. So says the gospel of Luke. And Thomas would have been like "Ahhhhhh!!! I don't believe it!!! A huge ******G lizard!!!"

 

[kennythebomb]

As a side note, if God is real, He's probably Asian. He'd have to be if he was smart enough to understand how this whole "life" thing worked.

He probably has no social life either, parents make him study Friday night.

 

[Touring Mars]

Let's take a closer look at what the Hamster has to say about Dinosaurs (from his website, Answers In Genesis)

Evolutionists use their imagination in a big way in answering this question. Because of their belief that dinosaurs ‘ruled’ the world for millions of years, and then disappeared millions of years before man allegedly evolved, they have had to come up with all sorts of guesses to explain this ‘mysterious’ disappearance.

When reading evolutionist literature, you will be astonished at the range of ideas concerning their supposed extinction. The following is just a small list of theories:

Dinosaurs starved to death; they died from overeating; they were poisoned; they became blind from cataracts and could not reproduce; mammals ate their eggs. Other causes include-volcanic dust, poisonous gases, comets, sunspots, meteorites, mass suicide, constipation, parasites, shrinking brain (and greater stupidity), slipped discs, changes in the composition of air, etc.

It is obvious that evolutionists don’t know what happened and are grasping at straws. In a recent evolutionary book on dinosaurs, ‘A New Look At the Dinosaurs,’ the author made the statement:

‘Now comes the important question. What caused all these extinctions at one particular point in time, approximately 65 million years ago? Dozens of reasons have been suggested, some serious and sensible, others quite crazy, and yet others merely as a joke. Every year people come up with new theories on this thorny problem. The trouble is that if we are to find just one reason to account for them all, it would have to explain the death, all at the same time, of animals living on land and of animals living in the sea; but, in both cases, of only some of those animals, for many of the land dwellers and many of the sea-dwellers went on living quite happily into the following period. Alas, no such one explanation exists’ (Alan Charig, p. 150).

But, one such explanation does exist. If you remove the evolutionary framework, get rid of the millions of years, and then take the Bible seriously, you will find an explanation that fits the facts and makes perfect sense:

At the time of the Flood, many of the sea creatures died, but some survived. In addition, all of the land creatures outside the Ark died, but the representatives of all the kinds that survived on the Ark lived in the new world after the Flood. Those land animals (including dinosaurs) found the new world to be much different than the one before the Flood. Due to (1) competition for food that was no longer in abundance, (2) other catastrophes, (3) man killing for food (and perhaps for fun), and (4) the destruction of habitats, etc., many species of animals eventually died out. The group of animals we now call dinosaurs just happened to die out too. In fact, quite a number of animals become extinct each year. Extinction seems to be the rule in Earth history (not the formation of new types of animals as you would expect from evolution).

...interesting how Ken Ham mocks the fact that evolutionists have postulated a number of possible reasons why the dinosaurs became extinct, and then goes on to postulate some possible reasons himself - I particularly like the 'other catastrophes' idea... what, you mean like meteorites and comets??

From the last paragraph, Ham makes it quite clear that he believes that dinosaurs must have been on the Ark. Presumably, once the flood waters subsided, all the animals (including every species of dinosaur that ever lived - see below - and of course, Man himself) were set loose and left to battle it out with each other for the meagre resources that were left behind after the flood? Presumably, since many dinosaurs were too big to fit on the ark, and therefore only young dinosaurs were taken (according to Ken Ham), then the poor baby dinosaurs didn't stand a chance amongst all those other vicious killing machines, such as lions, tigers and even titigons...? So how come (baby) T. rex and Velociraptor died, and sheep remained? Given this (highly improbable) scenario, you'd have to wonder how it were possible that all dinosaurs would become extinct (except for non-avian dinosaurs, who survived)... Ham's explanation - "The group of animals we now call dinosaurs just happened to die out too" is pathetically weak as to almost warrant no further comment. So, an entire clade of animal just happened to stop existing, in the same environment that allowed other, arguably far more vunerable species to survive and thrive to this day?


The phylogeny of dinosaurs...(according to Ken Ham and AiG, they were all on the Ark too... very interesting!)

 

[Kylehnat]

Just another instance of a religious man not understanding the scientific method, and professing to know everything himself. No, we are not sure what happened to the dinosaurs, but it happened 65 million years ago, a few years before the Internet, 24-hour news stations, and satellite feeds. I despise the fact that he basically discounts all of science as bull****, and then goes on to parrot some hogwash from the Bible as undeniable truth. It almost makes me feel sorry for him; the closed mind, that is. There is so much to learn about our planet, much of it very fascinating, but he is one who chooses to ignore it.

 

[a6m5]

Dinosaurs and THE Flood? I wonder how they came to the conclusion that Dinosaurs were still around when the Ark was being built?