Creation vs. Evolution

[Swift]

I concede, maybe God 'created' atoms, and he even created Earth, the universe and everything.... but there really is no rationale behind the assertion that he 'created' every living creature in a magical (and probably pretty messy) workshop, a macabre precursor to Jim Henson perhaps? It is far easier to explain and to understand the role of evolution to accept the fact that a creator made us what we are out of bits and bobs he found lying around...

That really doesn't make much sense. God can create something as complex as the atom. But can't create life? Well, that's not the God that I know.

 

[Famine]

Atoms are, relatively, uncomplicated.

 

[Swift]

Atoms are, relatively, uncomplicated.

On the grand scheme of things yes. However, if everything is made of atoms of different elements and elemental compounds. It would follow that the creator of the atom would have not problem using those same atoms to create other forms.

 

[Danoff]

That really doesn't make much sense. God can create something as complex as the atom. But can't create life? Well, that's not the God that I know.

It's not a question of whether God can or cannot create life, it's a quesiton of whether he did. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Touring was suggesting that there are aspects of the universe that science has not explained - and that these areas leave room for God (since there is no other evidence). I believe Touring (again, correct me if I'm wrong) was not claiming that God can't create life, but rather that the evidence suggests that he did not.

 

[Famine]

Indeed. The point was that atoms are relatively uncomplicated, but the things they make up are often extremely complex. So if you can make an atom it doesn't necessarily follow that larger things like a shovel, a bowl of soup or a giraffe are easy - since they are more complicated, fundamentally, than a mere atom is.

 

[Swift]

It's not a question of whether God can or cannot create life, it's a quesiton of whether he did. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Touring was suggesting that there are aspects of the universe that science has not explained - and that these areas leave room for God (since there is no other evidence). I believe Touring (again, correct me if I'm wrong) was not claiming that God can't create life, but rather that the evidence suggests that he did not.

Yes, I got that part. But I was just saying that it really doesn't follow a path of intelligent design.

 

[Touring Mars]

I believe Touring (again, correct me if I'm wrong) was not claiming that God can't create life, but rather that the evidence suggests that he did not.

Thats pretty much what I meant... we cannot explain (yet) how atoms form, but we can explain how organic molecules and hence everything that goes into making a living creature, are formed...

You do not need to invoke the idea of intellegent design to explain how complex living things like ourselves could have originated from such simple beginnings...

Sorry, I have to go now... They're about to cut the power off in my building.. thanks for telling us boss .... (can you believe that!! )

 

[Tacet_Blue]

It is odd that Creation goes up against Evolution all the time.

Evolution does not deal with the origin of life...it is the origin of species.
The journey that life has taken over the millennium from the single celled organisms that could divide asexually. These then clustered together to make a little city of specialised cells that lived symbiotically to provide complex functions, and on and on to larger and more complex creatures with even more specialised cells.

Part of the Creation myth could be true, or to be more accurate, can't be disproved, and that is the original spark of life, what triggered the event from inanimate carbon based gloop, to replicating amino acids. That could well have been Gods work I have no idea...my money is on heat and electricity.

The part that is false, is the idea that all animals were created at the same time and have not changed...or evolved..at all. The world is all about adapting and change, we survive because we can manipulate our environment. That environment changes and so must we in order to prosper.

Evolution does happen, but the theory does not explain how life was first triggered, you Creationists can smile smugly about that one, but to ignore the process and think that all animals have been the same for all eternity is a bit foolish.

I couldn't argue with a creationist that said "God created amino acids, added a touch of random mutation... and then left it to bake with evolution for a Billion years at gas mark earth". But to say that man and dinosaurs walked the earth together, and that once we were all on a great big ship, makes me fall down laughing.

Enough laughing...my original point is that Evolution will never prove Creation myth completely wrong as it does not explain the origin of life (it never intended to!) ...and Creation will never be accepted as a science, it's just so full of errors (ribs, floods, no ice age, no change in species, no new species, dogs from wolves guys!! look at a pig, and then look at a boar we bred that, it is not natural...oh there are too many to list), so I suggest that the two theories (yes I said theory not myth) should go their separate ways...

 

[Swift]

It is odd that Creation goes up against Evolution all the time.

Evolution does not deal with the origin of life...it is the origin of species.
The journey that life has taken over the millennium from the single celled organisms that could divide asexually. These then clustered together to make a little city of specialised cells that lived symbiotically to provide complex functions, and on and on to larger and more complex creatures with even more specialised cells.

Part of the Creation myth could be true, or to be more accurate, can't be disproved, and that is the original spark of life, what triggered the event from inanimate carbon based gloop, to replicating amino acids. That could well have been Gods work I have no idea...my money is on heat and electricity.

The part that is false, is the idea that all animals were created at the same time and have not changed...or evolved..at all. The world is all about adapting and change, we survive because we can manipulate our environment. That environment changes and so must we in order to prosper.

Evolution does happen, but the theory does not explain how life was first triggered, you Creationists can smile smugly about that one, but to ignore the process and think that all animals have been the same for all eternity is a bit foolish.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. When did I ever say that evolution doesn't happen? What I said and have been saying is that the evolutionary theory of the origin of species is quite incorrect. I understand that many species have done "sideways" evolution even during recorded history or even through fossils and what not.

What I dispute is the concept that we were once a one celled ameoba and a few billion years later we're people. That's what I'm talking about.

 

[PS]

Does anyone want to point out why god let the Earth freeze 10,000 years ago wiped out most of mankind?

I mean, if noone is there to be "saved", who's Jesus going to save if they were all frozen?

Luckily we survived, but I'll bet that was supposedly god/Jesus' workings too, wasn't it?

 

[PS]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. When did I ever say that evolution doesn't happen? What I said and have been saying is that the evolutionary theory of the origin of species is quite incorrect. I understand that many species have done "sideways" evolution even during recorded history or even through fossils and what not.

What I dispute is the concept that we were once a one celled ameoba and a few billion years later we're people. That's what I'm talking about.

There's little difference between a 1 celled organism and a 2 celled organism. It mutated, split, and evolution took it's path. I already did a step-by-step explanation for how something could form life, it's in this thread somewhere. But that was brushed off to the side like I never even wrote it, so don't even bother asking for the answer to something I've already shown you— that you chose to dismiss.

 

[Swift]

Does anyone want to point out why god let the Earth freeze 10,000 years ago wiped out most of mankind?

I mean, if noone is there to be "saved", who's Jesus going to save if they were all frozen?

Luckily we survived, but I'll bet that was supposedly god/Jesus' workings too, wasn't it?

Now that was some serious ignorance right there.

There's little difference between a 1 celled organism and a 2 celled organism. It mutated, split, and evolution took it's path. I already did a step-by-step explanation for how something could form life, it's in this thread somewhere. But that was brushed off to the side like I never even wrote it, so don't even bother asking for the answer to something I've already shown you— that you chose to dismiss.

Yeah, you posted a theory of evolutionary possibility. And it just trips me out. Nobody has seen a new species develop from an old one. Nor have I seen anyone prove a certain time when when did. The general response has been, it happens to slowly.

 

[PS]

Now that was some serious ignorance right there.



Yeah, you posted a theory of evolutionary possibility. And it just trips me out. Nobody has seen a new species develop from an old one. Nor have I seen anyone prove a certain time when when did. The general response has been, it happens to slowly.

That's because it does. The dates of the skeletal between raptors and raptors with feathers and all-out birds are millions of years apart.

It takes a person 25 years just to reach 100% maturity, but to actually change the genetic structure of something would take much, much longer. It starts by creating a new species, then a new species from that, and eventually it no longer looks anything like the root animal.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. When did I ever say that evolution doesn't happen? What I said and have been saying is that the evolutionary theory of the origin of species is quite incorrect. I understand that many species have done "sideways" evolution even during recorded history or even through fossils and what not.

Maybe you didn't say that, but I was speaking in general about Creation theory, not you in particular. God created animals as they are, and that's the way they'll always be. That is at the heart of Creation.

If as you say you accept the "sideways" evolution then that is a start, and you are more open minded than most. What you really want to see is a frog change into a winged snake or something
...but can you tell me why dolphins breathe air, and why they still have fingers in their flippers and feet in their tails. Why do all vertebrates have four limbs and two eyes? We have a common link with the dolphin, it was a four limbed creature and one lot went back to the water and one lot climbed trees...

What I dispute is the concept that we were once a one celled ameoba and a few billion years later we're people. That's what I'm talking about.

I know...it's quite fantastic and hard to get your head around, but can you even get your head around what a billion years really is

The single celled organisms still around lurking in water have the same structure to their cells as we do...the cells divide in the same way, The nucleus the protoplasm etc are all the same...coincidence?

To quote FatBoy Slim...We've come a long way

 

[PS]

Now that was some serious ignorance right there.
.

Oh yeah, the Earth is only 6000 years old.

...which by the way, a preist proposed that idea in the mid-1600's, and even then scientists were disclaiming his theory.

 

[Swift]

Oh yeah, the Earth is only 6000 years old.

...which by the way, a preist proposed that idea in the mid-1600's, and even then scientists were disclaiming his theory.

And when did I say the earth was 6,000 years old?

 

[PS]

And when did I say the earth was 6,000 years old?

You didn't. But you made it clear that you believed that.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

It takes a person 25 years just to reach 100% maturity, but to actually change the genetic structure of something would take much, much longer.

Did you know that you are completely renewed every six years. I find it odd!
The skin is replaced in a monthly cycle, and the last thing to to be created is the skeleton...that gives us a good chance to physically adapt in a six year cycle. If you don't use your legs, they'll waste away, the bones will lose mass, the body wastes nothing and the calcium is used elsewhere. There are special cells that eat bone if it not subjected to shocks and forces...they then deposit it where the forces are stronger...they sculpt you like an artist!
The shapes they make are complex and beautiful, the honey comb structure inside a femur is an engineering master piece of strength and weight reduction.

Ok Swift this is not what youre after but after six years of welding, the skin on your hands will be like leather, and guess what...your children will inherit the DNA that causes that. Imagine this process over a gazillion years

On a side note...if you want to have children, I suggest getting in shape, aerobic, muscle tone, strength and coordination...do some detox and eat well, the DNA you pass on will be the DNA that you have at conception.
Famine may have something to say about that but the location of muscle and density of bone is specified in your DNA. Dancers have poised children with incredible balance, dexterity can be inherited.
If you are going to have a child then make yourself as healthy as possible first, and they will inherit an advantage

Then afterwards...go drink some beers and have yourself a big fat steak

 

[PS]

I've always wondered if it worked like that...I kind of had a hunch that it did, what with all the 200lb moms and 300lb dad having 100lb kids when they're like 8.

 

[Swift]

You didn't. But you made it clear that you believed that.

Nice assumption. You know what happens when you make an assumption right? I've done it enough myself to stop.

 

[PS]

Upon further review, I've come to the conclusion that I've confused you with XVII/#17. Sorry 'bout that. Still kind of annoying though. There's Famine, who's unique. There's Touring Mars, who's unique to me mainly because his name is like a travel agency, then there's Swift, Pako, and 17 who just aren't unique to me, mainly because you all have one-word names or don't stick out too much, so I tend to get you 3 confused. There's one more too, but I forget.

 

[Swift]

Upon further review, I've come to the conclusion that I've confused you with XVII/#17. Sorry 'bout that. Still kind of annoying though. There's Famine, who's unique. There's Touring Mars, who's unique to me mainly because his name is like a travel agency, then there's Swift, Pako, and 17 who just aren't unique to me, mainly because you all have one-word names or don't stick out too much, so I tend to get you 3 confused. There's one more too, but I forget.

Burnout.

Well, if that's the system, then we should easily forget you since your name is just two letters.

 

[PS]

But I'm a postwhore and an atheistic-Marilyn Manson fan. You statistcally can't forget me.

 

[ledhed]

He confused me with a right wing Christian . I sense a trend here .

 

[PS]

I haven't been here for a month, gimme a break!

 

[James2097]

They are seemingly unaware of the fact that they've read about it before and so when they experience something strange, during which the mind conjures up things (coma/prolonged sleep/hypoxia/NDE) drawn from its previous experiences, that it isn't their obervations which are consistent with previous reports, but their observations are consistent DUE TO previous reports.

In this case the previous 'report' is the bible!
"GOD", in the christian sense is so widely "experienced" precisely because of a consistent 'previous report' - the education about him/her/it is so prevalent in society everyone will have a similar experience when they go a bit nutty (usually during a time of considerable stress and mental instablity - there is a huge proportion of people that have mental problems at SOME time in their life) and have visions/hear things etc.

The christian concept of 'god' is totally the best marketed man made thing EVER!!! Tell you what, there's a crazy prophet margin (haha) when you see how much cash the vatican's got! Jesus goes straight to the top of the class for advanced market research and propheting big $$! You want everlasting life with that? SURE!

No one would EVER have any spiritual experience in line with a christian god if they were never informed what it should/could/would be like. If you have a vision/voices/whatever in your head (that isn't just a 'normal' dream...) from anyone other than God, in fact, you are confirmed as mental. I conclude religion is no different.

Sorry this post was kinda out of the blue, but I had a vision of Charles Darwin and he told me religion was a bit nutty (I said "and this vision I'm having isn't?!" - he said "Well you got me there son.."), and I was compelled to write this!!

 

[PS]

In this case the previous 'report' is the bible!
"GOD", in the christian sense is so widely "experienced" precisely because of a consistent 'previous report' - the education about him/her/it is so prevalent in society everyone will have a similar experience when they go a bit nutty (usually during a time of considerable stress and mental instablity - there is a huge proportion of people that have mental problems at SOME time in their life) and have visions/hear things etc.

The christian concept of 'god' is totally the best marketed man made thing EVER!!! Tell you what, there's a crazy prophet margin (haha) when you see how much cash the vatican's got! Jesus goes straight to the top of the class for advanced market research and propheting big $$! You want everlasting life with that? SURE!

No one would EVER have any spiritual experience in line with a christian god if they were never informed what it should/could/would be like. If you have a vision/voices/whatever in your head (that isn't just a 'normal' dream...) from anyone other than God, in fact, you are confirmed as mental. I conclude religion is no different.

Sorry this post was kinda out of the blue, but I had a vision of Charles Darwin and he told me religion was a bit nutty (I said "and this vision I'm having isn't?!" - he said "Well you got me there son.."), and I was compelled to write this!!

1. You're god damned nuts.
2. The Vatican is Catholic.

 

[Swift]

In this case the previous 'report' is the bible!
"GOD", in the christian sense is so widely "experienced" precisely because of a consistent 'previous report' - the education about him/her/it is so prevalent in society everyone will have a similar experience when they go a bit nutty (usually during a time of considerable stress and mental instablity - there is a huge proportion of people that have mental problems at SOME time in their life) and have visions/hear things etc.

The christian concept of 'god' is totally the best marketed man made thing EVER!!! Tell you what, there's a crazy prophet margin (haha) when you see how much cash the vatican's got! Jesus goes straight to the top of the class for advanced market research and propheting big $$! You want everlasting life with that? SURE!

No one would EVER have any spiritual experience in line with a christian god if they were never informed what it should/could/would be like. If you have a vision/voices/whatever in your head (that isn't just a 'normal' dream...) from anyone other than God, in fact, you are confirmed as mental. I conclude religion is no different.

Sorry this post was kinda out of the blue, but I had a vision of Charles Darwin and he told me religion was a bit nutty (I said "and this vision I'm having isn't?!" - he said "Well you got me there son.."), and I was compelled to write this!!

Again, I agree with PS...man, this is getting serious.

What do you mean by no one would ever have any spiritual experience? I'm really trying to figure that one out. And no, I don't think that if you have visions of ungodly things that you're "mental". It could simply be satan's influences or even the cheesburger you should'nt have eaten so late.

 

[ledhed]

I know and respect many people of faith . To ridicule or discount their feelings is wrong .
The point of this thread was to point out what is right to teach in school and why . Not what you should have FAITH in .

 

[Swift]

I know and respect many people of faith . To ridicule or discount their feelings is wrong .
The point of this thread was to point out what is right to teach in school and why . Not what you should have FAITH in .

On that note. I think both aspects should be taught or none.