creation science vs. evolution

[JoeW]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

rabbit,<br />Although you claim to disagree with evolution, your arguments seem to revolve around the likelyhood (or lack thereof) of the origin of our species from a single spontaneous premordial event. <br /><br />I don't know much about the theories that revolve around the origin, but I'm very familiar the natural selection theory. Do you disagree with natural selection? We see natural selection occur all around us. For example, if you mow your lawn with the mower set at one inch, you will kill most of the dandilions in the lawn. After a while, however, the only dandilions that will grow will have blooms less than 1 inch tall. That is a form of natural selection. <br /><br />How and why the short dandiliones came to exist at all is simply a matter of genetic mutations that occur in nature very frequently. Oxidation is just one source of mutation. There are many other sources. The frequent mowing of the lawn just gives the one inch dandilions a natural advantage.<br /><br />Do you disagree that natural selection occurs, or are you only disagreeing with the theory of the originating event that is derived by extending natural selection back into the past?<br /><br />Natural selection can and has been proven to exist. Wheather we as humans are the result of natural selection is, however, a theory and will always remain a theory.

 

[Toad2001]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Bearcat,<br /><br />Obviously you are a religious man, and please, I am not being disrespectful. I also wish no harm in this statement, but would you feel differently in your statements if you had a healthy son/daughter or grandchild who became terminally ill with cancer?<br />What would your views of Gods fairness and randomness be then?<br /><br />Peace.

 

[kd6nem]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Good, honest question, Toad.<br />My view would not be changed by my grief. This is because I realize that man brought sin into the world, not God. God gave us the ability to think, feel, & choose. God gave mankind a way to avoid this mess in the beginning(though we failed), and a second chance at the Cross.<br />This is not to say that my grieving in such a situation would not be grieving. I have not lost a wife, child, or grandchild. Could well happen some day, sure hope not. I have had loss in my own life, though not as you mention which would be indeed worse than what I've experienced, though it was real enough. No, I cannot blame God for the mess we have here on this planet. I'm part of this race which may excel at technology but struggles with relationships. Realationships with each other and with our Creator. I'm the same as anyone else except I'm one of those who realize: 1. There is a real, active, and loving God waiting to be discovered (on His terms, not ours. He is after all the Creator- He's entitled to have it that way.) 2. I'm not good enough to merit God's favor. It was (is) a gift and can't be earned. I could never be good enough. I believe God really is perfect, and perfect is a whole bunchy better than the best of us. I'm not even a distant runner up in that race.<br /><br />I don't mean to get preachy or anything, don't mean to get the discussion off track, just trying to answer a valid question.

 

[SCO]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

This isn't a topic I want to win. For what it is worth, the older I get, the less I think I know. Nowadays the big bang folks think it may have occurred when different diminsional folds of space bumped each other, an offshoot of some kind of physics called string theory. I get this stuff from NOVA. I want to quote Joe Pechi in the JFK movie about a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a question. Who the heck knows folks. We may be as much in the dark as an amoeba under a microscope.

 

[TELMANMN]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Let's see. First there was Adam, then Eve. <br />Billions of people now. A little incest somewhere? <br /> Or God created the initial spark of life and it developed from there. <br /> I like the second choice better.

 

[18rabbit]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Telmanmn – I think your thought suggestion is a good one but it missed on two points:<br /><br />1-The presumption that the Bible is complete. It is not.<br />2-The presumption that Biblical creationism is the only alternative to evolution. It is not, either.<br /><br />Fwiw, incest has little, if any effect on survivability UNLESS it is repetitive along the same genetic lines. Sorry, I forget how many brother+sister generations it takes for recessive genes and mutations to surface…but it’s not easy to consistently breed clubbed feet and big heads.

 

[JoeW]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Wow! This is a long thread. Hey mods, what's the record for length of a post?

 

[SpinnerBait_Nut]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Originally posted by joew94th:<br />Wow! This is a long thread. Hey mods, what's the record for length of a post?

joe, I think I have seen some with over 200 replies but not real sure.

 

[18rabbit]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Suds and his listing boat?

 

[Whaler Proud]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Wow! What a debate. The nice thing is that once it is over everyone will get back to talking about boats <br /><br />While perusing all of the commentary on this incredibly long (approximately 8 beers and I need to be at work in the morning thread, references to scientific authority or biblical authority are rather scarce.<br /><br />Since I am of the Christian world view, but am still am able to discern situations or theories, based on evidence, lets throw some things out here (and please, don't flame me as I am only in this for the fun ).<br /><br />In the biblical acccount most everyone is familiar with "In the beginng, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). However, the next sentence gives us some insight as to what was going on when God made His next move; "Now the earth was empty,darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters" (Genesis 1:2).<br /><br />The second sentence should satisfy most evolutionists since all life started in the water, or "primordial soup". It also gives credence to the "billion, gazillion year theory". Nothing in the Bible, or the text given, states an actual timeline of events or actions. For all we knpow, the God of the Bible decided He needed billions of years to get around to doing something with earth.<br /><br />From here we go into the seven days of creation. Are they literally seven 24 hour days? You got me, but I have as much proof they were as anyone has they weren't. And if you read the biblical account, the sequence of creation closely follows what has been taught as evolution, or, rather, what evolutionists have claimed to be scientific. It won't hurt any of us to read the text, Genesis is part of the Torah and the creation acccount is part of all of the ancient religions. The best part is we can document how old the account is because of the anomoly in all of this, Jewish faith. It is proven that Judaism has been around for at least 6,000 years.<br /><br />According to Genesis, man was not created until the sixth day (He [God]took a break on the seventh). Look at evolution, man is a later development through chance. I prefer to think I was designed.<br /><br />Mention was made that incest was involved in the population of the earth according to the biblical account. In a modern sense, yes. However, you need to look at the chronolgy of the bible; incest was not "outlawed" (directly dealt with by God) until many generations after Cain and Abel. One theory on this is that the gene pool was pure, so the issues we have today (or 5,000 years ago) were not there. This coincides with the second law of thermodynamics.<br /><br />There was a reference to looking at the similarity of the internal makeup of animals. Great observation! But have you stopped to think that a designer would have carried out a good idea? What are the odds that the majority of life on earth would have carried the same digestive design without a designer? Ask a child if this could have happened and they will laugh.....and they will laugh.....and they will laugh.<br /><br />I guess the best way to describe how I can take the creation account at face value is in the things I do not understand. <br /><br />Look at a tree. How does this organism go from a seed, without a brain, without any kind of circulatory system, and become a majestic oak? There is no hydraulic pumps to move water from the roots to the leaves, no logical reason for the tree to live 100 years without human intervention. <br /><br />JB, your statement I would normally agree with except that you pulled the religion card. While we have never met face to face, you have shown yourself to be a sage worthy of the respect given to you. I presume that your short sighted opinion was due to a trigger finger on the mouse more than your final opinion on the matter. Creation theory and evolution theory can be taught side by side without giving credence to either side. Present the evidence, and let the evidence prevail. <br /><br />I am not afraid of being proven wrong about creation, why are evolutionist's afraid od creation?<br /><br />I am done now, I apologize for the ramble.I wish you all of the best. JB: I'd love to hook up and discuss this at length. Or, better yet, get our Whalers out on PK and show the locals what is good.

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

it is amusing to me that creationists disregard<br />evolution due to lack of "proof", yet their theory<br />of the earth being 6,000 yrs. old has absolutely<br />no proof or scientic basis whatsoever.<br />let's take this a step further. most geologists<br />today believe the earth is about 4 1/2 billion<br />years old. This is known from radiometric dating<br />of rocks. In radiometric dating, scientists <br />measure the amounts of different isotopes of <br />certain elements in a rock sample. Since radioactive<br />isotopes are known to decay at a certain constant rate,<br />the amounts remaining in the rock will tell how<br />old it is. For igneous rocks this is the time<br />when it solidified from molten magma. The oldest<br />rocks ever found on Earth are actually slightly<br />younger than this, about 3.8 billion years old<br />because plate tectonics recycles the earth's crust.<br />4 1/2 billion years is a long, long time folks!<br />mix this with evolution and natural selection and<br />it's easy to see how we eneded up where we are<br />today.<br />and to answer the question; "why not teach them<br />side by side and let students decide?"<br />because there is not an ounch of scientific support<br />for this theory, only religious reasons... that<br />ain't enough to make it an equal scientific theory<br />imho.<br /><br />for those interested in reading further:<br /> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Bottom line is that the closer you look both explanations require faith. Many prefer to not look close enough to have to choose, because if the question "how did we get here?" gets answered we have to crawl off the fence and decide where to stand

Well said. Science can be as much of a religion as Christianity. Many times it requires a faith - believe in things that can not be seen. <br /><br />So I say, who cares if they teach both? Let kids see both sides and let them dope it out on their own. Are people on both sides of this so insecure in their positions that they need to shut out the other in fear of a person choosing the other side? <br /><br />The great thing about this country, and the thing we a losing fast, is the access to all information and the right to decide for ourselves. If creation makes more sense then great! If evolution makes more sense then great too! I rather choose by having access and exposure to both arguments and deciding for my self.<br /><br />The truth shall set you free! No indoctrination needed. If you think the other side's arguments are wrong and dumb, chances are your side will prevail when both are prsented and the net affect will be stronger held opinins by those given the freedom to choose between the two.

 

[SCO]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

THe answer??? Private school vouchers? It is clear that a concensus is impossible. So we all go our separate ways and teach our kids according to what we as individuals think. It bothers me that we are becoming fractured as a people, and if you were refering to me as fearfull whaler proud, that's why. I don't want to be seen as the enemy by my countrymen that in all other respects have near identical values to me, but it is clear that is what happens with this kind of issue. The founding fathers had something figured out. They knew we had to be able to stomach each others religions. The state cannot be involved in sponsoring religion for this very reason. With that in mind, and if you agree, creationists, how do we solve this problem? Do you think we are or should be a church state built on the founding religion, Christianity?

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

A little off topic, bu in general, have you noticed that people who tend to be considered liberal and progressive also tend to be secular, humanistic and have great faith in science. Nothing wrong with that at all. I am a trained scientist and was never very religous. However, there also seems to be an attempt by people in this camp to limit information and debate. It is very similar to the way many religions, especially early on, sought to do the same thing to anyone who dare question the dogma. Just an observation... It reminds me of the book "Animal Farm"

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

SCO - The founding fathers were against a state sponsored religion, an official religion, not religion and faith in general. Here is proof, given in a fmaous speech by George Washington:<br /><br />

Washington's Farewell Address 1796<br /><br />Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. <br /><br />Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections... With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together;

 

[SCO]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Ralph, I am secular because I don't think religious ideals can be agreed upon, so the government has to stay out of that fray. Government has to limit itself to areas that can be decided with logic, and protect individuals right to their own religion. In most other respects, I am no liberal, nor do I find you to be.<br /><br />Ralph, we dont disagree re Washington. I picked the wrong word, sanctioning, and have changed it to sponsoring in the previous post of mine.

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Ralph your second from last post is right on. I have not heard one time on here where someone has tryed to force their spititial belief to be the only one spoken of or taught. But on many occastion people have tryed to force their secular veiw to be the only one taught or given any serious thought. Could it be fear? Your right in the past the shoe was on the other foot(religion ruled), But it makes no more sense to do it the way its done now(only secular views) then it did for it to happen the way it was in the past.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

SCO, I think there is a difference between not sanctioning a particular religion or dogma and being out right anti-religion which is where we are headed fast. Many in this country are trying to undermine religion in this country.<br /><br />Religion in general has always played a big part in Western Civilization and this country. As Washington said, when you pull out the moral underpinnings religion provides, you may not like the results.<br /><br />If you want to see the results of this trend just look at the former USSR and modern day Europe for guidance. I think it is telling that one of the first things the former Soviet Republics did when they were free of oppression is to embrace their religious roots. Why is that when after all those years they did without it and even became a Super Power?

 

[SCO]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

M&R, the fear is that any individual or group is going to be able to inject their particular religious belief into a science curriculum. You cant much stand an evolutionist telling you that the earth is older that 6000 years. It is heracy to you. Should the buddist have his creation theory in the science book? Muslim? What about veiling vs unveiling? Do you want someone to impose that idea on your family? How far do we need to extend this argument to get the point across. There is no state sponsored religion for a reason. I can handle ,though think it is flawed, that you declare evolution and science a religion, and thus exclude it from curriculum, but think it a slippery slope to allow religious ideas to be presented as science.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Teach it all when it overlaps and none is clearly 100% correct. Let the individual decide. When you teach one and exclude the other you are guilty of indoctrination - whether secular or religious. I fear a lack of information and debate rather than too much of it.