Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[regular.joe]

The battle ground is the theory of evolution. The underlying theme of the battle is whether or not God is or God is not. Not wether or not evolution is a workable theory or not.

That question can not be answered by the theory of evolution. I think it is misguided to use things such as the theory of evolution to prove or disprove God.

God either is, or God is not. As far as I can tell this is a very personal matter. It is also misguided for a believer to get all in a huff over a non believers status as a non believer.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

It doesn't match my own experience of this country: 52% don't believe in evolution at all? That doesn't fit to me.

I'm having trouble believing that also.

Originally Posted by regular.joe

It is also misguided for a believer to get all in a huff over a non believers status as a non believer.

And vice versa.

[tw]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

God either is, or God is not.

Or god is but not as defined in fairy tales (parables) written in a bible. The bible may be how those without basic knowledge (similar to children) grasp a concept too far beyond them. Rather than ask whether god does or does not exist according to their definition, instead, ask what really is god.

When god is personified by human characteristics, then god is simply a false idol. If god has characteristics such as anger and other emotions, then god is only a man – not a god. Clearly, the god defined in a bible is only what naïve children (adults of that time) could comprehend. Time to move on from myths and speculation into, instead, asking what really would be a god. What is defined in the bible is best described as similar to the gods worshipped by the Romans and Greeks – humanized and therefore false idols. Time to ask what a god would really be - which is not what parables in a bible define. But then men were grasping the best they could at that time.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

The battle ground is the theory of evolution. The underlying theme of the battle is whether or not God is or God is not. Not wether or not evolution is a workable theory or not.

That question can not be answered by the theory of evolution. I think it is misguided to use things such as the theory of evolution to prove or disprove God.

God either is, or God is not. As far as I can tell this is a very personal matter. It is also misguided for a believer to get all in a huff over a non believers status as a non believer.

Young Earth Creationists believe that God created the heavens and the earth, all the water and land and plants and animals and humans, etc in 6 twenty four hour days. They get their information from one source: the Bible.

Progressive Creationists (and Intelligent Design folks) Think there is a desiger God who created the universe using the various scientific laws, and let those laws work to make all life, etc. They try to take man created ideas and mash them together with Biblical ideas so that everyone can be happy.

The battle is really this: Either Creation is true or it is not. Evolution as a stand alone idea (even if I wasn't one of those Creationist nutters) doesn't work when you examine it critically. But lets compare the two:

Creation:
God made the earth FOR humans, and He made all the animals and made humans stewards of the whole thing, to take care of.
He made the earth perfect.
He gave humans free will, and they screwed it all up
Screwing it all up was the first instance of sin, which is what brought death and decay to the world.
The dumbass people didn't learn, and a big flood came and wiped out everyone but a family on a big boat.
The dumbass people still didn't learn and so the Creator decided to come down to the Creation and walk about in their form, and show them how to do it, at the same time, creating a way for these dumbasses to hang out with him after their time here.

God Created the world, it's his, we're just (supposed be) taking care of it while we're here. He made it for us, specifically. We are unique.
Since he created it, (and us), he knows more than we do, and we are answerable to him.
How you live your live matters, because wherever you go after you die, you'll be there alot longer than you'll be here.
Man was prior to death.
There is an absolute right or wrong.




Evolution:
Something exploded out of nothing. It was only by an astronomically large number chance that even an amino acid simply popped into existance (in a soup that is death to amino acids, by the way.)
Millions of deaths (and years) later, another one (again, against astronomical odds) simply popped into existance in the toxic soup. Supposedly, this happened enough that those magical amino acids (all of which were spinning the wrong way) suddenly fused together in the soup and some how figured out how to make a working cell wall and mitochondrial cells and energy transporation routes. This continued for billions of years, against ALL odds and logical thought.

Nothing created anything, it's all random chance.
There could be billions of other intelligent life forms in the universe who all happened to have the same unfathomably small odds of evolving too.
Humans are answerable to no one. They are the top of the food chain. There is nothing, no power greater.
How you live your life doesn't matter, because this is all there is.
Death created man.
There are no absolutes. It's all random chance.

The two ideas are diametrically opposed in every way. The war is between God and the Devil, the human mind is the battleground, and the prize is our souls (look up Nephesh for who/what has a soul and who/what doesn't).

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Evolution:
Something exploded out of nothing. It was only by an astronomically large number chance that even an amino acid simply popped into existance (in a soup that is death to amino acids, by the way.)
Millions of deaths (and years) later, another one (again, against astronomical odds) simply popped into existance in the toxic soup. Supposedly, this happened enough that those magical amino acids (all of which were spinning the wrong way) suddenly fused together in the soup and some how figured out how to make a working cell wall and mitochondrial cells and energy transporation routes. This continued for billions of years, against ALL odds and logical thought.

Corrected:

Big Bang Theory:
Something exploded out of [unknown].

Abiogenesis:
Amino acids are created frequently. Amino acids are molecules, aren't alive, and therefore don't die. Amino acids don't spin, but this probably refers to chirality, in which case, there were amino acids of both chiralities. Amino acids aggregate naturally.

The path from amino acids to cells is a subject of research. There were probably some amino acid aggregations that became self replicating or self-expanding, similar to crystals. The most successful happened to be of a certain chirality, which became the chirality of life on Earth. The ocean would probably be full of this stuff , in countless varieties, long before anything resembling life evolved.

Evolution:
Once there is imperfect self-replication, more effective replicators willl tend to outproduce less effective replicators, becoming more dominant in the population.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Something exploded out of nothing.

Wrong. The theory states that the same amount of energy has been constant since "before" the big bang.

This continued for billions of years, against ALL odds and logical thought.

Back this statement up. Also, many events we don't understand tend to go against ALL odds and logical thought. We see no patterns in quantum mechanics but that still exists as fact.

Nothing created anything, it's all random chance.

Chance plays a role but evolution occurs based on environmental conditions, which is not chance.

Evolution has withstood EVERY piece of evidence thrown against it. The only valid arguments against the theory goes into areas that science has no current knowledge or understanding of. Another great aspect of science is its dynamic nature. As of now, scientists gather as much evidence as possible and make conclusions of what happened based on that evidence. If new evidence is presented the conclusions will change until a testable theory is formed and that is perfected from thousands of scientific tests.