Creationist vs Evolutionist
-
Which areas are you referring to?Originally posted by sillyme:Do you agree that certain areas of evolution cannot be "testable"?? Because too much information is lacking.
Are you refering to "macro-evolution "? If so, I would suggest reading this . There is basically no reason why micro-evolution is accepted while macro-evolution is not. There is no known barrier to hinder macro-evolution, thus there is no reason to belief the change accumulated by micro-evolution cannot be carried over, resulting in a much larger change over longer time. Macro-evolution is just a term used to describe evolution at or above the species level. -
Simple... u just pick put any living beings and is there signs tat it is created and not evolved. If it is created, then is should have be completely different from other animals past and present. If it appears to have DNA and gene link to another speicies past and present, then it is probably evolved. U try tat for all the living beings in the world and tis is probably true.
-
Just to clarify things or mention it again.
1) Creation was only necessary to "get things going". After that there is not purpose to creating new life.
2) Creation doesn't mean turning fishes to rabbits nor rambutans to watermelons. That is fairy tale.
3) The DNA is not drastically different because as science has already proven for life to exist, certain basic component must be present. A creator would have known that when creating. Similar DNA is not a proof of evolution, it is common because it is essential to life.
4) Evolution can be a process after creation is completed. The whole details of evolution, that I'm not sure.
My point is, some of us are not saying evolution did not happen. We're saying there is a creation process and evolution probably is part of it too. My guess why the bible has very details about creation is probably because
1) It's not essential to know the details. It's only critical to know who created it. (maybe God is creating job opportunes for evolutionist?
)
2) Genesis is largely credited to Moses and he's not a scientist.
Don't you all agree there are many gaps yet filled? But it really doesn't rule out creation. And maybe we'll never know the full details.
Thanks for reading it again. -
When I asked about evolution being testable, I was asking if science can do an experiement to proof the process of evolution? For example, an accelerated process of one species evolving to another? Maybe a full-grown animal is impossible, but single cell organism is perhaps feaesible.
-
Creation was only necessary to "get things going". After that there is not purpose to creating new life.
I have mention about Intelligent Design, which is some beings creating life. Tis being may not be the god u describe as. Why won't it create new life ? Why is there no purpose in creating new lives ? Intelligent design never meant tat it will not start all over again isn't it ?Creation doesn't mean turning fishes to rabbits nor rambutans to watermelons. That is fairy tale.
Maybe the examples given r a bit exaggerated...
However why can't tat happened ? Platypus is one wierd looking animal too, how come it suddenly get popped out too ? If u ask me, durian look more wierder than a rambutan tat is the size of watermelons.The DNA is not drastically different because as science has already proven for life to exist, certain basic component must be present. A creator would have known that when creating. Similar DNA is not a proof of evolution, it is common because it is essential to life.
Why should it be ? Why can't it create life tat work totally differently ? Why should it be similar in DNA ? Why can't life be sillicon-based instead of carbon based ? Thgere is no reason to do tat isn't it ? The strong links between each other is already a good evidence tat life originate from the same point isn't it ?Evolution can be a process after creation is completed. The whole details of evolution, that I'm not sure
Since u believe in evolution, why not believe it fully ? Why must u insists tat the bible is right when it had been proven wrong ?It's not essential to know the details. It's only critical to know who created it. (maybe God is creating job opportunes for evolutionist
They have given something totally contradictory to it. They have specifically mentioned tat men is made from dust and breath and built within a day. It is wrong ! It is not about the details anymore u know. It is about wrong and right !Genesis is largely credited to Moses and he's not a scientist.
Moses write with the inspiration of god. God is indirectly writing it. God should definitely know wat is he doing isn't it ?Don't you all agree there are many gaps yet filled? But it really doesn't rule out creation. And maybe we'll never know the full details.
Gap ??!? Wat gap ?? I can onyl see gap in creationismWhen I asked about evolution being testable, I was asking if science can do an experiement to proof the process of evolution? For example, an accelerated process of one species evolving to another? Maybe a full-grown animal is impossible, but single cell organism is perhaps feaesible.
If u meant tat, I thought poopie head has already told u tat some experiments in a lab has proven evolution ? -
If you're asking about an intelligent designer other than God of the Bible, then I don't know why they stop creating. Perhaps you can try to find out from them if you bump into them lor. Or ask the UFO fanatics
If you're asking about why life can't be based on another element, it beats me too. Yes it proofs originates from the same point, it can also mean that it's from a same designer. As stated, some "proofs" lead in both direction. I also mentioned before that new creatures discovered doesn't proof evolution nor creation. It's just that it's never been found before. But thank you for bringing it up for the sake of others.
I still believe in the bible because I know I have yet to know all things and I enjoy being a Christian.
Of course God knows everything. But imagine Him telling whoever scribing the bible about carbonates, rib bones, brain functions, etc. the bible would need a lot DVDs to store all the information. I think it's not available at that time.
There are gaps in evolution. If not, please state the full time line. State from what organism evolve to which other species in full detail. If there experiments, then please make known the whitepaper to read on. Please take note that by saying there are gaps, I'm not saying that evolutionist untrue, lest that you think I saying you're lying. -
If you're asking about an intelligent designer other than God of the Bible, then I don't know why they stop creating. Perhaps you can try to find out from them if you bump into them lor. Or ask the UFO fanatics
So from the way u say tis, u do not believe in an intelligent designer other than he is god ?If you're asking about why life can't be based on another element, it beats me too. Yes it proofs originates from the same point, it can also mean that it's from a same designer. As stated, some "proofs" lead in both direction. I also mentioned before that new creatures discovered doesn't proof evolution nor creation. It's just that it's never been found before. But thank you for bringing it up for the sake of others.
Coming from the same point is valid. Coming from the same designer may not be so. Why do u think a designer is limited with the "materials" ? He will be limited only if he isn't so intelligent afterall to made use of other elements.
Coming out with a totally new creatures (meaning DNA sequence etc is totally different) can be a conclusive evidence tat evolution is wrong. Tis is never found. Isn't tis a sign tat creationism is wrong ?Of course God knows everything. But imagine Him telling whoever scribing the bible about carbonates, rib bones, brain functions, etc. the bible would need a lot DVDs to store all the information. I think it's not available at that time.
As said before, he is not omitting facts. He was giving contradictory facts. Its is not about having many DVDs to hold all the theories... no one expect it to be so. It is about not lying to people. Don't come and tell things tat was wrong.There are gaps in evolution. If not, please state the full time line. State from what organism evolve to which other species in full detail. If there experiments, then please make known the whitepaper to read on. Please take note that by saying there are gaps, I'm not saying that evolutionist untrue, lest that you think I saying you're lying.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html
U satisfied with tis timeline ? For experiments u had to ask poopie head for one. -
Not really. A convicing one would be a related proof for every event statedOriginally posted by stupidissmart:http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html
U satisfied with tis timeline ? For experiments u had to ask poopie head for one.
It doesn't prove creationism is wrong at all. Using almost the same materials but having immense variety is also an intelligence by itself.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Coming from the same point is valid. Coming from the same designer may not be so. Why do u think a designer is limited with the "materials" ? He will be limited only if he isn't so intelligent afterall to made use of other elements.
Coming out with a totally new creatures (meaning DNA sequence etc is totally different) can be a conclusive evidence tat evolution is wrong. Tis is never found. Isn't tis a sign tat creationism is wrong ?
This answer is obvious as I'm a ChristianOriginally posted by stupidissmart:So from the way u say tis, u do not believe in an intelligent designer other than he is god ?
Maybe one day, everything will be revealed. Then the contradictions will be cleared up.Originally posted by stupidissmart:As said before, he is not omitting facts. He was giving contradictory facts. Its is not about having many DVDs to hold all the theories... no one expect it to be so. It is about not lying to people. Don't come and tell things tat was wrong. -
"Just to clarify things or mention it again.
1) Creation was only necessary to "get things going". After that there is not purpose to creating new life. "
There are basically 2 ways to go about it - one of them is just like what you mentioned, Creation is only done at the beginning. The other idea being that Creation can happen even after the first 6 days. However, both explanations can be seen to be flawed.
- If Creation is only at beginning, then there should be very distinct classes separating the species. However, some organisms are very hard to tell apart from another. There are obvious cases of overlap, suggesting Evolution as the more probable explanation. Furthermore, the time difference between existence of certain life forms are evident, for e.g. Dinosaurs and Man dont exist at the same time. Therefore, they couldnt be created at the same time.
- If Creation can happen anytime, then we should expect to see drastic and totally different organisms from time to time. So far, no record of such sightings.
So which option are you gonna take?
"2) Creation doesn't mean turning fishes to rabbits nor rambutans to watermelons. That is fairy tale. "
As I was saying, if we do see fishes turning into rabbits in a single generation, that is proof of creation, and we can throw our evolution books away. However, Creation do suggest it is possible (read above why I say this), yet it has never been observed.
"3) The DNA is not drastically different because as science has already proven for life to exist, certain basic component must be present. A creator would have known that when creating. Similar DNA is not a proof of evolution, it is common because it is essential to life. "
If you are talkin about DNA, you are talking about Intelligent Design. If designs are so intelligent, why do u think we have so many organisms with redundant organs, organisms with organs serving the same purpose but 'designed' differently, organisms with weaknesses against viruses and other natural diseases? Also, SIS' comments on similar DNA is important because if there was indeed a Creator/Designer and we found organisms with totally different DNA, then we can prove the Common Descent to be false (a big blow to evolution).
"4) Evolution can be a process after creation is completed. The whole details of evolution, that I'm not sure.
My point is, some of us are not saying evolution did not happen. We're saying there is a creation process and evolution probably is part of it too. My guess why the bible has very details about creation is probably because
1) It's not essential to know the details. It's only critical to know who created it. (maybe God is creating job opportunes for evolutionist? )
2) Genesis is largely credited to Moses and he's not a scientist.
Don't you all agree there are many gaps yet filled? But it really doesn't rule out creation. And maybe we'll never know the full details. "
Yes, there are many gaps not yet filled. However, Science dont just throw everything into a blackbox and called it creation (or watever). This is obviously the easy way out.
The point is like what I've said before: Creationism (and Intelligent Design) is not falsifiable, i.e. there is NO WAY !! to proof Creation is wrong. That is why it is NOT science. Because ALL scientific theories are falsifiable - there is a boundary or fundamental principle such that if things happen beyond what has been predicted in these theories, they are proven wrong. There is NO WAY Creation and ID can be proven wrong. I give you an example:
Example:
We have a time machine and we can view and even take samples of all that has happened pre-historic at our will. We see the slow and gradual evolution of mankind, each time this particular primate species reproduce, they are closer to modern man. Finally, modern man emerges, but you will say: "NO!! This modern man is 'Created'! He might be evolved but he is still a Creation by God!" You see? There is no way to argue against this claim, and proof Creation wrong.
Another Example:
Abiogenesis - the creation of life from non-life. Even in the lab or back in millions of years when life first emerged. The transition from non-life to life, one moment non-living, the next moment it is a living organism. You'll say: "NO ~! This is a Creation at work! God gave life. Even if you can produce life from non-life in lab, it is still God who gives the final breathe of life into this organism!" Again there is no arguement possible against this claim to prove it wrong.
Although the above examples are 'fairy tale', it should give you the impression what is meant by unfalsifiable. Creation is exactly that! On the other hand, all scientific theories, including Evolution, can be tested or proven to be false.
Creation involves supernatural. An area forever unknown to man. Even if we were finally able to know all the workings in this universe, there is still the hypothesis of a higher being and no way to proof it wrong, since the very simple reasoning behind it is: it is beyond your knowledge and reasoning.
THAT is why Creation is a fairy tale. -
Still haven't 'gong' finish ar....?
-
double post
-
Originally posted by sillyme:When I asked about evolution being testable, I was asking if science can do an experiement to proof the process of evolution? For example, an accelerated process of one species evolving to another? Maybe a full-grown animal is impossible, but single cell organism is perhaps feaesible.
Testable does not necessarily means done in a lab. That is a very narrow view. I quote again:
By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis.
However, in regards to observed evolution, there are too many to list here. You can read more from here
Rest assured that many experiments with successful observations of evolution or speciation were also done. -
Do you think that the idea of writing needs to be passed on from person to person? Or the idea of communicating (language) and the recording of it (writing) cannot be established by the individual 'tribes' separately?Originally posted by Icemoon:Writing lor .. the best indicator and necessary condition.
Civilization in chinese is .. wen2 ming2.
Wen2 = writing!
The fact that we have different languages today is a good example that languages and writings can be developed independantly. (Although there are obvious cases that some langauges are influenced by others.)
The 1000 years of difference dont make any significance here, and it does not suggest anything other than the people living in the regions such as China and Eygpt were one of the first to establish such a system. -
I'm sorry poopie, but I do not see a link about creation suggests that fishes can turn into rabbits. I never had the impression that creation is such and here I'd like to clarify it's not. It is not making one species turn to another. However, macro-evolution does suggest that is possible.
Of course dinosaurs and man are not created at the same time, even the bible doesn't suggest that. Whether the six days mentioned is literally six days, that is another issue. Regarding some organisms not being very distinct, again like I said, it could be a basic class of organism created and thereafter they change and adapt. Again, creation does not require that DNAs between species to be drastically different.
Like I said, creating something doesn't mean you have to make things totally different at the DNA level. Everything has to have a foundation for life.
I thank you for your effort to read and share. You're free to think that creation is fairy tale. I chose to be rooted in my faith. In both faith and science, I will accept the knowledge I discover with prudence. -
evolution is not about a species suddenly turning into another. if u think like "but how do fish turn into rabbit LOL?" its because Fish cant turn into rabbit. somewhere along the evolutionary line there had been a separation, there came fish ancestors and maybe mammal ancestors, and fish ancestors became fish, mammal ancestors had more separations and some became rabbit ancestors, and some others maybe cat ancestors, dog ancestors etc. then rabbit ancestors became rabbit.
just like Man didnt come from monkeys, somewhere in the evolutionary line there were homo erectus and lower apes, then homo erectus evolved into humans and apes remained as apes since they are already adapted into the environment or whatever. however, humans and apes might have shared the same kind of ancestor somewhere too.
this are not baseless assumptions, there are some evidence that scientists use such as fossils or whatever I dunno. -
hur hur hur.. of course i know evolution don't work that way.. i'm not that silly
have a good weekend, wont' be back till monday -
I'm sorry poopie, but I do not see a link about creation suggests that fishes can turn into rabbits. I never had the impression that creation is such and here I'd like to clarify it's not. It is not making one species turn to another. However, macro-evolution does suggest that is possible.
U r mistaken... the idea of rabbit fishes doesn't mean the rabbits become fishes... It is meant to say suddenly a new species of animals, a fish tat look like rabbit suddenly appears.Of course dinosaurs and man are not created at the same time, even the bible doesn't suggest that
The bible got suggest dinosaurs meh ?Regarding some organisms not being very distinct, again like I said, it could be a basic class of organism created and thereafter they change and adapt.
U believe in evolution already isn't it ? If u talk about macro evolution, in the previous thread I have illustrated the founding of whales with foot and toes as a proof of macroevolution. U can only mutate out a part of body u have. If a whale suddenly pop out legs, it just meant tat in the past he has legs millions of years before he evolved into tis state.Again, creation does not require that DNAs between species to be drastically different
Evolution MUST require DNAs between to be similar. Creation ALLOWS such variation, yet we do not see such. I thought people always complain tat creationist only try to prove evolution wrong, but never attempt to prove creationism right. Now there r several venues to prove it, why can't u prove such ?Like I said, creating something doesn't mean you have to make things totally different at the DNA level. Everything has to have a foundation for life.
According to bible, they all have seperate roots. At least men r made from dust which should have no links with other animals. It is strange tat god made men specially and exclusively yet we r 90++ percent DNA similar to other animals.In both faith and science, I will accept the knowledge I discover with prudence.
U r not utilising both faith and science in gathering knowledge. U r using only faith and throwing away science. -
quote sillyme:
"I'm sorry poopie, but I do not see a link about creation suggests that fishes can turn into rabbits. I never had the impression that creation is such and here I'd like to clarify it's not. It is not making one species turn to another. However, macro-evolution does suggest that is possible. "
Evolution always suggests gradual and small changes over generations, which is why I say a fish turning into something totally different in one generation will be enough proof to trash Evolution. Evolution, including macro-evolution, implies that drastic changes like this are impossible. FYI, macro-evolution is just a term used to describe evolution at or above the species level, it DOES NOT suggests drastic changes in a short time.
On the other hand, Creation suggests organisms to be created out of thin air, suggesting abrupt changes at an instant, including the possibility of the emergence of a totally new organism at any time (or only at the beginning of time if you will). Thus, if a totally new organism is observed to be born from nothing, or born from an existing and totally different life-form, then THAT IS indeed a proof of Creation. Rabbits born from a fish suggests that a radical change had happened within only one generation, which falls within the Creation scope (BTW, nothing is out of the scope of Creation ).
"Of course dinosaurs and man are not created at the same time, even the bible doesn't suggest that. Whether the six days mentioned is literally six days, that is another issue. Regarding some organisms not being very distinct, again like I said, it could be a basic class of organism created and thereafter they change and adapt. Again, creation does not require that DNAs between species to be drastically different"
But you suggested that Creation is only necessary to "get things going", suggesting somewhat of a kick-start. As I mentioned, there are 2 ways to go about it: either all organisms are created at the start, or organisms are created at anytime. Yet both ideas are flawed.
- If Creation of all organisms is a one time event only at the beginning of time, it is suggesting dinosaurs and mankind lived together.
- If Creation can occur at anytime, we have never seen a single radical and totally different life-form.
Seems to me you are avoiding the main points made from my previous post and chose to talk about the 6 days of creation, and dinosaurs and men not being created at the same time, which is totally ignoring the points made (i.e. Creation cannot be a one time event at the beginning of time).
What you are suggesting is evolution did in fact happen after the initial creation. I can't help but wonder where does Creation come in then? Did it only create the first single cell life, and thereafter it evolved itself? Or did it create all classes as they were now? FYI, there are evidence of fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla (the highest classification of all organisms), suggesting that even at the top-most level, organisms have evolved into the different phyla and classes we have today.
"Like I said, creating something doesn't mean you have to make things totally different at the DNA level. Everything has to have a foundation for life. "
Of course Creation does not require DNA to be drastically different. In fact, Creation does not suggest anything at all, only the belief of the existance of a Superior Being whom is beyond all our knowledge, and beyond any proof of existence, an out-of-this-world entity.
However, like what SIS suggested, if we have actually found organisms with totally different DNA, that alone will prove that the Universal Common Descent (that all life are genealogically related) is false - and thus Evolution theory is shattered. You see the difference between a Science topic and a Religious topic? The latter does not provide any means to proof it wrong, suggesting anything goes, it's just beyond your capability to understand. Such reasoning is not acceptable in the fields of science, so dont ever try to reason that Creation is science - it is NOT! -
Hey, poopie. Some of us have already mentioned many times over the few pages, we do not think creation is science. The document on ID posted here was just for sharing. I do not foresee myself turning my faith into a science exploration because it is a faith that I pursue.
If any of you comes in to Eternal Hope trying to convince non-believers to Christ or to convince believers to abandon their faith, then I tell you that you have come to the wrong place. This forum do not purpose to evangelise. It's a place to share thoughts and encourage. So do not try to post continuously in effort to convince someone else of your personal convictions. Post only to air your views. If someone disagrees, it's alright.
I think I've input more than necessary here. If you have anything else to say, please feel free =) -
you know would be really nice???
these Evolutionist people start a new forum and the really learned individuals like Poopie-head or SIS can be moderators there, instead of day in day out coming here to abuse the intent of EH. -
Wow! I didnt know you guys are so narrow-minded here.
Sillyme:
I thought this is a Creationist vs Evolutionist thread, which has everything to do with being scientific. The problem is Creationists wants people to think that Creationism is science, and unfortunately, they are quite successful because they work on the general public's ignorance. Look at the fossil dating post and you will know what I mean. Even your posts suggests that Creationism and ID are science, I haven't seen you mention otherwise.
Did I post anything anti-Christ here? I even mentioned that being an Evolutionist does not mean you cannot be a Christian (or vice-versa). In fact, many Evolutionist scientists are indeed Christians.
Nobody is forcing his views on others, well, certainly not me. Nobody is ABLE to force his ideas on others too, unless the person is so weak minded. However, I believe if a person is clear-minded enough, he or she would be able to tell who is the more credible here in this discussion, and who are the ones with solid facts.
I posted in this thread only for the reason of sharing information. I tried to clear the common misunderstandings of the "Theory" of Evolution, and even pointed out some doubtful cases I have against it.
If your idea of a discussion means looking for one-sided support, then you could have mentioned it in the first post. Being a fairly new member here, I didn't know that EH is *only* for Christians - I found the topic from the 'Newest Topics' list and it sure looked like a "discussion" thread to me.
Chin Eng:
I dont see you providing much info in this discussion here, but you do well in spell checking... and also in getting off-topic too.
I guess I'd leave you to hide in your safe and warm hole here. It's a big world out there, prolly better for you to stay and not get "abused".
Guess you guys are not ready for an open discussion. -
I think we're on different frequencies leh.
And besides, a discussion doesn't mean we have to agree with anybody totally. A discussion can end with both sides still hanging on to their viewpoints. -
Originally posted by Poopie-Head:
I really like the word DISCUSSION.
Chin Eng:
I dont see you providing much info in this discussion here, but you do well in spell checking... and also in getting off-topic too.
I guess I'd leave you to hide in your safe and warm hole here. It's a big world out there, prolly better for you to stay and not get "abused".
Guess you guys are not ready for an open [b]discussion. [/b]
What a discussion is: a meeting of different viewpoints and if the viewpoints do not agree, we shake our hands and walk away happy.
What a discussion is not: a continual rebuttal with accusative statements like: u r dumb, what you think is dumb, christianity is full of lies, Jesus is a liar.
You think there is any room for discussion once such statements are made?
I have, in many occasions, handed in a laurel wreath but only to have it thrown back at me. I have tried my best to explain the Christian stand, it gets thrown back under the argument of "logic and science".
Look, non-Christians DO NOT HAVE to agree with Christians. As long as the explanation is given that it is the way we view things, it should be adequate. We are NOT saying you have to abide by our rules.
So what if our beliefs do not agree with your mindset. It does not matter to us, and neither should it matter to you. That is the point. But if day in and day out, rebuttals after rebuttals get thrown in inspite of the various explanation, you think the word DISCUSSION still holds any meaning?
Here is not to say that Christians do not do that in the other forums. I have stated many times that I do not condone Christians going into the other forums to berate unbelievers, and I have attempted to discourage anyone from doing so. However such a matter will eventually lie with each moderator.
Do you enjoy ploughing through long essays filled with SMS style typing, bad grammar and spelling, while trying to understand the emotional histronics filled with accusations that "u r dumb". Well I don't! I appreciate people writing clearly and concisely.
You still want to discussion?
Well, are you prepared to accept that our views will always be different from yours?
Will you be willing to accept also, that such views are also held by some scholars and scientists? No need to quote texts and passages.
Will you be willing to agree to disagree and shake hands and say let's be friends even though we have a different world view.
If you agree, than I will be happy to discuss with you further. I am sure you have lots to contribute and my comment about you being a moderator is not made in sarcasm. You probably make a good moderator but then you will also understand the problem that a person like sillyme will have to put up with when unappreciative individuals become a constant pain in the rear in the spirit of so-called DISCUSSION.
Still, let me say that reading your contributions is a lot easier than reading the other guy's. -
THanks you for again attacking me. Let me guess, when I reply tis back, u r gonna write another long essay talking about only me again. *Yawnz*... frankly tat is the best u can do. Trying to distract people from the topic by launching an attack on me instead. He again offered a lopsided view as there r christians whose replies r not necessary friendly either. The bottom line is... he just want to censor off all other views from other committees except christainity. U want to reply.. can... but u can not retaliate when christain replies r rude to u neither can u ask "too many" questions. U r supposed to accept any rubbish answer tat is sprouted out.
Don't worry man.. he is too shallow to come out with any concrete points except attacking people on a personal level. He has been doing tis for... hmm.. maybe the past 10 posts ? Lets just ignore him and his pleads...
Wat ? u r going to say I am being rude to u, a christian again ? Maybe u should reflect in your friendliness in your reply as well ? -
Hi guys...
Hmm... think this has turned from a friendly discussion into something less than pleasant to see...
Guess it'll all stop right here.