Evolution vs creationism ?

Traveler said:
The evidence supporting evolution is over-whelming. Take one small example: the modern horse descended from a tiny creature about the size of a small dog. We have the fossilized bones of every stage between "Eohippus" and the modern horse, which we are all so familiar with. There are thousands of such examples.

The mechanics of evolution revolve around an animals abilities, or lack thereof, to survive in it's environment. Any animal that can not locate food and reproduce, goes extinct. Mutations occur quite randomly. Most of those mutations work against its survival. Periodically, however, a randomly occurring mutation helps the creature survive, and reproduce, and gives it an advantage over others of its species. Thus it lives longer and produces more offspring which also have the same mutations as one of its parents.

It should be noted that evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with what the animal wants. Take the giraffe for example. It did NOT gain a long neck because it wanted to. Tens of millions of years ago, one single animal, was born with the genes to have a slightly longer neck. This allowed it to "out compete" with others of its kind, and thus it could reach higher and get more vegetation than others of its kind. Those genes were passed on to its offspring.

Simple common sense tells us that an eagle with better eye sight has a huge advantage in the quest for food. If that eagle happens to be male, he has a greater chance of being selected by the female as a mate. In other words, he is a better provider. Thus the chicks have those better genes and they are fed more food by the parent and they survive.

That is what evolution is all about. Random mutations give an animal a better chance of surviving and producing more offspring.
Quite simple really.
Click to expand...

What you are talking about is more of a micro-evolution, which is quite possible, and is actually being done all of the time. That is why we have dogs that look like St. Bernard’s look, and other dogs that are chihuahuas.
Some of this kind of breed evolution happened naturally, depending on where the animal lived and what they needed to survive, and most of it now is done by selective breeding.

What does not happen is evolution turning one creature into a different creature. Ferns do not turn into palm trees, dogs do not turn into cats.
You can follow the evolution of any particular species, but it still stays within that same species.
0098E9F0-6103-489B-8C49-156F219389F5.jpeg
 

RadishRose said:
My 2 cents; Evolution is the process that I believe God uses to create human beings as well as all creatures. So what if it takes billions of years? It's a big universe, things take time; all according to God's plan, in God's time, not ours.

I wouldn't be surprised if mathematics is the language of God.
Click to expand...
I like that, Rose.
 
Not saying that anyone has to accept evolution, but in evolution species do evolve into new species.
 

Olivia said:
Not saying that anyone has to accept evolution, but in evolution species do evolve into new species.
Click to expand...

Can you give some examples of that perhaps ? I have posted information that helps to show why the history of the world might not have played out quite the same as we have been taught in school. So far (and not picking on you as an example, Olivia), most of what I have seen is people saying that they “know” evolution is right and science taught us all the right things.
When evolution does not happen between species, they say that there are just some missing links and we have not found them yet, and that is why evolution is only a theory, just like any other theory.
Science is starting to look at things differently, if anyone will take the time to watch even one of the videos that I posted, and in the future, school kids may learn a different story about how the world was formed.
 
When evolution of species happens, it happens over millions if not billions of years. I'm not an archaeologist so I can't off the top of my head give you facts about fossils, etc. But if you like, here is a website that explains it.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150803-how-do-we-know-evolution-is-real

I personally don't believe that evolution rules out a creator. I'm just one of those that believe that God could do it anyway He wants. Doesn't mean the Bible is wrong. Just is not written like a science book. And what is important is not having to be persuaded that everything has to be a certain way to have faith.
 
Science is working towards resolving once and for all the mystery, but for now the info in these two articles for me point to evolution. Those that believe in creation will continue because that works for them. Thankfully we all get choices that don't impact another.




1.Three decades, the biological revolution
To a biologist, freeze-drying microbes for harsh space travel conjures up rather mundane kitchen science, a simple reenactment of how a yeast packet taken from the freezer can make bread dough rise prior to baking. But to a new breed of biologist exploring the harshest conditions on Earth, how a delicate microbe manages to counteract vacuum, boiling temperatures, burning radiation, and crushing pressures deep in the frozen icecaps is the study of life itself.
For example, only now after 30 years of biological progress can scientists begin to scan down the genetic script underlying the causes of malaria, syphilis, cholera and tuberculosis. Within a few years, it is estimated that 50 to 100 complete genomes of living organisms will be entirely deciphered, presenting the first opportunities for deep evolutionary comparisons and insights into exactly the remarkable means by which the common Strep. bacteria could revive itself after 2.6 years on the moon.


https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1998/ast01sep98_1/


2.Last paragragph of example #7


This brings up a common question in creationists – If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Well, with the skinks we would see two species formed, an egg laying and a live birthing species. Each would be best suited for their habitat. If live birthing skinks evolved from egg layers, why are there still egg layers? Because each is adapted for its niche.


http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/


3. Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion


https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html


1. Science has shown delicate microbes can live in space.
2. Science is demonstrating evolution is a fact.
3. Science explains the age of earth


The bible has a lot of nice stories to explain what was known at the time it was written. It is comforting to think there is a maker that would have to be billions of years old. But that generates more questions. Who made the maker & how did they manage to extend the makers life for so long
 
Happyflowerlady said:
What you are talking about is more of a micro-evolution, which is quite possible, and is actually being done all of the time. That is why we have dogs that look like St. Bernard’s look, and other dogs that are chihuahuas.
Some of this kind of breed evolution happened naturally, depending on where the animal lived and what they needed to survive, and most of it now is done by selective breeding.

What does not happen is evolution turning one creature into a different creature. Ferns do not turn into palm trees, dogs do not turn into cats.
You can follow the evolution of any particular species, but it still stays within that same species.
View attachment 46362
Click to expand...

When you were talking about DOGS, what we see is the result of HUMAN intervention. That's called selective breeding. It has nothing to do with naturally occurring evolution. If I want to select dogs that can herd sheep, for example, I would watch my adult dogs and then I'd select pairs of animals that are already herding of their own accord. I'd mate those pairs and after several generations I'd have dogs that are even better at herding sheep.

Now, when it comes to NATURAL evolution, dogs do not turn into cats. That is NOT how evolution works. Take any species you wish, set them in the wild uncontrolled environment, and given enough TIME they will change into a better and better example of what they used to be. It is said, in Africa, that the cheetah made the gazelle fast. That is exactly correct. So, how does that work ? In any herd of animals some are going to be slower than its mates. Those slower ones get eaten and the faster ones escape. Gradually, over tens of thousands of years, the population of gazelles are much, much faster than their ancestors.

Now, occasionally a group of animals becomes isolated from the original group. This can occur because of a changing environment, a shifting of the land masses (earthquakes), or into case of birds, a long distance flight to a far off island. In the NEW environment the animal is confronted with a different set of challenges ie. a completely different environment, different foods and/or different predators. This is where "speciation" occurs. Cut off from the original group they can and do adapt to the new challenges. Thus, in to process, they become a different species. That means they can no longer mate with the original group. Take for example humming birds. There are many hundreds of different species of humming birds. Believe it or not there is a species of humming birds that has adapted to extremely high altitudes. Those high altitude birds can no longer mate with their lowland jungle distant cousins. Some humming birds have a beak only 1 inch long, while a different species of humming bird has a beak 4 inches long. That is evolution in action !

Tiny changes over millions of years produces an animal vastly different from its ancient ancestors.

Evolution science does not say that an elephant can turn into a bird. It does say that whales are mammals who once were land dwelling animals. If you examine the skeleton of a whale you will find buried in the flesh , near the tail, a set of bones that were once hind legs, left over from the time it was a land dwelling animal.
 
Some interesting questions to ponder -

Is the universe conscious? Scientists are still trying to discover what consciousness is and how and when did it develop?
Is it only found in higher level organisms and, more to the point, is it located in the brain or dispersed throughout the body?
Is it possible that conscientiousness is actually a property of cells, all cells?
Could it be a property of molecules, or atoms or some sub atomic particle as yet not fully understood?

Is it also possible that the universe actually self organising?
The direction of evolution is from simple to complex, which is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics.
If it is self organising from simple to complex what is the interplay between random events and selected ones?

Is the existence of a universal consciousness the same thing as that which the Bible refers to as the Spirit of the Lord?
Does a self organising universe point to the Hand of the Creator?

Just musing.
I do not have definitive answers.
Feel free to ponder and record your thoughts.
 
Last edited:
All this is over our pay grade.

Us humans simply may not be intelligent enough to understand how we got here even if someone/something that knew tried to explain it to us... and that's something you need to take into account when you read some historical(?) explanations, like the Bible, petroglyphs, etc where ancients have tried to record what they knew, had seen, and/or thought. For example, can you imagine trying to explain how our civilization works and came to be to some primitive tribe in parts of the world where they have remained isolated if you dropped in on them, stayed for a few weeks, and then left. Now imagine how they might explain to each other and their decedents what you told/showed them.

That said I'm of the opinion that we are the results of some kind of creationism where evolution has occurred over time.
 
Evolution?

Heh,takes more faith to believe that one.
When the medical profession can settle down to something definite in regard to what’s good for you, and not keep changing/reversing their stance, then I might begin to consider whatever the latest ‘scientific discovery’ tells us.
Click to expand...

Gary, you're missing the point. Science doesn't "settle down" and say, "Yup, that's it, folks, that's all she wrote." It is constantly, er, evolving and bit by bit refining its understanding about what makes things happen. That's why its theories are called theories, not the one and only ultimate truth, end of discussion. All science can tell us is that the evidence points to the probability of something.

In creationism, there is no evidence at all that something happened the way the creationists say it did. You are required to accept a story just based on faith. No proof required.

Before you laugh so hard at science, maybe you should learn something about how it works.

P.S. On the other hand, no matter what the medical profession has to say about chocolate, I have faith that it is good for you! And nothing will shake that faith! Amen.
 
"Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents."

NOT arguing, just sharing a thought...how do we know that the scientist are even accurate in their 'aging' method ? Are those rocks really 3.5 billion yr/old? .......or a zillion ?...LOL

Speakin'a rocks...It's always intrigued me , the number of petroglyphs that hint to spacemen / spaceships. Misinterpretation of the drawing?...Who knows?
 
Sunny said:
Gary, you're missing the point. Science doesn't "settle down" and say, "Yup, that's it, folks, that's all she wrote." It is constantly, er, evolving and bit by bit refining its understanding about what makes things happen. That's why its theories are called theories, not the one and only ultimate truth, end of discussion. All science can tell us is that the evidence points to the probability of something.

In creationism, there is no evidence at all that something happened the way the creationists say it did. You are required to accept a story just based on faith. No proof required.

Before you laugh so hard at science, maybe you should learn something about how it works.

P.S. On the other hand, no matter what the medical profession has to say about chocolate, I have faith that it is good for you! And nothing will shake that faith! Amen.
Click to expand...

sorry I didn't clarify my stance on science
meant thinkers with opinions and single malt scotch to offer

(chocolate was created.....by God....on the eighth day...and it was soooooo gooood)
 
I have looked at a lot of those drawings that seem to be of spacemen, space ships, airplanes, and even helicopters, and that is actually what they do most resemble. In South America, they found little artifacts that had a face something like a dragon (maybe), and a short, birdlike body with wings.
It also looked like a tiny version of an airplane, and so they followed the dimensions exactly and created one of those remote-control planes, and it flew perfectly; leading one to believe that what the original thing that was copied, was probably an airplane, and once that was lost to civilization, they just carved them into birds.

The idea of space travelers coming here to earth and genetically modifying humans has always been very intriguing to me also, and the artifacts pointing to that are fascinating.
This is called “Intervention Theory”, and one of the best books on the subject was written by Lloyd Pye, and called “Everything That You Know Is Wrong”.
Lloyd Pye passed away a few years ago, but his book has been updated with new information and can be purchased on Amazon.
http://www.lloydpye.com/

There is also an excellent video with lots of pictures explaining this theory on Youtube. It is a long video, but worth watching if you have an interest in the possibility that there were aliens here who transformed the world into what we see now.
Lloyd Pye did not believe in a God as such, so this is not some kind of a religious viewpoint.

 
The argument is if you believe in creation, then one cannot believe evolution And vice versa. It's a poor argument. Religion is not the basis of science, and science is not the basis of religion. Religion is the basis of religion. Science is the basis of science. One does not justify the other. It's apples and oranges.
 
Olivia said:
When evolution of species happens, it happens over millions if not billions of years. I'm not an archaeologist so I can't off the top of my head give you facts about fossils, etc. But if you like, here is a website that explains it.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150803-how-do-we-know-evolution-is-real

I personally don't believe that evolution rules out a creator. I'm just one of those that believe that God could do it anyway He wants. Doesn't mean the Bible is wrong. Just is not written like a science book. And what is important is not having to be persuaded that everything has to be a certain way to have faith.
Click to expand...

I agree, "I'm just one of those that believe that God could do it anyway He wants"
 
fuzzybuddy said:
The argument is if you believe in creation, then one cannot believe evolution And vice versa. It's a poor argument. Religion is not the basis of science, and science is not the basis of religion. Religion is the basis of religion. Science is the basis of science. One does not justify the other. It's apples and oranges.
Click to expand...


Apples= creation=believing in how mankind began
Oranges= science= slowly uncovering the mystery of how mankind began.


The potential for science to prove one way or the other how mankind began works for me.
My choices
1. Hope to be around for a definitive answer.
2. Live in fear of what happens when I die.


Either way death is going to happen and like the billions already dead, I won't be back to tell anyone what happens.
 
I'm just trying to imagine this creation thing. Some thing - let's call it "God" for the want of a better word, is bored so creates an envelope and a pencil and starts to scribble a few formulae. When he/she/it is happy, they attach a fuse and stand well back to observe a 'Big Bang'. Over Billions of years, all sorts of things happen. Stars are formed, planets evolve and on some, life evolves too.

Far away on a small planet orbiting a small totally insignificant star (one of billions), a "homo sapien" is sitting at his computer and thinking, "What on Earth was this guy thinking about ?". Why did this 'god' thingy bother? Was it just a bizarre experiment? I mean, there are plenty of good things going on, but if this 'god' is responsible, he/she/it must also be responsible for the bad things like disease, famine, natural disasters etc..
Another thing, why is everything so complicated? Why couldn't they have given us a simpler body and endowed bits of it with mystical powers.

Well maybe this god creature got the sums wrong - got a decimal point in the wrong place or something. Maybe this creator, just doesn't give a damn how it turns out - or maybe - this 'God' people talk about is no more than a myth. I'll go for the last one.
 
Warrigal said:
Sorry Ruthanne, I did not notice your question.

There are two parts to my last sentence

"Creationism is a negative reaction to a scientific idea". Prior to Darwin publishing his work "The Origin of Species" biblical creationism was not a popular notion. In the Middle Ages creationism referred to the idea that God created our unique souls; an event that took place at the moment of birth. Darwin's theory was unfairly and incorrectly interpreted as proposing that mankind had evolved from monkeys and this set off a firestorm of religious objection and biblical fundamentalism became the powerful counter movement. You will remember the famous Scopes monkey trial depicted in the movie "Inherit the Wind".

The second part of the sentence refers to a discredited theory about how substances burn.



Experiments carried out by the French scientist Lavoisier demonstrated that oxygen is necessary for any substance to burn. After that the phlogiston theory died away. There never was any such element as phlogiston.

There is a similarly discredited theory of evolution proposed by Lamarck which said that characteristics acquired during life are passed to succeeding generations but genetics put that one to bed. You simply cannot produce taller children by having yourself stretched on the rack.

Science is full of discarded theories including a flat earth and the Earth being the centre of the Universe. However, in tiny pockets of the world, there are still some discredited ideas being kept alive.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation, I will ponder and ponder and ponder.
 
Capt Lightning said:
I mean, there are plenty of good things going on, but if this 'god' is responsible, he/she/it must also be responsible for the bad things like disease, famine, natural disasters etc..
Click to expand...

I am responsible I just fool humans into believing, I only do good things, the free will I gave them accounts for the bad.

Capt Lightning said:
Another thing, why is everything so complicated? Why couldn't they have given us a simpler body and endowed bits of it with mystical powers.
Click to expand...

Not complicated at all. You can't see me but yet here I am able to get you to read what I write. In the old days pictures and messages carved in stone was enough. I'm asking you to have blind faith in me even though you can't see me, can't shake my hand, can't buy me a cup of coffee. Only thing different is I no longer live in the sky I have a few locations I really enjoy. I like snorkeling in the waters of FIJI. Can't beat the skiing in Vermont and French wine at a little sidewalk cafe in Paris is really relaxing after spending all day monitoring peoples thoughts to see if they are going to qualify to join me.

If that doesn't appeal to you, then maybe you should have blind faith in Allah. Unlike the bible there is this
[h=2]Sensual Paradise[/h]In Islam, the concept of 72 virgins (houri) refers to an aspect of Jannah (Paradise). This concept is grounded in Qur'anic text which describe a sensual Paradise where believing men are rewarded by being wed[SUP][1][/SUP] to virgins with "full grown", "swelling" or "pears-shaped" breasts.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] Conversly, women will be provided with only one man, and they "will be satisfied with him".[SUP][4][/SUP]

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins

I suggest women stick with me.
 
Ruthanne said:
Thanks for the explanation, I will ponder and ponder and ponder.
Click to expand...

You can however 'if you are lucky' produce a taller individual than you by mating with a taller individual, but there is no guarantee depending on if the gene for tallness is recessive or not. Same with a lot of things like eyes shade.

Mendel demonstrated that with pea plants.

As to how it 'started'? It's hard for a human brain th grasp that there might not have been a beginning at all.

Could be always was and always will be.

I do believe from fossils that evolution exists.

What bothers me is that we will never find out for sure.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top