Evolution vs. Creationism

[Maria]

Void? What void?

This is " void " universe below as you can see black in the background. There was nothin' in there. Reba was right about No galaxies, No planets, No gravity and so forth.

Please, allow me to show you the scriptures about God Himself.

God Himself is Light

Psalm 27:1
" Jehovah ( God ) is my light and my salvation; "

John 8:12
" Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life. "

God created the world by His Word

Isaiah 48:13
" Yea, my hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spread out the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together. "

Psalm 33:6
" By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made, And all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. "

Psalm 33:9
" For he spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. "

Jesus Himself is the Word - the Living Word

John 1:1-18
" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not. There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but [came] that he might bear witness of the light. There was the true light, [even the light] which lighteth every man, coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. John beareth witness of him, and crieth, saying, This was he of whom I said, He that cometh after me is become before me: for he was before me. For of his fulness we all received, and grace for grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. "

Ok, so now ...as you can see 2 different pictures I inserted in my post. Read carefully what God says about His Creation above. Jesus Himself is the Word and He is the One who is God. Jesus Himself is the Light of the world, so is God. His Word gave " life " when He created all things. Read all chapter in Genesis 1.
Evolution comes way, way laaaater when the scientists started inventin' about the age ( million or billion or whatever they think the age is when they found fossils and so on ). Without " life " - evolution can't be discussed within evolutionists. Sooo, it proves that the " Creationism " came first to bring " life ". God's Word brings everythin' to life. And, of course there's NO such evolution out there, because it can't bring to " life " on its own when it was in " void " ~ No man can do it. Only God Himself can do it. Who can challenge God for all these things ? Not even evolutionists.

 

[Hwy99]

Maria, wonderful post I ever seen. And don't forget about that movie, "The Bible" which have whole of the Genesis chapter in the movie action.

 

[Cheri]

God is the creator of all things.
World created in six literal days (Genesis 1).
Creation is completed (Genesis 2:3)
Ocean before land (Genesis 1:2)
Atmosphere between two hydrospheres (Genesis 1:7)
First life on land (Genesis 1:11)
First life was land plants (Genesis 1:11)
Earth before sun and stars (Genesis 1:14-19)
Fruit trees before fishes (Genesis 1:11)
All stars made on the fourth day (Genesis 1:16)
Birds and fishes created on the fifth day (Genesis 1:20, 21)
Birds before insects (Genesis 1:20, 21)
Whales before reptiles (Genesis 1:20-31)
Birds before reptiles (Genesis 1:20-31)
Man before rain (Genesis 2:5)
Man before woman (Genesis 2:21-22)
Light before the sun (Genesis 1:3-19)
Plants before the sun (Genesis 1:11-19)
Abundance and variety of marine life all at once (Genesis 1:20, 21)
Man's body from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7)
Man exercised dominion over all organisms (Genesis 1:28)
Man originally a vegetarian (Genesis 1:29)
Fixed and distinct kinds (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25; I Corinthians 15:38-39)
Man's sin the cause of death (Romans 5:12)

Before anything in creation came into being, God already existed. He is infinite, with no beginning and no end. God created the universe out of nothing, He is so powerful that He merely spoke, and the creation came into existence: “God said, ‘Let there be light’, and there was light” (Genesis 1:3)

 

[sequoias]

This is " void " universe below as you can see black in the background. There was nothin' in there. Reba was right about No galaxies, No planets, No gravity and so forth.

There is no right and wrong in theories of how the universe appeared in the first place, same goes with planets. Religon and science is all about opinion, period. No one has seen things billions of years ago.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

xentar, PuyoPiyo, Reba: I read your posts are actual pointless, unreasonables and threadless..

PuyoPiyo: Eastern people wanted to go mix with western civilzation which is white hemisphere more than eastern hemisphere. you knew eastern hemisphere people can't get white babies genes from them.. can Both eastern Indian parent create their own white babies genes with blonde, blue eyes on and on?? can both asian parent create their own white babies genes with blonde, blue eyes on and on?? tell me how did they got white skin on themselves??

The Black Host Race attains significance by affirming connection with the ONCE UPON-A-TIME mystery of Black creation and White Albinism??

Look pictures below:

He was

She was born from africa parent and risen from jungle island.

She is from South america

He looks more white like european festures, but He is son of american black father and American white mother

He was mixed races, He is son of american black father and American-Europan native mother

She born and risen in Africa.

he is native from Africa.. WAIT A MIN, hey, you said that africa is hot and humldy.. it cause him lost his skin or what??

ARENT THOSE EVOLVE FROM BIOLOGICAL GENES??

The Host Race IS NOT the White Race as you have been led to believe. The respective White recessive population is about to lose its biological identity.

Can you explain of what those caused from evolution genes??

This is a genetic disorder which means is they born wrong chromosome.

This link explains better "What is Albinism".
Albinism; What is Albinism (Bianca Knowlton)

 

[Foxrac]

Both of Maria and Cheri, It's views on religion, such as christian.

There's nothing to be real about it or whatever, it doesn't approved as fact in general.

 

[DreamSlayer]

I will not mock science, it plays an important role in understanding our world. However, just because it is accepted by science now, does not mean it's true.
How many atomic theories has science gone through until we have reached our present accepted theory quantum mechanics. I'm sure bohr, and rutherford would have argued how right they were. They were scientists.

If you believe in Evolution, at least have a better defense than:
"I believe it, because someone smarter than me believes it."

As a creationist, I do not claim that my view is solid fact. By very definition, there is an element of faith to my view.

I have tried to read through all the posts, but there are a lot, and none seem to discuss the questions I raised at the beginning of this thread, allow me to repeat myself.

First. Allow me to define the parameters of the word "Evolution"
I do not disagree with 'Micro' Evolution. This is small changes within a species, caused by recessive genes becoming dominant genes.

I disagree with 'Macro' Evolution. Enough change within a specific species, to make it a completely different animal.

Since this thread deals with all Evolution lets discuss for a second -
ORGANIC EVOLUTION
Scientists are still unable to reproduce this situation. 'Organic" Evolution deals with inanimate matter spontaneously becoming organic. The mathematical probability of this occuring, is - a mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY.

Second, Evolution occurs through mutation. However, the only mutations ever observed by scientists have been detrimental to the species. Mutation occurs all the time, it's called cancer. Is there an example of a beneficial mutation?

Third, Natural Selection - the survival of the fittest. I agree with Natural Selection, however, it supports 'Micro' Evolution, not 'Macro'.
Small changes from recessive, to dominant, will never result in a species changing into another species. This would require a mutation of some sort, and mutations often result in death, or the inability to reproduce.

I have no problem admitting that my belief requires faith, and is founded in my faith of the Bible. However, do not assume that I have not at the very least considered Evolution.

Any Scientist knows that Evolution can never be considered a Law like gravity. Gravity results can be reproduced predictably. Evolution, can't.

 

[xentar]

This is " void " universe below as you can see black in the background. There was nothin' in there. Reba was right about No galaxies, No planets, No gravity and so forth.

Ooohh, so we're posting pictures now. Allow me then to post this one:

You know, I can sit here and describe what the picture is about and use big words such as theory of relativity and how it can be applied to the big bang theory but before I can even do that you must have an understanding of what Einstein's general relativity is. Has anyone here taken science class??

Maybe someone else here can explain it in laymen's term. I really hate racking my brain in trying to breakdown something thats complex into something simple.

Ok, so now ...as you can see 2 different pictures I inserted in my post. Read carefully what God says about His Creation above. Jesus Himself is the Word and He is the One who is God. Jesus Himself is the Light of the world, so is God. His Word gave " life " when He created all things. Read all chapter in Genesis 1.
Evolution comes way, way laaaater when the scientists started inventin' about the age ( million or billion or whatever they think the age is when they found fossils and so on ). Without " life " - evolution can't be discussed within evolutionists. Sooo, it proves that the " Creationism " came first to bring " life ". God's Word brings everythin' to life. And, of course there's NO such evolution out there, because it can't bring to " life " on its own when it was in " void " ~ No man can do it. Only God Himself can do it. Who can challenge God for all these things ? Not even evolutionists.

Creationists go on and on about how there are so many flaws with Evolution and how it can't be true because certain parts of it can't be explained. Well please give me ONE point of proof of Creationism...not TWO, not THREE, not TEN...ONE. Every single argument FOR Creationism is actually just something AGAINST Evolution. Evolution can list point after point after point of evidence that prove itself, there is not one towards Creationism except that we can't prove Evolution 100%. Well, Creationism can't even be proven 1%.


You say that Evolution can't be correct because the Big Bang or the start of Evolution can not be proven or determined 100%. Well, you can't prove there is a God. That's it. The entire argument is based on this super being existing. Evolution does not explain HOW everything came into being, it explains how things have changed and evolved through time to become better, stronger, etc. Hence the name 'Evolution'. Where is the proof that we are exactly how we were on the day of creation? We have proof that humans have changed through time, we have proof that animals and other creatures have changed through time. Where is the proof that shows that we haven't changed? Evolution and the Big Bang, or any other explanation of how life actually came into being are not dependent on one another.

 

[InTheGenes]

Pacman, It does not make her post incorrect. What made you God's gift to the world who thinks You're always correct? You believe in one thing, she believe in another, Why don't you leave it alone instead of making it difficult?

With all due respect, Cheri, he's entitled to his opinion as much as you are to yours.

He doesn't have to let anything go, anymore than you do. It's not fair for you to call on anyone else here to let go of what they believe, when you, yourself, would never do so.

This is a debate. You will not always like what other people have to say, but that's a reality you need to deal with, if you choose to post here.

It is quite obvious that you, Reba and others here accept what you read in your scriptures as truth/gospel/fact, etc. Many others here (and elsewhere) do not. I think we're more or less at an impasse.

 

[xentar]

Before anything in creation came into being, God already existed. He is infinite, with no beginning and no end. God created the universe out of nothing, He is so powerful that He merely spoke, and the creation came into existence: “God said, ‘Let there be light’, and there was light” (Genesis 1:3)

I see that you are getting these two mixed up, allow me to assist you.

Definition of science - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Definition of religion - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Science is based on a system of knowledge. Religion is based on a system of belief. Science is based upon evidence. Religious faith, by its definition, requires belief without proof. Science is not a religion. The idea is too ridiculous to dispute, so allow me to present instead a couple illustrations of a point.

When people start their cars, do they pray to the god of hydrocarbons, the patron saint of internal combustion, or the martyrs of ignition? Do astronomers look into their souls to research the stars? Is there an international conspiracy of scientists, who have deliberately based multiple branches of their research upon faulty foundation, in order to corrupt the children of christians who take the bible literally? Scientists are given the benefit of a faulty assumption but for only a few months, if that. When the flaws in their research is found, they understand and give up. This is a prime example of how science ain't religion.

Let's take it to the other step. Do you conduct experiments to determine if god exists? Do you have evidence? Do you have mathematical proof of the existence of souls? What is the mass of a soul? What is God composed of? Religion ain't science.

 

[Reba]

... It's fruitless and scientifically impossible to make that kind of a claim given what we now know today.

Why?

Let you refer you back to the Big Bang Theory. Creationism propaganda likes to tell innocent people that this theory claims it creates a bang out of nothingness, which is further from the truth. They asserts the idea that there is nothingness before the Big Bang.

Hmm...it's the "Big Bang Theory" but it's "Creationism propaganda". No bias there, eh?

How do you know anything existed before the so-called "Big Bang"?

Because the universe has a finite age we can only see a finite distance out into space: ~13.7 billion light years. This is our so-called horizon. The Big Bang Model does not attempt to describe that region of space significantly beyond our horizon for space-time could well be quite different out there. Re-read that last sentence again.

Perhaps the material universe as it exists now has a finite age. But what about time before this universe existed? What was there?

 

[xentar]

There is no right and wrong in theories of how the universe appeared in the first place, same goes with planets. Religon and science is all about opinion, period. No one has seen things billions of years ago.

Did you somehow skip over my post where I clearly showed you how scientists figured out just exactly how old the universe, thus essentially being able to "see" things billions of years ago?

It's right over here

 

[Liebling:-)))]

With all due respect, Cheri, he's entitled to his opinion as much as you are to yours.

He doesn't have to let anything go, anymore than you do. It's not fair for you to call on anyone else here to let go of what they believe, when you, yourself, would never do so.

This is a debate. You will not always like what other people have to say, but that's a reality you need to deal with, if you choose to post here.
It is quite obvious that you, Reba and others here accept what you read in your scriptures as truth/gospel/fact, etc. Many others here (and elsewhere) do not. I think we're more or less at an impasse.

As long as we debate with respectfully agree to disagree which it's good education for all of us.

I find sad that some people take those debate seriously and label us as bully. It doesn't mean that we are aggressive when we entitled our opinion differently.

 

[Reba]

...Let's take it to the other step. Do you conduct experiments to determine if god exists? Do you have evidence? Do you have mathematical proof of the existence of souls? What is the mass of a soul? What is God composed of? Religion ain't science.

God is not material. You can't use material measures for a spiritual being, especially God Who is infinite (by definition, immeasurable, without limits).

Do you have mathematical proof of a mother's love for her child? What is the mass of grace?

The evidence of God's design is in His creation. The universe is not a series of random accidents.

The evidence of God's continuing presence is in the changed lives of His people.

Science aint' religion (or, at least, it shouldn't be).

Hebrews 11
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

[Reba]

Just a little correction, our universe does have a finite age. Refer to this page how that information came to be:
NASA Cosmology 101: Age of the Universe

Of course it doesn't mean everything that we know only have been in existent for only x-billion amount of years. Using developments in superstring theory, some has suggested that the Big Bang of our universe is a bridge to a pre-existing universe, and that creation undergoes an eternal succession of universes, with possibly trillions of years of evolution in each.

And what was here before that?

 

[Reba]

People should recognize that stating their belief in god/bible/church should be treated equivalently to the atheist stating his belief that it is ridiculous to believe in god/bible/church.

Since I don't mock atheists the way that you mock Christians, then I would say treatment is NOT equivalent.

 

[Reba]

... I think we're more or less at an impasse.

Yes, I think you're right.

 

[xentar]

I will not mock science, it plays an important role in understanding our world. However, just because it is accepted by science now, does not mean it's true.

An oxymoron at best if you claim science plays an important role in understanding in our world, but lack understanding the basic principle of what a theory is.

How many atomic theories has science gone through until we have reached our present accepted theory quantum mechanics. I'm sure bohr, and rutherford would have argued how right they were. They were scientists.

I said this once in this thread and I'll say it again. There really are no laws of science, it must ALWAYS be open to revision or it loses its magnificence.

If you believe in Evolution, at least have a better defense than:
"I believe it, because someone smarter than me believes it."

Wrong answer. Creationists attempt at eroding evolution, geology, cosmology and many facets of science matters. By eroding evolution they attack the foundation of modern biology. Would you feel the same if these nutbags attack Electromagnetism? They are liars. They claim that scientist are making things up for some atheist agenda, they try to change the definition of science for their own purpose. They lie to erode confidence in science and scientist. It matters to me and to other people who believe in evolution.

As a creationist, I do not claim that my view is solid fact. By very definition, there is an element of faith to my view.

Finally, someone who can finally admit this.

I have tried to read through all the posts, but there are a lot, and none seem to discuss the questions I raised at the beginning of this thread, allow me to repeat myself.

I..uh..responded to your post back on page 2.

First. Allow me to define the parameters of the word "Evolution"
I do not disagree with 'Micro' Evolution. This is small changes within a species, caused by recessive genes becoming dominant genes.

I disagree with 'Macro' Evolution. Enough change within a specific species, to make it a completely different animal.

1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.
   
2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence.
   
3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.
   
4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism
   
5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

Item #2-5 can be further verified by researching this information. If you truly cannot find the answer, then I will provide it for you.

Since this thread deals with all Evolution lets discuss for a second -
ORGANIC EVOLUTION
Scientists are still unable to reproduce this situation. 'Organic" Evolution deals with inanimate matter spontaneously becoming organic. The mathematical probability of this occuring, is - a mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY.

The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.

Remember, abiogenesis -getting life from nonliving matter.

Second, Evolution occurs through mutation. However, the only mutations ever observed by scientists have been detrimental to the species. Mutation occurs all the time, it's called cancer. Is there an example of a beneficial mutation?

I responded to this already in my previou post in response to your first post (again, link).
But to expand on that:
Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:

• Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
• Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
• Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
• A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
• Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
• In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Third, Natural Selection - the survival of the fittest. I agree with Natural Selection, however, it supports 'Micro' Evolution, not 'Macro'.
Small changes from recessive, to dominant, will never result in a species changing into another species. This would require a mutation of some sort, and mutations often result in death, or the inability to reproduce.

Redundant, refer to what I wrote above on macroevolution.

Any Scientist knows that Evolution can never be considered a Law like gravity. Gravity results can be reproduced predictably. Evolution, can't.

Evolution is an observed phenomenon. The Theory of Evolution is an attempt to explain the said observed phenomenon. Biological evolution is the product of mutation, heredity, and competition in living things. Those are the observed events, no one can deny them.

Once again. Gravity is an observed phenomenon. The Theory of Universal Gravitation is an attempt to explain what gravity is and how it works. The foremost idea now is an exchange of particles called gravitons. We actually know far less about gravity than we do about evolution. Gravity is more immediately obvious though, so religious fundies are less apt to outright deny it.

 

[christlovedeaf]

Ok, let's see.. most Christians believe that evolution is a myth even though they are TERRIBLY uneducated about the evolution theory and they have nothing to prove that creationism occurred. They don't have any evidence to support their belief.

Most scientists, spending many years with science, believe that evolution does occur and considers it a fact. Why? They were educated. They learned through education and observation and experiments. They have evidence to support that theory.

I'd rather pick education over ignorance anytime.

SOME christians are terribly uneducated. But there are alot of them are very educating and sooo many agnostic has same perspective where you are now and very argumentive and driven them to study more, and notice they have a huge wrong views of christianity teaching and studied abroad everything which lead them to know who Christ, Lee Strobel is one of them. My daughter is very brilliant as she studied many religions and etc more than I do and my brother the same, which both has discovered the reason why they believe and it is very convincing, but studying back up where God is and involve and that's where they keeping their faith as I do. In Toledo, 2500 students gave their lives to Christ pass week, many are scholars who were agnostics, scientists,evolutionist and etc. Why? Bec some has shared thought what christians lack of and discovered themselves that begin to understand why many agnostics, humanist quoting scriptures in the Bible and they thought its logic, but discovered misinterpreting and missing the point of the scriptures just like several other threads they quoting scriptures and missing the point. Some of the christians involve abroad and studied the difference in scientist,evolutions, religions and etc. And remarkable message yesterday, called Heaven and Hell and even in that sermon, he taught in psycologic, science and etc. I thought of myself, hehe, those words I have seen on deaf atheist, agnostics and etc. Wish I have a note for that.

 

[xentar]

Why?

Evident.

Hmm...it's the "Big Bang Theory"

Oh jeez, not this again.

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed. The relevance, and specificity of those predictions determine how (potentially) useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions which are not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term 'theory' is inapplicable.

In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis. That is, it:

• is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense, and
• is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

Additionally, a theory is generally only taken seriously if it:

• is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
• is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing the Ockham's razor test.

This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. Theories considered scientific meet at least most, but ideally all, of these extra criteria.

In other words, it doesn't mean "I pulled it out of my ass".

but it's "Creationism propaganda". No bias there, eh?

There is nothing to suggest that god created anything, or that god exists. Whereas, science can postulate how the earth, or universe might have begun based on scientific truth.

The creation "theory" is not a theory at all. It's a guess. It has been completely made up, and it will never change, will never adapt to any new scientific truth.

So, you should use probability. It's far, far more probable that the scientific theory is correct, and even more probable that it's close to being correct (and it will only get closer with time).

Whereas the probability of god, is just as probable as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or anything else you can think up.

Praise Jesus.

How do you know anything existed before the so-called "Big Bang"?

Perhaps the material universe as it exists now has a finite age. But what about time before this universe existed? What was there?

What, you want to make your brain explode? You want to get into the deep end where discussions on other dimensions is explored? Go right ahead!

Before the Big Bang | Physics & Math | DISCOVER Magazine

And if that link doesn't make you want to do more research more on M-Theory and the Grand Unified Theory on parallel universe... well .... then.. I can't help you here.