Why I believe in Creation not Evolution.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Creation in a Nutshell. God Created everything. Everything worked and it was

[DC10]

Creation in a Nutshell. God Created everything. Everything worked and it was Good

Evolution.

Skipping Cosmology, lets start with a planet that just happened to be in the Goldilocks zone. The zone where life is possible.

First, over time, and by much luck all the raw materials for life pooled on some ancient sea. By pure chance, over lots of time, and for no known reason, these ingredients formed into a simple single cell organism. This just so happened not only to be alive but to be able to eat and reproduce, and have DNA. Quite lucky. Scientists have tried to replicate this, and have been unable to.

Then over time, millions of years many, many of these cells came together and started to form more complex life forms and plants. Again no real reason, no scientific proof and no way of replicating this in the lab, you just have to believe it. Some how the plants just so happened to evolve to take energy from the sun and turn it into food. No proof of how or why, no way to test it or replicate the results in a lab, you have to believe it.

Then some how over time these sea creatures also evolved the sexes, right perfectly at the same time, can you believe it, to work perfectly to reproduce. All though some women say man has yet to evolve. Again no explanation, just luck working again.

Then enough plants formed on the earth to produce enough oxygen for land based animals to form. Then some animals decided to try to walk on land and over millions of years, again no proof, no link no evidence, they managed to walk on land, and breath air.

This all occurred with random mutations, (again no proof) they managed, and started to eat plants and each other. Also incectes managed to evolve right alongside the plants that needed them to pollinate. Also plant eaters evolved for meat eaters to eat. The food chain started up, all by itself, good thing as well otherwise the animals would starve to death.

Also, just lucky that some small orginismes stayed small, to decompose the dead matter and recyle it back into the soil for the plants to use to start up the Circle of life Convienant.

Everything on this planet that works with each other, to feed each other to keep the planet working, just happened. By accident with no real explanation all by chance and luck and millions of years. There is NO science fact to prove this. There is lots of evidence but all of it is subjective and open to debate, there is no smoking gun, no evidence that does not need to be explained.

This is why I do not believe in evolution. Its to hard to believe in all the random chance.

(Sorry - hit "return" too early)

Edited April 18, 2011 by DC10

[LuftWaffle]

This is why I do not believe in evolution. Its to hard to believe in all the random chance.

I see we are just going to go round and round. In a nutshell you put way too much emphasis on random chance, much of what you acclaim to random chance is explained through niches with natural selection. Unless you understand the role of natural selection and how it works within ecosystems you will never understand evolution beyond the caricature you proclaim as accurate.

I do think that what most creationists view (or at least claim) as evolution is in many respects so ridiculous that given the choice between that or creationism, creationism is the more sound choice.

What are peacocks going to look like 200 000 years from now according to evolution?

Especially given that natural selection prefers attributes that aid survival, sexual selection prefers attributes that are generally contra-survival(bright colours, long tail feathers etc.) and genetic drift is blind luck.

Please D-9, what will become of the peacock?

Will convergent evolution lead down a pathway of developing sonar like bats, or heat sensing pits like the rattle-snake? If the eye evolved 30 times then surely this isn't impossible.

Will saltationism radically change them into something entirely different, such as a bloodsucking vampire peamonster?

Will reverse-evolution take place and revert them to dinosaurs, the way amphibians crawled out the sea and later as mammals to return as cetaceans?

Will they remain unchanged like the shovelnose ray which is virtually indistinguishable from 148 million year old fossil shovelnose rays?

Will natural selection make them fitter, or will sexual selection make them even more flamboyant, or will genetic drift surprise us all and pull a rabbit out of a hat?

We keep hearing how evolution isn't random because of natural selection, but with of all the various auxilliary theories that help prop up the evolutionary model, anything can be expected, and thus nothing can be predicted. Evolution is as random as can be.

Edited April 19, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[Isaiah 6:8]

This is why I do not believe in evolution. Its to hard to believe in all the random chance.

I see we are just going to go round and round. In a nutshell you put way too much emphasis on random chance, much of what you acclaim to random chance is explained through niches with natural selection. Unless you understand the role of natural selection and how it works within ecosystems you will never understand evolution beyond the caricature you proclaim as accurate.

I do think that what most creationists view (or at least claim) as evolution is in many respects so ridiculous that given the choice between that or creationism, creationism is the more sound choice.

I am not just speaking of the Animals, if you look, I am speaking of how well everything works perfectly From the plants growing from the decomposing matter to feed the plant eaters to feed the meat eaters to the bacteria on the ground that decomposes the material to nourish the plants.

Everything works perfectly and with out any one of those things not working, life would be unsustainable, To much random chance that they all evolved into there roles perfectly on time to all work together like that.

[nebula]

D-9,

I do pray you have a real encounter with the presence of God here on Earth.

[Guest shiloh357]

This is why I do not believe in evolution. Its to hard to believe in all the random chance.

I see we are just going to go round and round. In a nutshell you put way too much emphasis on random chance, much of what you acclaim to random chance is explained through niches with natural selection. Unless you understand the role of natural selection and how it works within ecosystems you will never understand evolution beyond the caricature you proclaim as accurate.

I do think that what most creationists view (or at least claim) as evolution is in many respects so ridiculous that given the choice between that or creationism, creationism is the more sound choice.

Evolution is unpredictable. Every mainstream evolutionist I have read asserts randomness. Even outside the life sciences, there are scientists who believe that the entire universe is an accident. All of the elements and conditions necessary for sustaining life just happened to assemble together apart from any outside influence. Then you get into the question as to how biological life got started and the odds that the right molecules assembled in the right order at the right time to create life.

Evolution is predicated on random processes. Evolutionists claim that nonliving matter gave birth to living matter, what they call "spontaneous generation." This is supposedly "scientific" even though it has never been observed or duplicated in a labratory environment. The truth is that life can only come from life.

Again, D-9 does not present an accurate reflection of mainstream evolutionary theory.

[Isaiah 6:8]

What are the odds of life forming at the single cell level, thats the start. so lets start with that. This cannot be done with modern science, they have tried and cannot do it. They can not create life from even the base materials, That was very lucky to happen.

[nebula]

Or how did the first living cell survive?

Life requires food. To eat, it has to "know" to consume something, and it has to "know" what is correct to consume, and it has to know "how" it is to be consumed.

And then having consumed the food, did it have a waste disposal system? How did it not die from not being able to eliminate waste?

Or did consuming, processing, and disposing all evolve/mutate/whatever at the exact same time?

[LuftWaffle]

Evolution doesn't say.

Indeed

[Isaiah 6:8]

Evolution is unpredictable. Every mainstream evolutionist I have read asserts randomness. Even outside the life sciences, there are scientists who believe that the entire universe is an accident. All of the elements and conditions necessary for sustaining life just happened to assemble together apart from any outside influence. Then you get into the question as to how biological life got started and the odds that the right molecules assembled in the right order at the right time to create life.

Evolution is predicated on random processes. Evolutionists claim that nonliving matter gave birth to living matter, what they call "spontaneous generation." This is supposedly "scientific" even though it has never been observed or duplicated in a labratory environment. The truth is that life can only come from life.

Again, D-9 does not present an accurate reflection of mainstream evolutionary theory.

I didn't say randomness wasn't a part of evolution, rather it is being exaggerated (and misconstrued) way beyond what the theory states and allows. IOW, it is a straw-man and a caricature of what evolution actually is. One of the main problems I've seen in creationist thinking is the ability to not distinguish between a scientist's personal views and the science. I know that much of religious thinking revolves around such notions, but that is not how science works.

No it is not. The randomness is a huge part of it, and with out it evolution falls a part. Your right that is not how science is supposed to work, but yet, thats what they say, I have proven they twist the facts to prove there preconceived notions, not the other way around.

As you've stated in the other evolution thread, evolution isn't concerned with the formation of life, so please stop talking like one of the main tenets of evolution is about such, it's dishonest. In addition, spontaneous generation is an old hypothesis that was disproved a long time ago, no contemporary scientist deals with spontaneous generation.

Really Life just appeared for no reason, and from that life all life evolved? Is that what you are saying? Because every evolutionary scientist I have read and talked to, has to start with how the first life got here, or else nothing else works. I skipped Cosmology, you see and yet you still try to play games. You are being dishonest with us, you are avoiding the fallacy's of evolutionary logic to try to make the rest look plausible. I have also posted a contemporary scientist that does deal with "Spontaneous Generation" just not by that name. They call it biogenesis now, sounds more scientific..

Perhaps it isn't so much my divergence of mainstream science as is your/y'all's caricature of scientific theories y'all don't like because of personal religious convictions.

No, you are diverging from the mainstream evolutionary mindset, and you are trying to do something that they would not. You have been trying to rationalize evolution as a process which God used to create the diversity of life on this planet. However to do so you must mix the two and it does not work.

Here is proof you are untruthful with what you said about evolution. Taken from the PBS NOVA Site.

LAUNCHING LIFE

What do you think was the first form of life?

It's pretty clear that all the organisms living today, even the simplest ones, are removed from some initial life form by four billion years or so, so one has to imagine that the first forms of life would have been much, much simpler than anything that we see around us. But they must have had that fundamental property of being able to grow and reproduce and be subject to Darwinian evolution.

So it might be that the earliest things that actually fit that definition were little strands of nucleic acids. Not DNA yet—that's a more sophisticated molecule—but something that could catalyze some chemical reactions, something that had the blueprint for its own reproduction.

Would it be something we would recognize under a microscope as living, or would it be totally different?

That's a good question. I can imagine that there was a time before there was life on Earth, and then clearly there was a time X-hundred thousand years or a million years later when there were things that we would all recognize as biological. But there's no question that we must have gone through some intermediate stage where, had you been there watching them, you might have placed your bets either way.

So I can imagine that on a primordial Earth you would have replicating molecules—not particularly lifelike in our definition, but they're really getting the machinery going. Then some of them start interacting together and pretty soon you have something a little more lifelike, and then it incorporates maybe another piece of nucleic acid from somewhere else, and by the accumulation of these disparate strands of information and activity, something that you and I would look at and agree "that's biological" would have emerged.

In a nutshell, what is the process? How does life form?

The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance. That said, I think what we're looking for is some kind of molecule that is simple enough that it can be made by physical processes on the young Earth, yet complicated enough that it can take charge of making more of itself. That, I think, is the moment when we cross that great divide and start moving toward something that most people would recognize as living.

RECIPE FOR LIFE

Is this an inevitable consequence of the conditions and chemicals and stuff that existed on early Earth?

We don't know whether life is an inevitable consequence of planetary formation. Certainly in our solar system there is no shortage of planets that probably never had life on them. So it's a hard question to answer. I think the way I'd be most comfortable thinking about it is that you probably have to get the recipe right. That is, you need a planet that has a certain range of environments, certain types of gases in the atmosphere, certain types of geological processes at work, that when you have the right conditions, life will emerge fairly rapidly. I don't think we need to think about inherently improbable events that eventually happen just because there are huge intervals of time. My guess is that it either happens or it doesn't.

Has there been a change in thinking about this over the years?

People's ideas on the circumstances under which life might emerge have really changed and developed over the last 30 or 40 years. I think it's fair to say that when I was a boy those few people who thought about the origin of life thought that it probably was a set of improbable reactions that just happened to get going over the fullness of time. And I think it's fair to say that most of those people probably thought that we would find out what those reactions were, that somehow we would nail it in a test tube at some point.

To a first approximation you're just a bag of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen.

Now I think, curiously enough, both of those attitudes have changed. I think that there's less confidence that we're really going to be able to identify a specific historical route by which life emerged, but at the same time there's increasing confidence that when life did arise on this planet, it was not a protracted process using a chemistry that is pretty unlikely but rather is a chemistry that, when you get the recipe right, it goes, and it goes fairly quickly.

What is the recipe for life?

The recipe for life is not that complicated. There are a limited number of elements inside your body. Most of your mass is carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur, plus some nitrogen and phosphorous. There are a couple dozen other elements that are in there in trace amounts, but to a first approximation you're just a bag of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen.

Now, it turns out that the atmosphere is a bag of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen as well, and it's not living. So the real issue here is, how do you take that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (or methane in an early atmosphere) and water vapor and other sources of hydrogen—how do you take those simple, inorganic precursors and make them into the building blocks of life?

There was a famous experiment done by Stanley Miller when he was a graduate student at the University of Chicago in the early 1950s. Miller essentially put methane, or natural gas, ammonia, hydrogen gas, and water vapor into a beaker. That wasn't a random mixture; at the time he did the experiment, that was at least one view of what the primordial atmosphere would have looked like.

Then he did a brilliant thing. He simply put an electric charge through that mixture to simulate lightning going through an early atmosphere. After sitting around for a couple of days, all of a sudden there was this brown goo all over the reaction vessel. When he analyzed what was in the vessel, rather than only having methane and ammonia, he actually had amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. In fact, he had them in just about the same proportions you would find if you looked at organic matter in a meteorite. So the chemistry that Miller was discovering in this wonderful experiment was not some improbable chemistry, but a chemistry that is widely distributed throughout our solar system.

http://www.pbs.org/w...life-begin.html

So why are you trying to cloud the subject? You have not been truthful, and yet have said we have lied, or have been misguided on our views. But yet from what I just posted is from an evolutionary scientist. Also unless PBS got it wrong, they posted that under the directory of evolution.

This is what we have been talking about. You keep trying to ignore this part as it is embarrassing for you as you know it does not make sense. Even the Cosmological events leading up to it had to be lucky chances. Why do you ignore half of what mainstream non Christian scientists say?