Why I believe in Creation not Evolution.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Oh and all this is taken by faith. They really don't know, all they know is that god could not be involved as they refuse to invoke his name, they say its chance.

The hard part, and the part that I think nobody has quite figured out yet, is how you get them working together. How do you go from some warm, little pond on a primordial Earth that has amino acids, sugars, fatty acids just sort of floating around in the environment to something in which nucleic acids are actually directing proteins to make the membranes of the cell?

Somehow you have to get all of the different constituents working together and have basically the information to make that system work in one set of molecules, which then directs the formation of a second set of molecules, which synthesizes a third set of molecules, all in a way that feeds back to making more of the first set of molecules. So you end up getting this cycle. I'm not sure we've gotten very far down the road to understanding how that really happens.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Also I think, now that I looked it up this is what you are talking about

Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs. The biodiversity of life evolves by means of mutations, genetic drift and natural selection.

Which is different from Biogenesis the origin of life, but its all under the broader umbrella of how life first evolved.

You see us creationists, have a hard time separating out the different fields of evolutionary study. You are only focused on one field of study, the evolutionary biology part. But you have to have life to get to that point to begin with. Also you have a 10 ton dino evolving int to a 10 pound turkey, is a bit of a stretch for us.

As we have already stated A dog, is a dog is a dog. A dog may have many breeds of dog, but it is all a dog. This is our issue.

As far as how life started, the Cosmolgy and the Biogenesis you have already stated that you do not belive the Creation Account in Genesis, so therefore you must belive the evolutionary, God less part of it that leaves everything to chance, and luck, and that everything always existed with out proof.

You see you can not have diversity, with out life to start with. You cannot have life with out a planet. You can not have a planet with out cosmology.

Cause, effect, cause effect. Trying to only quantify the effect with out the cause is senseless.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

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?

I'm unclear as to why you think D9 has been untruthful? I skimmed his posts here and your extended quote from some PBS show, and I don't see that they at odds. Where exactly do you think the unnamed scientist on PBS and D9 differ?

I have noticed that there is a tenderly on these boards to misrepresent the biological theory of evolution. It typically seems to be either a confusion on what is and is not considered to be biological evolution. For instance, cosmology and abiogensis are frequently represented as being part of the biological theory of evolution.

They're not being confused. We're just acknowledging the mutual dependency of the worldview that suggests that all things are arising naturally in response to one another (including biological and non-biological reality), but there is an undeniable relationship in the naturalistic worldview that demands that order is resulting from chaos given the raveges of time, which facilitates life.

I was speaking to a geologist who insisted that there are all sorts of evolution (cosmological, planetary, etc) and if you want to refer specifically to Darwinian evolution you have to specify Darwinian evolution, because they're all related and none of them are mutually exclusive.

It's my observation that focusing on how creationists present things is really nit-picking as we try to conform to semantic gymnastics, which diverts from the real issues.

Further, all the talk about the odds of life occurring on Earth is pretty silly.

No it's not. The odds are vanishingly small, and therefore totally dismissible, and they won't cease to become so because you says that it's silly.

I suppose if one wanted to do some sort of Bayesian probabilities, one could, but I don't see the purpose in doing that since we are lacking in knowledge to make reasonable estimates at this point.

So your solution is to do the opposite of what Dawkins says is the virtue of science that differentiates it from the fault of faith, thereby committing the fallacy of the [god/materialism]-of-the-gaps for yourself?

"[Those who believe in God] like to point to the origin of the universe and say

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Trying to only quantify the effect with out the cause is senseless.

It's obvious, as you note, that those of us with a scientific viewpoint think very differently about these issues than folks who interpret the Bible literally. We beak down the world around us into chunks so that we can study it. One can obviously study biology without knowing a great deal of physics and vice versa. In essence, you seem to actually be asking very basic, and profound, questions about cosmology/physics to me. A question such as "why do we find ourselves in a universe where gravity = x, the electromagnetic force = y, and so on" is not answerable at this point in time. It may never be. One can invoke God as an answer, but from a scientific stance, such answers, right or wrong, don't offer anything in the way of explanatory or predictive power.

This is patently false as I already submitted when I referenced the definition of a scientific model presented by Dr. Jason Lisle and how the yec one is predictive on another thread.

And what exactly is the predictive power of evolution? As Luftwaffle already pointed out, what is the next stage for the peacock? What will happen next?

I have already pointed out to you that Meyers recently published a book on prediction made by the ID movement, to which I could add other examples, but I predict that no matter how many times we observe a single celled organism replicate, it will never produce a multi-celluar one. So far I'm right.

This charge is two-dimensional and collapses upon scrutiny.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I'd like to point that that is a false dichotomy. Usually telling people what they believe based on logical fallacies doesn't get you very far.

Hey D-9,

How is that a false dichotomy? What's the other option?

Dawkins tries to make the point that evolution allows one to be an intellectually satisfied atheist, underscoring the point that there is no other option that miraculous creation, so how is what was presented fallacious?

[Isaiah 6:8]

I understand how it can be hard to separate the different theories; they are all theories about the same universe and thus inherently connected in more ways than one. I myself had some trouble working it all out myself, when I was younger I too thought that they should be under a single cohesive theory as each one seemed to build off of one another. I'd say that the key concept here is that a scientific theory explains a specific set of related facts, and while it is possible that some facts/observations can change one theory or even debunk a theory, it is not a domino effect in the sense that debunking the big bang debunks biological evolution and vise versa.

Yes you are right, disproving the big bang will not stop the theory of biological evolution, you need to find a compatible theory that works. In that sense you are right. However, every theory proposed does so, sans the existence of God, and is formed on wild amounts of random chance and huge massive amounts of time. If you can not find a working theory, then the rest is a moot point. No universe, No planet, No life. So far there is no solid theory that is not based on pure assumption at its start.

They are interconnected, and your right, its not like a Christmas light, where one blinks off and they all go, but yet they are on the same strand, and they all have one thing in common, which you do not like.

They all are based on science alone. No god needed. They replace God with chance and time. You see it all can happen if you have the right amount of time, and enough lucky chances. Chance is the core battle cry of evolution, chance mutations, chance this chance that. Its all chance and speculation as there is no proof.

I'm pretty sure that this can be summed up as 'kinds don't evolve into other kinds', but can you be a bit more precise in the creationist issue?

I could not find the thread, I went through hundreds of pages on our original agreement on the term we decided fit.

I'd like to point that that is a false dichotomy. Usually telling people what they believe based on logical fallacies doesn't get you very far.

Nope based in on what you said.

Is it not inevitable that when I drop a ball it will go to the floor? In the same respect, I think it was inevitable that the basic events happened the way they happened. Again, that might be too Newtonian for modern physics (I'm kinda like Einstein in this respect; God doesn't play dice, which God apparently does - damn you QM!), but I will contend that it is indeed inevitable to happen at least once as such already has happened. I honestly don't see a problem with this and accepting a creator God; God simply used natural principles to do His Will, as far as I know this idea was first truly championed by Newton himself, one of creationists favorite scientific figures.

I could not find the thread we first started debating, where you said that you did not belive the Genesis account, I looked but I distinctly remember you stating just that. I am only stating what you have said.

Again, I suggest focusing on what theories are meant to do in explaining a specific set of facts/observations, as well as focusing on the limitations of science, even perhaps the limitations of theories which is related to them explaining a specific set of facts.

Then why do you defend all aspects of evolutionary thought including biogenesis The big bang theory and the rest. You defend them all, and point to the logic and proofs of such things on many threads.

I at first thought you were only talking about biological evolution but you have proved that that is not the case.

You seem to be trying to make the two mesh faith in God and Godless evolution. I see you desperately trying to prove one without disproving the other.

It seems not to work.

[LLC]

Trying to only quantify the effect with out the cause is senseless.

It's obvious, as you note, that those of us with a scientific viewpoint think very differently about these issues than folks who interpret the Bible literally. We beak down the world around us into chunks so that we can study it. One can obviously study biology without knowing a great deal of physics and vice versa. In essence, you seem to actually be asking very basic, and profound, questions about cosmology/physics to me. A question such as "why do we find ourselves in a universe where gravity = x, the electromagnetic force = y, and so on" is not answerable at this point in time. It may never be. One can invoke God as an answer, but from a scientific stance, such answers, right or wrong, don't offer anything in the way of explanatory or predictive power.

This is patently false as I already submitted when I referenced the definition of a scientific model presented by Dr. Jason Lisle and how the yec one is predictive on another thread.

And what exactly is the predictive power of evolution? As Luftwaffle already pointed out, what is the next stage for the peacock? What will happen next?

I have already pointed out to you that Meyers recently published a book on prediction made by the ID movement, to which I could add other examples, but I predict that no matter how many times we observe a single celled organism replicate, it will never produce a multi-celluar one. So far I'm right.

This charge is two-dimensional and collapses upon scrutiny.

It appears that a lot of people posting in this forum are misinformed about evolution, or have an obscured idea of what it actually is. Evolution occurs in slow gradients over billions and billions of years. Essentially, through an aggregate of small changes, simple organisms have the capacity to become more and more complex over time. I will not go over the proof since it is available all over the internet and in museums.

It is OK to be Christian and believe in evolution. Evolution and science have no claims on anything spiritual or outside of observation, it is not an enemy of Christianity. Before developing an opinion, the least you can do for yourselves is personally look at the evidence instead of reading biased sources.

[Guest]

What?

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels;

and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Matthew 16:26-27

____________

_________

______

___

That isn't what evolution predicts, you don't have a good grasp on evolutionary theory or evolutionary science.

Dear One

O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him. Psalms 34:8

Evolution Is That Peculiar Anti-Knowledge

Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 2 Corinthians 10:5

Anti-Christ Pagan Notion That Matter Is Fundamentally

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 2:15-17

The True Meaning Of Life, The Universe And Everything

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

And That All Being And Processes

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:10-11

And Phenomena Must Be

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Revered As Self Actuating

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. 1 John 5:21

Because Evolution Predicts

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

That The LORD Jesus Is Irrelevant

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Romans 14:11-12

Thus Men Once Again Affirms The Foundational Truths Of The Bible

There is no fear of God before their eyes. Romans 3:18

____________

_________

______

___

Either He Is The Truth

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

Or He

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:13-14

Isn't

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

Believe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

And Be Blessed Beloved

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:16-18

Love, Joe

[LuftWaffle]

Yes you are right, disproving the big bang will not stop the theory of biological evolution, you need to find a compatible theory that works. In that sense you are right. However, every theory proposed does so, sans the existence of God, and is formed on wild amounts of random chance and huge massive amounts of time. If you can not find a working theory, then the rest is a moot point. No universe, No planet, No life. So far there is no solid theory that is not based on pure assumption at its start.

They are interconnected, and your right, its not like a Christmas light, where one blinks off and they all go, but yet they are on the same strand, and they all have one thing in common, which you do not like.

They all are based on science alone. No god needed. They replace God with chance and time. You see it all can happen if you have the right amount of time, and enough lucky chances. Chance is the core battle cry of evolution, chance mutations, chance this chance that. Its all chance and speculation as there is no proof.

I'm fine with all the theories being connected, they should be if they are all about the same universe, but at the same time much of the overall validity of theories doesn't rest on how X got there to set up what the theory explains.

If it's all based on science, no God needed, and that is a problem for the faith, than the faith has a fundamental problem with the methodology of science. Science doesn't include God in anything (and at the same token it doesn't discount God, science just says it cannot be tested therefore it's essentially ignored) and works with what is testable, and if that is a problem (I suspect it is as I've seen several members here complain about the godlessness of scientific theory/model/hypothesis/law X more than once) than science should be seen (by whoever has a problem) as a godless philosophy/methodology that is at odds with Christianity. Either science is a valid methodology and you need to accept its silence on theological issues, or it isn't a valid way as it doesn't allow God, or even one foot in the doorway of the supernatural.

Chance is an integral part, but look at it this way. Each human has about 6 billion base pairs of DNA per cell (all your cells have the same DNA). Each human has about 100 mutations before they're born. There is about 6 billion people in the world today, which means that has been enough mutations just from the people living today to completely redo the DNA sequence about 100 times. Now obviously this hasn't happened and neither evolution nor population genetics would allow such to happen, but I think it demonstrates how many mutations there can be in a population from generation to generation. A more realistic way of looking at it would be to think of each human as an "experiment" with about 100 mutations, have any sizable population (say even 10,000) and after a few generations you're bound to get a beneficial mutation or two.

I'm pretty sure that this can be summed up as 'kinds don't evolve into other kinds', but can you be a bit more precise in the creationist issue?

I could not find the thread, I went through hundreds of pages on our original agreement on the term we decided fit.

I wasn't referring to any thread or previous conversation, sorry if it sounded like I was. My issue with the dogs thing is that it is very vague. A dog is a subspecies of wolf, so taking your statement literally would mean that demonstrating speciation would dispel your issue. However I know many creationists are fine with speciation, and you seem like the type to be of that persuasion. If that is the case, than it needs to be narrowed down otherwise it's open season on de facto moving the goal post until we can logically say that all life is of the same variety/kind.

Nope based in on what you said.

Is it not inevitable that when I drop a ball it will go to the floor? In the same respect, I think it was inevitable that the basic events happened the way they happened. Again, that might be too Newtonian for modern physics (I'm kinda like Einstein in this respect; God doesn't play dice, which God apparently does - damn you QM!), but I will contend that it is indeed inevitable to happen at least once as such already has happened. I honestly don't see a problem with this and accepting a creator God; God simply used natural principles to do His Will, as far as I know this idea was first truly championed by Newton himself, one of creationists favorite scientific figures.

I could not find the thread we first started debating, where you said that you did not belive the Genesis account, I looked but I distinctly remember you stating just that. I am only stating what you have said.

You stated that since I don't believe the Genesis account I must believe in a Godless processes that is at the whims of chance and everything lasted forever. That is a false dichotomy, not because of my stance on Genesis (I don't believe the account is literal) but because the alternative presented is not the only option.

Then why do you defend all aspects of evolutionary thought including biogenesis The big bang theory and the rest. You defend them all, and point to the logic and proofs of such things on many threads.

I at first thought you were only talking about biological evolution but you have proved that that is not the case.

You seem to be trying to make the two mesh faith in God and Godless evolution. I see you desperately trying to prove one without disproving the other.

It seems not to work.

I like to see myself as defending science, not evolution specifically or the whole cascade of evolutionary theories from multiple disciplines. As I've taken various courses in a hodgepodge of sciences in high school and college as well as did a little reading on my own, I've found that I agree with mainstream science and that includes accepting the big bang, cosmological and stellar evolution, some things about abiogenesis, biological evolution, plate tectonics, an old Earth and so on.

That is the science side of things, now as science doesn't say anything about God I'm free to believe or not believe as I see fit (coming from a purely scientific view). As a believer in God I have 3 basic options. I can forgo either science or God, or I can accept both; and as someone who has found truth in both I've decided to accept both. This isn't a scientific stance but a personal, metaphysical stance.

When on the topic of scientific theories and such I try not to bring God into the equation because God simply isn't part of the equation. To add God in will take us out of science, and while I find such topics interesting it isn't science and I see no reason to go there when talking about science unless someone brings it up (not to mention theological arguments of this magnitude are much less concrete than science, or that me talking about it would probably have little to no meaning seeing as how I and almost everyone else here differs on more concrete matters let alone more esoteric conversations). Another way to look at is that I see a thread about how evolution doesn't work and it is usually trying to use some sort of scientific argument against it. To go against what is said logically I need to address it scientifically which means I need to leave God at the door so to speak; whether God was involved in the process or not doesn't change what science has uncovered, only if we are willing to have an extra metaphysical layer of ideas about it that isn't related to scientific methodology.

Hi D-9

I'd like to make a few comments your post and highlight where I believe you're not perhaps seeing the full picture.

Science flowered in the West, due to the fact that the Christian worldview leads a person to believe in an orderly universe. We worship a God of order and it is this belief that drive the pioneers of science, people such as Tesla, Newton, etc. To say that science has nothing to do with religion complete ignores the history of science. There 's this misplaced fear that introducing religion thinking into the sphere of science will allow superstition and appeals to magic and miracles to take hold of science. This, I believe is an unfounded and perhaps deliberately inflated objection. It is precisely those pioneers of science, who believed in a creator and believed that they were following the thoughts of God, that eliminated the pagan superstitions that abounded before.

History proves that belief in a creator isn't a science stopper, but quite the contrary, science was born and raised in the Christian West.

I also think that you're confusing what science is, with what it ought to be. I totally agree that scientists should follow the evidence and that objectivity should rule, but the problem is this simply doesn't happen in reality. To say that science isn't concerned with debunking theism flies in the face of all the historical cases where precisely this happened. I think the latest example is Hawking's recent publication wherein he declares philosophy to be dead and God not needed.

In the 1920s you had J Harlan Bretz who was ridiculed for claiming the Channeled Scablands were produced by a flood.

Edwin Hubble admitted that redshifts are evidence for a privileged planet but that such an idea is unwelcome.

To say that science has no bias for- or against God is simply naive.

Lastly I think a fundamental question is the philosophical bias, not just within science itself, but in choosing science as the tool for investigating origins in the first place.

As I said in an earlier post there are various types of truths and there are various tools for finding a truth. I'm not going to use science to determine the beauty of a painting because science isn't the right tool for determining that kind of truth. Likewise I'm not going to use science to determine the value of a certain moral action, because science isn't the tool for that. The tool you choose greatly affects what you're looking for and also greatly demonstrates what you think you're looking for.

Therefore the very fact that the burden of explaining origins is loaded onto science's shoulders, shows the assumption that science is the tool that can answer these questions. Since science is only concerned with material, by that very fact betrays the strong philosophical bias toward materialism.

So in summary:

1. The idea that the practising science in the context of a supernatural creation, and taking that into account will somehow hamper science is false based on the history of science.

2. The idea that science is neutral where theism is only conceptually true, but in practise this is demonstrably false.

3. Science's allocation as only tool for explaining origins is a positive and deliberate philosophical choice in favour of materialism and against the divine.

[Don Fanucci]

2. The idea that science is neutral where theism is only conceptually true, but in practise this is demonstrably false.

This is perhaps the most common absurd claim by creationists. It is easily testable, yet for some reason we have no data. The reason is because it is baloney and a phoney cannard. Out of the millions of scientists on the planet, you cherry pick a handful of statemnets that are about God. How about do what every scientist does when they are interested in a topic and go through the scientific literature. Go through medline, you can pick a day, a year, a decade, and search all the scientific articles and see how many are about proving or disproving God. Or, go to the NIH, NSF, American Cancer Society, American Heart association, etc websites, and the Canadia + europorean equivalents and search the biomedical research grants that are about God. Demonstrably false? Demonstrate it then.