Do You Believe in the Theory of Evolution?

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Its a combination--not just random, but there are other reasons that evolution occurs aside from random mutation. Deliberate focus by an organism on survival strategy for example, will result in the organisms best at adapting, surviving.

There is the classic example of the moths that were primarily white becoming primarily black because pollution caused the white ones to stand out more, thereby being more likely eaten. That's an example of a random mutation playing a part (i.e., some moths mutating to a different color (black) that eventually resulted in them surviving.

However, now take a predator such as a lion or tiger. Characteristics that ensure the survival of the species such as strength, endurance, and intelligence are not random mutations--that is over time those characteristics are "selected" by the environment--not random at all. In other words there is a deliberate focus on the characteristics by the organisms.

I am impressed. :nod:

 

[ssl]

I propose one question: Is it truly a random process?

Think about it.

 

[gillibean]

I propose one question: Is it truly a random process?

Think about it.

Read the last couple pages. I think that question has been beaten into the ground, dug up, cleaned up and beaten a bit more then buried once again.

 

[IntruderLS1]

I still don't see why people site it being a theory as some sort of stab at it.

Well, we wouldn't if you would stop telling everybody that it was a prooven fact, and therefore disproves creationism theory.

 

[All Else Failed]

I just don't see any evidence for creation "theory".

 

[Godsloveapples]

No it doesn't. All of those "facts" are just recycled creationist arguments that have been debunked time and time again.

No, evolutionists don't just have fossils. We literally have mountains of evidence. See, this is what I'm talking about. Just by your statements you have no idea what you are even talking about. If you knew anything about this subject, you'd know that every single feild of science sees evolution as the grand unifying theory, and each branch of science has its own way of presenting hard evidence for evolution. You're simply ignoring all of this and sticking to your pseudo-science religious websites, willfully turning a blind eye to countless evidences just because evolution scares you.

You telling me to be open minded it like a nazi telling someone not to be racist.

OK. Fine. I'll admit, I don't know much about evolution....I'm going to read more about it and come back. Any book suggestions?

 

[IntruderLS1]

I just don't see any evidence for creation "theory".

That's fine. It doesn't change my point, but it's fine.

 

[gillibean]

OK. Fine. I'll admit, I don't know much about evolution....I'm going to read more about it and come back. Any book suggestions?

The Blind Watchmaker is a really good one.

 

[IntruderLS1]

But creationism isn't a "theory", its a belief. There is no scientific evidence to support creationism--in fact, science disproves it. If you believe in Bible Creation, then the world is only some 6000 years old and that does not square at all with any scientific evidence or theory.

?? You lost me. A theory is a belief. The evidence is the very world and universe around us. It's here. It had to get here somehow. There are no other theories that I'm aware of. Don't say big bang, because that singularity had to come from somewhere.

Also, why do evolutionists always want to pigeon hole us into saying that God created an Earth that was 1 day old, with no layers, or features, etc...? The Bible doesn't say He made a flat, featureless Earth, and then put the elements to work decorating.

 

[gillibean]

?? You lost me. A theory is a belief. The evidence is the very world and universe around us. It's here. It had to get here somehow. There are no other theories that I'm aware of. Don't say big bang, because that singularity had to come from somewhere.

Also, why do evolutionists always want to pigeon hole us into saying that God created an Earth that was 1 day old, with no layers, or features, etc...? The Bible doesn't say He made a flat, featureless Earth, and then put the elements to work decorating.

It is not a theory in the same sense that evolution is. Evolution is a scientific theory. Creation is a theory in the sense that it's a hunch.

If the singularity had to come from somewhere, so did god. Where did he come from?

 

[IntruderLS1]

It is not a theory in the same sense that evolution is. Evolution is a scientific theory. Creation is a theory in the sense that it's a hunch.

If the singularity had to come from somewhere, so did god. Where did he come from?

Indeed, neither has a root in physical possibility, and as such, I find it to be more logical to look outside of the realm of the physical sciences. The laws of physics as we understand them cannot justify the creation. The theory of creation via the Divine, makes room for an entity that exists outside of our physical plane. Not only is this scientifically justifiable, I find it to be the only feasible theory yet put on the table.

Well you are talking about two different things. I am not saying that God could not have created the universe, I am simply stating there is no scientific evidence to support biblical creationism--its not a theory, its a story. In order to accept it you have to simply believe it--there is no scientific theory or method for explaining it.

That differs from evolution--scientists can study fossils--there is a record left of the processes that have occurred on earth over the millions of years it has existed. There is no scientific record to support creationism. I'm not trying to dissuade your belief, but its just that.

This is where we part ways. The "evidence" that you claim supports only your theory, equally supports mine. Evidence for a theory is exactly that; evidence. It is information that supports the stated idea. The "evidence" for creation by God is the exact same evidence used in the purely physical (which is still impossible) creation. The only difference is how the information is interpreted.

 

[gillibean]

Indeed, neither has a root in physical possibility, and as such, I find it to be more logical to look outside of the realm of the physical sciences. The laws of physics as we understand them cannot justify the creation. The theory of creation via the Divine, makes room for an entity that exists outside of our physical plane. Not only is this scientifically justifiable, I find it to be the only feasible theory yet put on the table.



This is where we part ways. The "evidence" that you claim supports only your theory, equally supports mine. Evidence for a theory is exactly that; evidence. It is information that supports the stated idea. The "evidence" for creation by God is the exact same evidence used in the purely physical (which is still impossible) creation. The only difference is how the information is interpreted.

I think I'm going to trust the physicists over you on whether the laws of physics allow for the creation of earth.

There is no evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old. No evidence that people were created as we are now 6000 years ago.

Out of curiosity, do you think there are other dimensions?

 

[dt3]

I think I'm going to trust the physicists over you on whether the laws of physics allow for the creation of earth.

There is no evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old. No evidence that people were created as we are now 6000 years ago.

Out of curiosity, do you think there are other dimensions?

Where has Scott ever said that?

 

[gillibean]

Where has Scott ever said that?

I don't know that he specifically has. Is that not the creationist's theory?

 

[dt3]

I don't know that he specifically has. Is that not the creationist's theory?

It's one extreme view of creationism (the young earth theory) but it's far from the only one.

 

[gillibean]

It's one extreme view of creationism (the young earth theory) but it's far from the only one.

It's the only one I've ever heard so could you enlighten on the others? Specifically Scotts if you know which one he subscribes to?

 

[IntruderLS1]

I think I'm going to trust the physicists over you on whether the laws of physics allow for the creation of earth.

Out of curiosity, do you think there are other dimensions?

Have you ever heard a physicist discribe to you how the universe could have been created? The answer is "no," because it is physically impossible. I'm not even aware of any theoretical physics that get close.

The other dimensions question is interesting. If forced into an answer, I would say "yes." I've attended several seminars on the subject, and it's an interesting idea. It solves some problems, but it creates a rats nest of them too, sooo.... I dunno. I haven't made up my mind yet.

I DON'T believe in the crazy type that I think you're talking about.

Where has Scott ever said that?

He has not. Thanks for pointing that out.

It's the only one I've ever heard so could you enlighten on the others? Specifically Scotts if you know which one he subscribes to?

There are several popular theories in Christian circles. 10,000 years seems to be the big one right now, but it's certainly not alone.

The interesting thing about the age of the earth as far as Christanity goes, is that the Bible doesn't tell us specifically. Most of the theories make sense in one way or another, but the truth is, we'll never know for sure.

What I believe isn't very popular. In Genisis, before the creation, the Bible talks about God hovering over the face of the deep. The Earth and the oceans were here. I read this and assume there is a history that isn't recorded for us, and perhaps it stretches 100,000,000 years (or whatever the new number is). IMO, this could even explain the difference between deamons and fallen agels, but that's a different discussion.

As I said before, it's all theory and conjecture. Basically just fun stuff to think about. I personally don't understand why believers get all bent out of shape on the topic.

 

[GraceAbounds]

I personally don't understand why believers get all bent out of shape on the topic.

You and me both.

I think it is just another one of those divisive areas that keep people from relationship with God and His message of love and salvation for us. It keeps us from His Word which is life applicable for us now and forever.

It is just another little thing that the Devil uses to take people's focus off of where it needs be so he can keep them down and from being all they were truly created for; so that he can rob them of their joy every chance he gets.

... but then you already know this Scott.

 

[All Else Failed]

Have you ever heard a physicist discribe to you how the universe could have been created? The answer is "no," because it is physically impossible. I'm not even aware of any theoretical physics that get close.



.

Um...the big bang.

I like how you keep using the word "impossible" when you we don't even understand the universe to answer this question yet. There could be a natural way out there yet unexplained to answer this question.

 

[All Else Failed]

?? You lost me. A theory is a belief. The evidence is the very world and universe around us. It's here. It had to get here somehow. There are no other theories that I'm aware of. Don't say big bang, because that singularity had to come from somewhere.

Also, why do evolutionists always want to pigeon hole us into saying that God created an Earth that was 1 day old, with no layers, or features, etc...? The Bible doesn't say He made a flat, featureless Earth, and then put the elements to work decorating.

no its not. Its observations based on evidence. There is no real evidence for creation.

Yeah, singularity had to come from something, but that doesn't mean god did it at all. It could have happened from a totally natural process.

Indeed, neither has a root in physical possibility, and as such, I find it to be more logical to look outside of the realm of the physical sciences. The laws of physics as we understand them cannot justify the creation. The theory of creation via the Divine, makes room for an entity that exists outside of our physical plane. Not only is this scientifically justifiable, I find it to be the only feasible theory yet put on the table.



This is where we part ways. The "evidence" that you claim supports only your theory, equally supports mine. Evidence for a theory is exactly that; evidence. It is information that supports the stated idea. The "evidence" for creation by God is the exact same evidence used in the purely physical (which is still impossible) creation. The only difference is how the information is interpreted.

Really? Abiogenesists will disagree.

There's no such thing as a "theory via divine".


I think its totally illogical that you fall back on something "divine" just because you don't understand it yet. Thats like a cave man watching thunder, not understanding it, and saying "god done it!".

Please, show me this evidence of god creating things.