Creation or Evolution?

Creationism or Evolution?

  • Creationism

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Evolution

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Creationism with some Evolution modifications

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Evolution with some Creationism modifications

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • None / Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Quill

Quill

Junior Member
Which is, in your opinion, right or wrong? Which is religion and which is science? Which has evidence and which does not?


I know it's a hot topic, but I can't help myself. I'd really love to see some intelligent discussion and educated debate about this.


That said it's not a "Creationism vs. Evolution" thread. It's intended more as a comparison and less as a thread where two factions disparage each other. And because for some the topic is very touchy and/or personal, please remember the forum rules and don't personally attack/insult each other please! :)
 
I do believe there was the big bang and all that but im also religious and was taught that God created us from the dirt from earth. Just putting my opinion out there. I do think Creationism with some Evolution modifications.
 
I honestly believe there is a higher being that helped start it all, Simply that the materials were there for it to happen, but that higher being sparked it all. I think evolution is influenced by certain things we cant understand, but I believe in creationism and evolution.
 
I believe that creationism happened, just because of the complexity of certain things. I don't really think it's possible for everything to have come from single celled organisms, or even changing to become what things are today.


Mostly because I'm Catholic, and it's what I was raised to believe, but I have a hard time believing everything just kind of appeared and grew out of nowhere. However, I do believe that some creatures have changed over the years, either by breeding or having to adapt to their surroundings. Such as dog breeds or even the way some caterpillars will change from being herbivores to hunting their own food.


I think this world is just so huge and complicated, that nature itself couldn't have figured itself on its own xD
 
I think God gave the energy to create the Big Bang and every now and then pushed it in the right direction. Now the bible says God created us. One thing it didn't say is how. (I tried explaining this to my younger brother but he didn't even listen to it. It's hard purrs wading someone that won't open their mind). Back to the matter at hand. I guess you could say I believe that Evolution was Created and evenly came back to where we are.
 
I think God created us through a process of evolution, and that God's "days" are actually periods over trillions of years, not literal twenty four hour days. and through that thinking, God created evolution as a means to make us, and also a means to test our faith, as in "Just because you can see one method, doesn't make it right".
 
God (or, in other words, an eternal being) may have decided to create our world in a way that would test our faith. Thus, perhaps He made the world in a way that resulted in Science being capable of directly explaining our existence, namely a world in which the name God was not necessarily used to explain Science.


First He created every material he would need to eventually build us- rocks, gases, bacteriums of spontaneous descent, and especially the darkness of outer space, his first and original workbench.


The Toolbox of the Universe, where the Big Bang occurred, and created the plants, the Earth and the Sun, and everything else. Then, bacteria settled on these planets, spawning beasts of every size and shape- later birthing homo sapiens--us.
 
I am finding that people are becoming more open minded to both spiritualism & evolution. In its entirety neither one can be explained. For example if a day is the time that it takes for the earth to spin on it's rotational axis. Who says the planet wasn't spinning slower meaning 7 million years instead of 7 days? After all religion is just a finite man trying to explain unexplained events. Yet evolution does not explained which evolved first the bee or the flower. How would two separate cellular entities such as the bee and the flower even know how to evolve co-dependently if there was no creator?
 
I once heard of a concept called 'irreducible complexity' that made me feel that creationism with some evolutionist modifications could be the case. The term reffers to systems in which no part can be removed or the system will not work, no part is any more complicated than it must be. An example of such a system is a mouse trap.


Basically, from what I recall, there are gaps in the evolutionary chain entered around certain organs such as the eye; in the theory of evolution an organism evolves via superior traits, however an eye is not a trait it is a full organ. Each part of the organ is critical to its function so they could not have simply evolved one piece at a time (or it is highly improbable that it occurred that way), therefore the explanation that God guided evolution becomes more acceptable.


Personally, I don't see why some Christians are so against evolution...there is enough evidence in my opinion to remove all doubt in my mind that evolution is a real thing. You can't really be against a fact of reality and hope to get anywhere with your argument. It just seems that when they hear the word itself they freak out; I am, for the record a Christian. And as previously stated I think that God could have said "Let there be light!" and then the 'Big Bang' occurred creating the Sun, and then the planets settled clumps of mass separating the light from the dark.


I will point out that the Bible does go directly against one strong theory of evolution on Earth. The Bible says that the moving creature of the sea and the birds of the air were created first, however as I recall in the chain of evolution, it went Sea Plants -> Sea Creatures - Land Plants -> Land Creatures -> Air Creatures.


My Two Cents~
 
I was raised a Christian. Russian Orthodox, to be completely accurate, however my family and I have never bought that creationism is 100% correct. Personally, I barely believe it's even 50% simply because there is so much evidence that shows evolution occurred and is responsible for the beings on earth today. However I do believe creationism has its place, as there are things that are too mysterious even for science that can be half explained by a god of some sort, and I, along with a good portion of the population choose to say that one God is responsible for those mysteries until I am proven otherwise.
 
I'll have to go with God created Evolution. The evidence for evolution continues to mount - including the determination of the order in which things evolved. They happen to agree with the flower before the bee concept. Plants came first. One of the real interesting buggers is the amoeba and how it relates to both.


The most fascinating thing about Creationism is how closely it follows fact in all aspects save time and man. (Females probably came first. Males would have required the mutation of a Y chromosome.)


As to the evolution of something like the eye or ear. In point of fact they CAN evolve in stages. Eye of lifeforms even today are not alike. As an exercise in creating a realistic superhero Sharlene and I did a research on arachnid eyes and discovered a little about how eyes work. I also attended a lecture on the working of rods in the eye and how they operate chemically in response to various wavelengths of light.


A visual organ at its simplest concept is a single molecule that responds to light reversibly and sends out an impulse (electrical).


An auditory organ - a molecule that responds to kinetic vibrations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello Mitheral, you seem to be very well studied & astute. You just missed one thing over the flower or bee evolution question. You see plants are not flowers, and flowers are a unique kind of plant as they may or maynot reproduce without runners and some have very dense pollen seeds that require bees to transport them in order for them to reproduce. I once read the study as to the evolution of plants to flowers pose scientist a problem without bees in the equation. It is more co,plex then what I can remember, if I find it I will try to link it here.


All right this is not the original site but one of a few sites that distinguish the problem with bee vs. Flower evolution as well as problems posed by celluar biologist. The original article I read on was a book called "Forbidden History."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, I didn't overlook them. bees evolved from wasps .. Those wasps were not dedicated to flowers as their sole source of nutrition. They also preyed on other insects, some of which also visited flowers. Early flowers also were not separately sexed as many varieties are today. The development of such separation was likely a result of the presence of bees.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Right, which is pretty much what I said. Your paper is a little out of date though -1995. I am working with more recent material. I picked up some of this stuff from research for - believe it or not - a zombie RP. I got a little distracted.
 
So, for those of you who believe God created evolution, is Creationism and evolution contradictory to you, or reconcilable? In what way does God still fit into the world, or is involved in the process of life, if you accept evolution? Does He only exist as a judge of morality, or is He needed for the creation of the universe, etc.?
 
Well, God is defined as omnipotent and omnipresent. He is the Creator of all things. For anyone who believes in him it is all a matter of faith, which needs - and typically has - no roots in science. But for those with faith he would, by the very definition of God, be needed for the creation of all things (universe included).


Somewhere later on down the road he gave us laws to live by known as commandments. Most religions based on God agree to this point. That makes him the judge of morality as well.


If you have no such faith, then ...he is neither. He simply isn't.
 
Seeing the universe and computation, how could that form by chance. Scientists say that it formed because there are hundreds of universes out there. One is bound to host life. Just because there is tons of desserts and huge ones, doesn't mean that sense there is a lot of sand that sand castles appearing put of nowhere.


Sent from my iPad 3 using Tapatalk
 
Seeing the universe and computation, how could that form by chance. Scientists say that it formed because there are hundreds of universes out there. One is bound to host life. Just because there is tons of desserts and huge ones, doesn't mean that sense there is a lot of sand that sand castles appearing put of nowhere.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you're referring to the formation of the universe or the formation of life.


Anyway, here's what I heard about it, and why I don't find it unusual for the universe to exist. Since we can see so many galaxies out there, billions and billions of them, it's obvious that, statistically speaking, formation of galaxies is not improbable. How could the earth or the solar system or the galaxy form by chance? By there being a really high chance of that happening. To speak extremely generally, the laws of physics tell us that when dust collects in space, over billions of years it forms into larger and larger clumps, eventually the size of planets, orbiting around a star. It's not only a probable result, it's expected.


This is different from the sand castle scenario. The laws of physics do not tell us that, when sand collects in deserts, over time it will form into a sand castle. It needs human intervention and design to form that shape. However, the shape of the celestial bodies and galaxies as we see them now did not need intelligent intervention and design to form – it simply formed naturally via the laws of physics.


As to the formation of life, its origin really is a remarkable occurrence to me at least, but I see no reason to assume life was created by a deity, or a form of intelligence according to a design. Due to the law of conservation of mass-energy, we know that matter can't be created or destroyed. To me, that automatically eliminates the possibility that any matter was, well, created, since physical laws tell us that is impossible. Essentially, the law means that the same amount of matter and energy has always existed infinitely, just in different shapes and forms and arrangements.


To me, life is one of those arrangements. It's amazing that such an arrangement occurred, but to me evolution well explains how the arrangement transitioned from not alive to partially alive to alive, and how living things developed their complexity. Currently we have no way of telling how high the chances of life forming on a planet are. We would need to test whether there is life on hundreds of millions, if not hundreds of billions, of planets before we could say for certain that, statistically speaking, the formation of life is common or rare.
 
I'm talking about the big bang. What are the chances something so huge in mass would just refuse all the gravity that ever existed and explode? Now tell me. "What in the physical realm provide that sort of energy." Nothing. SOmething had to be on the outside for that to explode. Also Galaxies would fly apart without dark matter. I and all the rest like me, believe that dark matter is the spirit of god.


Proverbs 15:3


New International Version (NIV)


The eyes of the Lord are everywhere,


keeping watch on the wicked and the good.


Dark matter is everywhere. Science proves it.
 
Oh, I don't believe in the Big Bang. To me it clearly violates the law of conservation of mass-energy by claiming that there was a time period previous to the existence of the universe in which there was no space or time. Since matter takes up space, that would mean matter was created with the Bang. I agree with you that there are numerous logical gaps in the Big Bang theory. That doesn't mean there aren't better explanations out there, though, that don't call the supernatural into effect. Quantum physicists have found that, on the quantum level, matter actually does appear to emerge out of nothing, and fade back into nothing. Stephen Hawking's research proves that matter can (and does) arise spontaneously from the vacuum fluctuation energy of apparently empty space.


And science may prove that dark matter is everywhere, but it takes a leap of faith, not evidence, to assume that dark matter is the substance of a deity that can communicate with humans and has created us.
 
Ok so you follow... Isaac Newton? I Believe those are his theories. I'm pretty sure Einstein was christian and he came up with my believe. But again I am not sure. If he was a christian I follow his theories.
 
I don't follow individuals, just the scientific theories that I find most convincing. Einstein was a deist, I think.
 
You know, I'll put it you this way, intelligence is the science of the natural, or better said, material world, wisdom is the science of the spirit world. With no knowledge of the spirit world, we will not know how the Universe was Created.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top