Creation vs. Evolution - A Question of Origins - Page 2

Originally posted by: PhoeniXof_Hades

Having said that, I don't see why evolution and creation has to be separate entities. People can always reconcile evolution with God.

Originally posted by: PhoeniXof_Hades

Moreover, creationism doesn't explain anything. It just says "God did it". Fine, God did do it...but so what? How does that explain all the other remaining questions linked it? It's another way of saying "I don't know", or rather just closing the question with a typical answer.

Having said that, I don't see why evolution and creation has to be separate entities. People can always reconcile evolution with God.

well most religious books are ambiguously written (imperfect creations of the perfect being) and are hence open to multiple interpretations. So whenever smthing comes up that disregards or "lessens" (as Hawking puts it) the role played by God, the religous ppl have 2 options - 1) To ignore the theory, disregard it completely (e.g. the legendary Harun Yahya ) 2) To lend an entirely new meaning to the already written word. In these days of growing intolerance, when every1 is hellbent to prove superiority of their religion, the latter helps more as the same discovery/theory can now be used as the attestation of the great religion.

e.g.

#1 God created the earth in 7 days, science refutes it. The explanation comes - ofcourse God's 7 days are not the same as 24hr .. each day is equivalent to millions of years .. hence, there's no conflict and God is great ,yay!!

#2 God created man, science says evolution did it and there's overwhelming evidence for it. So, the new explanation comes that ofcourse evolution did take place but the agent for it was God's will.

#3 God says, i split heaven & earth - a baseless statement. The same words are now given the meaning that God was referring to the Big Bang !

So in that sense, I agree that yes, almost anything can be reconciled with God.

Infact there are diff flavors of evolution that do just that - theistic evolution and/or intelligent design. These ppl accept evolution as a phenomenon but replace the natural selection as the driving force behind the process, with Godly intervention or design (Here God bcoms the designer of species). The common argument that intelligent design proponents come up with is that there's no natural process that creates(or can create) novel information or the kind of complexity that exists in nature.

Originally posted by: thickhead

Evolution has been used to explain the chicken-egg thing, but its relevance to the creationism vs evolution discussion doesn't bcom apparent, atleast not to me. Cud u shed more light on the reasons that led u to blv that creationism vs evolution is akin to chicken-egg argument ?

PS: not sure abt the role of cosmic accident (little evidence for panspermia), but haan .. condom accident indeed leads to new life .. :P

Science says evolution and religion says creation.[/Quote]

Evolution, creation are completely unrelated, indepedent answers to the question about origin; dont think ppl jump from 1 to another in circles. One who blv in religion, shall always hv prob accepting evolution in its entirety and vice-versa.

So, the question still stays - which 1 do u blv in creationism or evolution and y ?

Originally posted by: thickhead

I go for Evolution with some interference by the Creator too. The Creatir kick started the whole process.
It all started as a thought, I think, for the basic building blocks to come into existence, basically the 5 elements etc
More importantly I have to know my ownself better too. So this is one priority.
The physical universe and everything else are all animated by the life force or consciousness.

Edited by Summer3 - 14 years ago

Originally posted by: Believe

& about Darvins evalution views...cos biologists and anthropologists are still wondering what happened to the missing link between men and monkey😊.

If the "monkey" that u're referrring to is the monkey (new-world& old-world) in present, then y does there need to be any missing link ? Both monkey and human, are on separate branches of the evolutionary tree; they shall surely have a common ancestor but never a connecting link.

In case "monkey" refers to ape-man ancestor itself, then there are several fossil proofs ( in form of skelatal remains) available. There's definitely no paucity of evidence.

Originally posted by: thickhead

If the "monkey" that u're referrring to is the monkey (new-world& old-world) in present, then y does there need to be any missing link ? Both monkey and human, are on separate branches of the evolutionary tree; they shall surely have a common ancestor but never a connecting link.

In case "monkey" refers to ape-man ancestor itself, then there are several fossil proofs ( in form of skelatal remains) available. There's definitely no paucity of evidence.

FUNNY Creationism FAQ

Q: What is the principle evidence for Creationism? A: The Holy Bible, of course. After all, is it likely that the author of the Universe would be mistaken about its age?

Q: But isn't the Bible religion and not science? A: Truth is truth. It's a poor sort of science that ignores truth.

Q: But isn't there a lot of evidence for evolution? A: Not really, most of it is from university professors writing papers for each other. If they didn't write papers they wouldn't have jobs.

Q: How big was Noah's ark? A: Big enough.

Q: But what about radioactive dating? A: Hey, everybody knows that stuff is bad for you. Stick with good Christian girls.

Q: What about the fossil evidence? A: The real fossils are university professors writing papers for each other.

Q: Is there any other evidence for Creationism besides the Bible? A: Yes.

Q: Can you give us some? A: Yes.

Q: Could you give us a specific example? A: Yes.

Q: What be a specific example of evidence for Creationism? A: I've already answered that question.

Q: What about the Antarctic ice core data? A: Now I put it to you. Coop up a bunch of men in a Quonset hut in the worst weather in the world, with nothing to do but gather data and drink, and what do you expect?

Q: Did the dinosaurs coexist with man? A: Look, the liberals were preaching coexistence with the Communists, and you saw what happened to them.

Q: Should Creationism be taught along with Evolution in the schools? A: Creationism should be taught instead of Evolution in the schools.

Q: Doesn't the Geologic Column prove that the Earth is very old? A: The geologic column proves that some things are on top of other things and some things are underneath other things. But we already knew that, didn't we.

Q: Hasn't Evolution been demonstrated in the laboratory? A: Students are demonstrating everywhere these days. To their shame, many professors are demonstrating also.

Q: Aren't Hawiian wallabies an example of Evolution in action? A: No.

Q: Why not? A: Because they aren't.

Q: What is a kind? A: A kind is cards of the same rank. Thus 4 aces and a king are four of a kind, but four spades and a heart are not.

Q: Doesn't genetic variation indicate that life has been going on a long time? A: Let's be up front about this. That's deviation, not variation, and yes, there is a lot of deviancy out there. That just shows that there has been a lot of Sin since the garden of Eden.

Q: What about Neanderthal Man? A: Hey, you take one of those geezers and put him in tweeds and give him a pipe and he could be a professor anywhere.

Q: Some scientists state that the earth's continents are drifting around on top of a molten interior which has shaped life as we see it now. Are they right? A: As you well know the Bible says that beneath the surface of the earth is Hell where there is eternal fires and brimstone. If the continents appear to be moving around that is Satan's doing.

Q: Why do almost all of the scientists believe in Evolution? A: The real scientists don't. As for the rest of them, that's a very good question, isn't it?

Q: Are you talking about a Satanic conspiracy? A: Did I say anything about a conspiracy? You might want to think about the shape the world is in since the Evolutionists and the Liberal Humanists captured academia and Evolution is hand in hand with Godless Communism and crime in the streets but I certainly wouldn't want to say anything about a Satanic conspiracy. I just want you to think about it with an open mind.

Originally posted by: Believe

The monkey becomes something else, then something else becomes something else, and then finally a small difference... and the animal becomes man...Did they GOT the LINK? Nooo....I feel the the gap between the monkey and man seems to be too big....As far as we knw, at least since ten thousand years, there has not been a single case when suddenly a monkey jumped out of a tree and became a man... man has evolved from the monkey at the level of his body, but Darwin's theories against religious believes......😊

This' funny 😆. Dont think biology is/was ur subject ..isn't it ? In any case 10K is too small a period on the evolutionary timescale to observe any remarkable change.

evolution isn't sudden... its a set of gradual changes ( variations, mutations), and when we talk abt changes, we refer to the entire population, not a single organism. So, no monkey wud ever suddenly convert to a man irrespective of the duration of observation period. The changes that confer survival advantage get propagated, others are lost - this is natural selection, and this is where intelligent design ppl differ. The propagated changes accumulate over time, eventually leading to speciation - new specie is formed.

There used to be common ancestors (more than 1), that evolved into the primates (gorilla, chimps, lemurs) of the present and the common man. And that ancestor no longer lives but the skeletal remains have been found (you may google for news regarding these fossils).