Creationists...What will it take?

Originally posted by masqua
For all you Creationists out there, what existed in the emptiness before creation?

The standard answer for this is avoidence of it completely my saying "God exists outside of time and space'.. which is impossible anyway.

For all you evolutionists, where did all the 'stuff of the universe' come from that seems to continually evolve?

Energy reacting? The other side of a black hole that feeds into anther physical universe? Some sort 'undercurrent' in the universe that becomes unstable? Not sure.. I think it's better to have basic theories [well very basis in my case- i just made them up] than to say 'god dunnit' in place of 'I don't know'.

What is left after all the stuff in the universe gets sucked into a black hole?

I'd love to know this too. I think many answers lie in this question. Light can't exist in them.. so it's possible that space time can't either and our [as in not the only] universe may have came from one that got 'full' and exploded or came from another as I said earlier. Galaxies spin around black holes.. maybe universes are just giant galaxies?

[edit on 30-1-2005 by riley]

To me both creation and evolution are self evident.

NOTHING would be here without some creation. No planets, no asteroids, no comets, nothing.

Evolution is all but proven. Plants especially have evolved enough in recorded history that its hard to deny they havent changed. Animals on the other hand are much more complex and take longer to evolve in noticeable ways.

Although if you look at the diversity in human life that exists, color, resistance to disease, height, and such. It is obvious we have and are evolving. Average human height is increasing, size of our hands especially our pinkies are shrinking, we are slowly becoming more resistant to many diseases (several flu strains barely affect most humans anymore), becoming more prone to allergies.

Overtime our bodies are adjusting to changes in our living conditions. Our bodies change to protect us from what causes it harm. At the same time it looses the ability to protect us from things that haven't caused us harm in a long time. We also change size and shape to fit our needs. ( a small small percentage of change over hundreds of years )

As I said in starting... We have to have been created otherwise there would be nothing. Nothing at all. There wouldn't have been a planet for life to evolve from period.

Also we have to be evolving. Otherwise we would all look like the very first human ever. We would all be twins. Or are you going to try and say that God chooses and alters each newborns (of all life) DNA to the way he sees fit?

I'd love to know this too. I think many answers lie in this question. Light can't exist in them.. so it's possible that space time can't either and our [as in not the only] universe may have came from one that got 'full' and exploded or came from another as I said earlier. Galaxies spin around black holes.. maybe universes are just giant galaxies?

Actually light can exist in black holes. Light is photons. They merely cant escape.

For me I beleive the universe is somewhat self recycling. Each galaxy will eventually and inevitably collapse onto its black hole, gravity well whatever.

As each is engulfed the black holes become larger, and more dominant gravity fields result. As such they are able to pull on each other and merge, resulting in larger and larger black holes.

At some point I beleive the weight of all sub-atomic particles trying to squeeze into one singularity causes it implode. The force of which I can only begin to imagine. And thus starts the universe anew.

Originally posted by Xerrog
NOTHING would be here without some creation. No planets, no asteroids, no comets, nothing.

Well lot of scientists might have a tiny problem with accepting that, you see they have a thing called Big Bang, according to which before that nothing existed, so according to them, planets, asterorids, comets and nothing came from well nothing.

Surf

Actually my understanding of the Big Bang theory is not that the universe suddenly exploded from nothing to everything major that exists today. (read planets, stars, asteroids, etc.)

Instead the way I've read, and understand the theory is that everything all matter and energy was held within a singularity (read black hole). Once the weight (easiest way to say it) was to great the whole thing imploded sending matter and energy hurling away from the singularity. As time passed it started to collect again from magnetism, gravity, and other forces.

Now here is some basic facts to understand. One even the densest atom is still 99.9999 percent not matter. Within each atom is a nucleus with nuetrons/protons around that orbits electrons. Between the electrons and nucleus is... Well almost nothing. (some energy). If trully compacted so that all particles and even sub-particles actually touched millions and millions of tons of lead would be smaller then the size of a pen. The gravity created by such mass in such a dense state would be enormous.

Now compound that with the known universe and you get the starting of the Big Bang as I understand it. Next take the fact that black holes suck in all matter and energy because they have such a large mass in such a small area. The more mass they take in the farther their gravity field can reach and consume. Also recently two black holes were observed part way through merging. Thus supports the theory that the Universe recycles itself. Eventually our galaxy will be sucked into it's black hole. Before that happens though our sun will most likely collapse on its self and create another minature black hole in the galaxy. Anyway the end point being, eventually every particle of energy or matter will eventually be pulled towards one singular point in the universe. As that happens many many nuclear reactions will accur even on the sub-particle level.

Our nuclear bombs today have a devastating force but they are but a spec of dust in comparision to all matter. Also the amount of force release from atoms splitting is much smaller then that of particles, and sub-particles splitting.

Basically with the explosions happening the one gigantic (not in size but in mass) black hole implodes with such force we couldn't possibly comprehend or measure.

When Steven Hawkins first wrote about black hole's he proposed absolutly nothing including sub-atomic particles and radiation could escape.

Since then he has stated that he made a miscalculation and that some small sub-particles may escape during reactions within the singularity, because they are ejected with such force, and they have almost no mass that the gravity of the black hole cant slow them down, stop them, and bring them back in before they escape it's influence.



I hold to these theories as the best possible explanation at this time, and that they simply make sense.

I also beleive that no where is their any evidence for anything but creation, and intelligent design. No scientist in the world can explain how the singularity that spawned the big bang and in turn the universe originally came about. Only a foolish one would try to say it simply appeared.

Creationism does not negate Evolutionism. In fact they support each other quite well.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs

Originally posted by abigail
As a creationist.......nothing will make me believe evolution. You asked, I answered. Sometimes people just have to learn to agree to disagree and move on.

I was waiting for someone to say this.

And yet creationists say they are open minded. I dont see how a view like this is open minded.

I am an evolutionist, but i would never say anything like this. I will always keep an open mind to creationism. It seems you do not have an open mind for evolution. This is the exact point that i was trying to prove all along. Its much easier to convert an evolutionist into a creationist, than the other way around.

Thanks for proving my point abigail.

I have found that the greatest virtue to be espoused on such threads as these is to be "open minded." It appears that in the world of post-modernist philosophical movements (there is no absolute truth, there are no absolutes), the best that mankind believes he can do is to be open minded.

Those who have found Jesus and believe what He has told them, to the rest of the world, merely follow a religion, a bunch of things we do and don't do. To the secular world, it is not possible (but there are no absolutes) that Christians may have been able to have an encounter with the person of Jesus Christ, who know Him, can actually talk with Him, and have confirmed the very word of God in the Bible. It can't be true, can it?

Since I studied a lot of math and science in my time, 2+3=5. Sometimes, when you know you have found the right answer in a person, a relationship, not a religion, you can afford to be closed minded. You can afford to be closed minded when you're right and you know it.

Open-mindedness is good in many situations, but the Church of Jesus has survived and thrived in the last 2000 years because of people who were willing to risk their lives and go to their deaths for what they KNOW to be true, for the person of Jesus they KNOW and love. It's happening every day in the third world today.

It is OK to seek the truth as long as it is OK to announce it and stand on it when you find it. And when you find it and you know it, it's OK to be closed-minded on that issue. Open-mindedness in all things at all times is highly over-rated in these discussions.

Some people on here seem to believe in nothing except that which they can see and touch. There is no faith in that. Someone on here said that they have to test what they believe everyday and prove what they believe is true is really true. That is not faith.
If your spouse tells you that they love you and are true to you, do you then follow that person daily to prove it? God put something in all of us to seek him out. He says that he exists, and that he loves us. Because someone can't prove it the way they wish, they choose not to believe. There is no reason at all to ever reasonably say that he doesn't exist. Show me a man that says he has proof that God doesn't exist, and I'll show you a very unhappy liar. If you followed your spouse for months and saw nothing to prove that he or she is cheating, how long do you continue to disbelieve?
Evolution has never been proven, there are flaws all in it. Creation has never been proven, God says he created everything so I believe him. I don't care to follow him for months or years to prove he's a liar. I believe he is who he says he is, and given that I believe he created all things, with faith I see.

Evolution has never been proven

If you accept any one of these as fact then you yourself beleive in evolution. Not specifically as the start of life, but as a fact that evolution does happen, and happens to humans.


The average human height has increased.

The length of our smallest finger is decreasing on average.

We have become more immune to certain diseases.

If you beleive any of those then you admit that the human body over generations is evolving to try to continue to protect itself.

Now if you dont beleive any of those here's a easy one....

Bacteria and Viruses are becoming immune to many older drugs because they have been exposed to them for long periods of time. Therefore they have developed(evolved) immunities to them.


Evolution is absolutely proven. It is just not proven as the source of existance, because it cannot, will not, and does not even remotley come close to being involved in it.

Originally posted by deesw
Evolution has never been proven, there are flaws all in it. Creation has never been proven, God says he created everything so I believe him. I don't care to follow him for months or years to prove he's a liar. I believe he is who he says he is, and given that I believe he created all things, with faith I see.

Based on this....let me ask you again, as in my original post: What will be enough to give evolution credability in your faith based eyes?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Evolution is a process that happens after life is created.

n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

2. a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.

3. Biology.
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

However it doesn't explain how that life started in the first place....


If you want a creationist to believe that we came to be because of evolution, you're going to have to do a much better job explaining how life was formed in the first place (and why/how did that life decide to multiply into the millions of other species)

EXACTLY! Prove evolution before you ask to disprove anything else.

I thought about this some more.

Here in order according to Genesis, God's creation:

1)Heaven and the Earth (I'm guessing with water already)
2)Light and he divided it from the dark
3)Firmament (heaven? atmosphere? someone plz explain this to me)
4)Dry land
5)Grass, herb-yielding seed, fruits
6)Lights in the firmament, I'm believing the sun and the moon and stars
7)Sea life and birds
8)Living land creatures, cattle, creeping things, etc.
9)Man, who had dominion over the animals
10)Not sure on this one, but it seems that God breathed soul into his nostrils afterwards or was this at the same time?

Now, for the important parts, after God created the heavens and the earth, and the water and the stars, etc., first came the sea creatures. Now according to evolution, is this not correct? Then came the land creatures. This is when the sea creatures adapted to the ground. Then came mankind, how has adapted to rul over the other creatures. Then, to me it seems the more recent form of human gained the soul or maybe the conscious or whatever you would like to call it.

To me, it seems as if creationism almost goes hand in hand with evolution. It is just that Genesis summed it up and put in "7 days". But like I said before, who defined these days before God even put a sun and a moon in the sky? I suppose the only questionable thing would be, if the big bang theory is correct, wouldn't God say liet there be light first? But these are ancient peoples telling stories handed down by man. There must be some room for error.

Just a little help to bring some theories of evolutionism blended with creationism. I know some Christians who believe this sort of interpretation. You see, you can use science with religion. We are not in the dark ages anymore. I am speaking to both sides here. Christians and Jews can look at the Bible a little more loosely and atheists can see that not all Christians and Jews are so wrapped up in their religion that they refuse to see things as they truely are. Some of the posters here do take the scripture very literally, but I tell you, there are many others out there in the world who see things differently.

Bacteria and Viruses are becoming immune to many older drugs because they have been exposed to them for long periods of time. Therefore they have developed(evolved) immunities to them.

This is a horrible example of evolution. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria results from loss of function. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are LESS FIT than their antibiotic sensitive counterparts. This is why antibiotic resistant bacteria haven't 'taken over the world.' They are less able to survive than their antibiotic resistant counterparts. They only thrive in places where antibiotics are used heavily. If you get an infection with an antibiotic resistant strain, provided you are not immune compromised, the treatment is generally to discharge you and allow your normal flora to outcompete the antibiotic resistant strains.

BTW, antibiotic resistance didn't appear after the introduction of and use of antibiotics. The introduction and widespread use of antibiotics resulted in an alteration of the allele frequencies already present in the population. Antibiotic resistance has always 'existed,' but the prevalence of these alleles has been changed due to increased selective pressure.


[edit on 31-1-2005 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Based on this....let me ask you again, as in my original post: What will be enough to give evolution credability in your faith based eyes?

Itd probably take a pig getting wings.

To the one that quoted Genesis: Yes I too have noticed that the creation story is very similar to what evolution tells us. Evolution is just a move advanced way of understanding how life was made. In the old days if God were to come down and say all that scientific stuff then no one would have believed it and therefor would have turned away from the religion.

Finding God through science

The main problem with creation vs. evolution is that creationists say that animals reproduce after their kind, for example a humans descendants will always be fully human and our ancestors have always been fully human, this is consistent with everything that we observe in nature. Evolution makes the claim that one kind of animal can change into another, something that has never been observed. Changes within kinds of animals are not disputed by creationists. Evolutionist love to confuse this issue. For example the posters who are saying that if you accept that animals change you must accept evolution. This is simply not true as evolution as a theory is not simply stating that organisms change. It is the increase of information (that changes that would make evolution even plausible) required that has never been demonstrated. No mechanism or natural process that would make such change possible has ever been found. A demonstration of genetic information increasing would go a long way towards proving evolution.


Steve

Evolution IS Creation.

Things that evolve do so because they are created in a new way. Things evolve because of the circumstances in which they are brought into this world.

The thing that really gets me, is (and I was brought up to think this, until I started using the creative and evolving brain that I was born with) that some of the hard-core Christians think the earth is only about 8,000 years old, and that the 7 Days of Creation were ACTUALLY seven, 24hour days. What a load of crap.

Christianity has been fcked with SO much by Dark and Evil people over the past 2 thousand years, that the whole thing is just about the opposite of what is actually true.

Rent "Marjoe". It's a documentary about a guy who started preaching when he was 4 years old. It'll give you some insight as to what Christianity has turned into. Made in 1972.

Originally posted by mattison0922

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria results from loss of function. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are LESS FIT than their antibiotic sensitive counterparts. This is why antibiotic resistant bacteria haven't 'taken over the world.' They are less able to survive than their antibiotic resistant counterparts.

This just is just showing a basic misunderstanding of evolutionary science. Oganisims do not have an absolute level of fitness; they are only more or less fit for a particular environment. You might argue that a lion is somehow "more fit" than a goldfish, however if they were both underwater it quite clearly wouldn't be. The same applies to bacteria. Bacteria that have a resistance to antibiotics are "more fit" inside a human body that has been treated with antibiotics than bacteria that do not have resistance.

Anyway, there are a lot more bacteria on the planet than humans, so who is to say they haven't "taken over the world".?


[edit on 31/1/05 by FatherLukeDuke]

This just is just showing a basic misunderstanding of evolutionary science.

Please.

Oganisims do not have an absolute level of fitness; they are only more or less fit for a particular environment.

Correct. Antibiotic resistant bacteria however, are only more fit in the environment where artificially large amounts of antibiotics are used. Hence antibiotic resistant bacteria are LESS FIT in the natural environment.

You might argue that a lion is somehow "more fit" than a goldfish,

I wouldn't argue that. This is an incredibly poor analogy, one might say ridiculous. Please, if you wish to debate a topic make a halfway reasonable analogy. The fact of the matter is antibiotic resistance makes bacteria less fit to survive in the natural environment.

The same applies to bacteria. Bacteria that have a resistance to antibiotics are "more fit" inside a human body that has been treated with antibiotics than bacteria that do not have resistance.

Correct, and as soon as those antibiotics are no longer taken, the antibiotic resistant bacteria are killed off... some by the immune system, but most by the normal flora. Hence, antibiotic resistant bacteria are less fit to survive in the natural environment.

Anyway, there are a lot more bacteria on the planet than humans, so who is to say they haven't "taken over the world".?

You've missed the point entirely. I was merely speaking in lay terms. To state it more clearly. The frequency of the genes for antibiotic resistance increase, proliferate, and dominate in ONLY the environments where artifically large amounts of antibiotics are encountered, like hospitals and people receiving antibiotics. In the natural environment, these traits are selected against. The genes for antibiotic resistance are selected for in only one type of environment. They are selected against in virtually every other circumstance the bacteria encounters. Hence, one is permitted to say that these genes make the organism less fit. You see.... selected against = 'less fit', selected for = 'more fit.'

Originally posted by mattison0922
Correct. Antibiotic resistant bacteria however, are only more fit in the environment where artificially large amounts of antibiotics are used. Hence antibiotic resistant bacteria are LESS FIT in the natural environment.

I dont know how u came to the conclusion that they are less fit in the natural environment if they have antibiotic resistence. They havent lost anything from their predicestors have they?...They are basically the same, except this new breed is ALSO immune to antibiotics. How is having additional protection LESS FIT???....Maybe iam not understanding your point completely??!?!?

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs

Originally posted by mattison0922
Correct. Antibiotic resistant bacteria however, are only more fit in the environment where artificially large amounts of antibiotics are used. Hence antibiotic resistant bacteria are LESS FIT in the natural environment.

I dont know how u came to the conclusion that they are less fit in the natural environment if they have antibiotic resistence. They havent lost anything from their predicestors have they?...They are basically the same, except this new breed is ALSO immune to antibiotics. How is having additional protection LESS FIT???....Maybe iam not understanding your point completely??!?!?

You have missed the point. You can judge the 'fitness' of alleles/genes via their ability to proliferate and persist within populations. With the exception of the hospital or individual consuming antibiotics, the genes for antibiotic resistance tend to DECREASE in frequency. And in fact, many forms of antibiotic resistance ARE loss of function, changes in import/export apparatus etc. The point is in the absence of antibiotics the genes tend to occur less frequently; that is their frequency in populations DECREASES. When one gets an infection with antibiotic resistant bacteria, what's the treatment? Provided they are not immune compromised, you just wait for the normal flora to outcompete the antibiotic resistant strains. Hence, the antibiotic resistant strains are less fit. If they were as fit, only having additional resistance, they wouldn't be outcompeted by normal flora.

[edit on 1-2-2005 by mattison0922]

ev·o·lu·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-)
n.
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

The process of developing.
Gradual development.
Biology.
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.

As you are throughly admitting. The bacteria/viruses that are becomming immune to medicine's are gradually adapting to a large threat to living in some of their best breeding habitats (humans). This is the definition of evolution.

No one ever said Evolution always gets it perfectly right. Evolution is simply the reaction of a species to something that harms it or is no longer needed. It will either try to change to eliminate the ability to sustain damage or get rid of unneeded parts.

The human is most likely the slowest evolving species on the planet. We actively evolve the world around us to suit our current state. Thus our bodies do not need to evolve as much or as frequently as others to survive.