It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution compatible with Creation?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Here are are just two example quotes of those who say yes:


Evolution is just as compatible with the existence of a deity as heliocentrism....



That is why so many Christians accept the truth of evolution. It is also why acceptance of it is official doctrine in the Roman Catholic church. Are people who accept evolution not to be considered Christians by your estimate?


What do you think? Are they both correct?

Here's my take:

I agree with the statements above only for those who were misled, whose faith's were corrupted and not solidly founded on the Truth. Watch/consider this simple test: you can tell right away where they stand – mention the Bible, the Holy Scriptures and they will right away go on attack mode. They will come up with so many excuses to disregard and disparage the Bible. Belittle it and treat it as merely just a book written by as they love to say it here “goat herders” and not as it is truly is The Word of God – the Truth.

Why the adverse effect? IMHO, because it destroys the very foundation of evolution, it annihilates their ENTIRE belief system. It shows it what it really is a mere set of belief. A phylosophy if not a psuedo-science based on nothing with no real foundation, no real meaning and with no real purpose in the end. Above all it puts them in direct contradiction with the Bible and it's author - God.

(note: real science that inhance our lives and helps us understand the awesome universe is not the issue here but psuedo-science.)

Now please consider just this simple analysis:

If God used evolution to make men from beasts or directed bacteria to develop into fish and then to continue developing through reptiles and mammals, so that finally a race of apes (common ancestor) became humans. Then how can they reconcile these Bible verses.

(The creation of the first humans Adam and Eve)

“And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” – Gen 1:27

Jesus Christ confirmed it by quoting it.

In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female.” – Matthew 19:4

The physician Luke verified it through genealogy: Luke 3: 23-38. Confirmed that Adam was a real person just as Jesus is a real person.

Furthermore, Jesus himself, when he commenced [his work], was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was,
of Joseph,
[son] of He′li,
24 [son] of Mat′that,
[son] of Le′vi,
[son] of Mel′chi,
[son] of Jan′na·i,
[son] of Joseph,


38 [son] of E′nosh,
[son] of Seth,
[son] of Adam,
[son] of God.


There are many more verses but the ones quoted above should be more than enough to prove my point.

Thus from the time they were created they (Adam and Eve) were perfect and beautiful in every way endowed with very impressive statures and thinking abilities possessing the attributes (image) of their Creator such as love, wisdom, power and justice.

In other words they were not a brute ugly creature as depicted by evolution.

So based on just this one simple analysis just an ounce of common sense tells you that evolution is truly incompatible with Biblical Creation (not creationism or ID).

Only someone who was misled, whose faith was corrupted and not founded on the Truth that one will fall victim to it.

And last but not least. If you still INSIST that they compatible, please answer this one simple question:

What would Jesus say if he was asked the question: Is evolution compatible with Biblical Creation?

I know what he will say but what about you?


Ty,
edmc2

Note: this thread was created so as not to derail an active thread.
I will continue the conversation here in order to reply to my last post on that thread.




posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


It's called "using your brain" and "accepting facts"...nothing wrong with that.

Also, since you seem to like judging those "fake Christians", let me respond with a quote from the bible:

Matthew 7:1a: “Judge not, that ye be not judged”



So MrXYZZ, I take it that in addition to beign an expert in evolution theory, you're also an expert Bible professor?

If so, may I ask you this, since you like to quote the Bible, does this mean then that you believe that it's the Word of God? Yes no?

If so, then do you believe that it has power to change lives?

Thus when you quoted the words of Jesus do you really believe and understood what he meant?

I'll await your reply.

Thanks,
edmc2



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I believe it can be compatible with CREATION not the bible. All a creator would have to do is set things in motion, after all he can see the end from the beginning..



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Im a little confused... what exactly is your question?

The theories of evolution are based on scientific methods and empirical research. Observation and measuring of the ongoing genetical and organic process of adaption/variation/mutation.
Its basically modern biology... based on measurable facts, aka "the truth".

Creationism on the other hand is a religios motivated belief and directly rejects scientific research, bares arguments or facts and even contradicts known facts (like in this fundamentalist young-earth fantasy).
Its religion - and no, quoting the bible is no scientific approach.

Those two are definitely incompatible.

Then we have this rotten compromise called "Theistic evolution".
Its like an approach towards modern science by the catholic church and other religious groups, trying not to look too out of touch imo.
Theistic evolution makes the least sense to me: The allmighty spacegod created everything perfect but nature is still improving it.
This concept is both, rejecting science AND its not even supported by the bible, more specifically, it opposes the central biblical teachings.
Fundamentalists call it blasphemy, Scientists call it just more BS.
Creation and Evolution are too divergent to find a compromise.

My post might come across like a rant but thats not what Im trying to do here.

My take is you just have to choose one:
Either pick Science with its empirical methods
OR pick Religion and just believe in whatever you want to believe.

PS: Jesus would probably say: "What is this bible-thingy you are talking about?"



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by WfknSmth
 





ongoing genetical and organic process of adaption/variation/mutation. Its basically modern biology


The OP is NOT referring to this, I would know. Adaptation sure but really how much do animals change, I mean really change, I am not talking like Darwins finches type changes this is adaptation not "evolution".

You want a real test, the crocodile that bad boy hasn't changed much in 200 million years, kind of kills evolution theory right there.
edit on 23-11-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
you should check out the site of Rupert Sheldrake, hes a sort of flip side Dawking. see what you think.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I highly doubt evolution has any relation with creation. As an Atheist I have read many similar creation stories and what not. To me ancient cultures used creation as a way to explain life. Other cultures copied the same creation stories and used them to their own liking.
Creation Myths
Pagan origins of Jesus
As you can see from creation to Jesus have other religious influence. If there is a God(s) or Goddess then they are not how we see them in religious text of the past and today.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
atheism is a science based comfort faith. check out Rupert Sheldrake for differing ideas about evolution and how it may work [or may not work].



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ewokdisco
 


Atheism is a lack of a belief in God.

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Source

Faith requires a deity and religion to believe in.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
in theory,everything IS created. after all,we all came from the very same source: the big bang. atheists are usually rebelling against a strict religious upbringing and are thus too blinkered.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
They are compatible.

From an all knowing creators point of view everything was created the moment the first atom was sent bouncing about the void, not just theoretically, but everything would immediately be perceived (ie. send the atom off and an all knowing, all seeing being would immediately perceive everything to follow, being unlimited by time).



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by WfknSmth
 





ongoing genetical and organic process of adaption/variation/mutation. Its basically modern biology


The OP is NOT referring to this, I would know. Adaptation sure but really how much do animals change, I mean really change, I am not talking like Darwins finches type changes this is adaptation not "evolution".

You want a real test, the crocodile that bad boy hasn't changed much in 200 million years, kind of kills evolution theory right there.
edit on 23-11-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)


You're right in stating that adaptation does not imply evolution, although they are related, evolution is only driven by genetics. As for your crocodile, there are many types of crocodilians, nile crocs, gharials, alligators, caimans etc, all specially tweaked to survive in their environments but different species nonetheless who cant reproduce with each other. Some would argue that the reason the crocodile hasn't changed in so many years, although that in itself could be arguable at the genetic level, is because the croc is THAT well suited for its environment there is no need for mutations to spread and take the species in a different direction. There are no heritable genetic variations in the gene pool. Again, as I implied earlier, we haven't been studying crocs at the genetic level long enough to conclude that they aren't changing. But seeing as that their environments haven't changed drastically (wet places with food) and being apex predators, it makes sense that you wouldn't see too many phenotypic differences in crocodilians.

Replying to your original point, evolution vs. adaptation, if you are looking for large differences in phenotypes as a result of evolution this is a bit harder because it takes millions on years for one species to become a completely different one, the fossil record is hit or miss sometimes. However there are good examples in the fossil record where we can me connections. For example, the transition of canine ancestors turning into aquatic mammals. Also the emergence of feathers in dinosaurs lead to the "evolution" of birds. Just think of how many different species of birds we have now, probably stemming from one common ancestor millions of years ago. There are plenty of examples out there, whether you want to believe the findings and what they may imply is your own decision. I will be the first to admit that there are holes that need to be patched up in the fossil record to explain things that evolution cant explain. With every discovery, may it be paleontological or genetic (biological), we are almost forced to conclude that evolution is at least a major part of the origins of species.

And whose not to say that's what THEY want us to think. I've been following this site too long to be weary of everything i hear and learn, it could all just a big scam, who knows. Although as a bio undergrad, that's my position for now.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ewokdisco
 



atheists are usually rebelling against a strict religious upbringing and are thus too blinkered.


Interesting statement.

Hhhmmm I can think of at least one poster this applies to, not mentioning any names though.


As the old saying goes if the shoes fits.

reply to post by razorwings
 





it could all just a big scam, who knows.


I appreciate the open mindedness of that statement rarely heard from a person who thinks about evolution as the basis of the origin of species. This is why I like ATS critical minds reside here.
edit on 23-11-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


I'm not an Atheist because I'm rebelling against a religious upbringing. My parents never forced me to go to Church or what not. When I was a Christian I went on my own well. So that leaves that out of the field. So I'm not trying to rebel against my mommy and daddy because I'm an Atheist now.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
You want a real test, the crocodile that bad boy hasn't changed much in 200 million years, kind of kills evolution theory right there.

See, there is no such thing as THE crocodile. We have a great variety of crocodiles today, split in different families across the earth... those families once evolved from the same ancestors, adapted to the conditions of their new habitats and its conditions as the species migrated around the globe.
Of course you cant watch a crocodile evolve right in front of you and you will never see a monkey climb down a tree and walk upright into the next store to buy clothes - thats just not how it works.
If the current setting fits the habitat the monkey does a good job just being a monkey.. so why should he change? If the habitat changes -> the monkey (or crocodile or whatever) will either adapt to the changes, even improve or become extinct.

Just because you dont understand the theory it doesnt "kill it".

edit: razorwings was faster
but i agree 100% with his post.
edit on 23-11-2010 by WfknSmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Thus from the time they were created they (Adam and Eve) were perfect and beautiful in every way endowed with very impressive statures and thinking abilities possessing the attributes (image) of their Creator such as love, wisdom, power and justice.



I actually agree with you that it's incompatible IF you takes things literally. I need to ask you though, do you really believe the above quote? Cause we know that's not what happened, the human fossil record is so incredibly complete, there's no doubt we evolved from ape-like creatures.

Look, if your argument against evolution is "evolution contradicts creationism and I therefore don't believe in it"...then no facts will ever convince you. You have officially closed your eyes and ears to reality in favor of a man-made fantasy world that doesn't reflect reality. If it makes you happy, no worries, everyone has the right to be happy....

But you come on here challenging science and reality, a fight you cannot win. Facts, evidence, and truth will always trump blind belief in the longrun. Just like we now don't believe fire was made by gods like cavemen believed because we have the facts and evidence to know how it works. The same is true with what life started. Just because scientifically we don't have a definite theory for abiogenesis yet doesn't mean you can fill that gap in knowledge with a mythical creature. You're essentially acting like a caveman.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by WfknSmth
 





ongoing genetical and organic process of adaption/variation/mutation. Its basically modern biology


The OP is NOT referring to this, I would know. Adaptation sure but really how much do animals change, I mean really change, I am not talking like Darwins finches type changes this is adaptation not "evolution".

You want a real test, the crocodile that bad boy hasn't changed much in 200 million years, kind of kills evolution theory right there.
edit on 23-11-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)


Why would the crocodile need to change much if his environment doesn't change drastically? It's got a thick skin protecting it, wherever it lives it's on top of the food chain (if you disregard humans), and it's body is perfect for what it does...it only needs to eat rarely and can conserve energy over large amounts of time. That's probably one of the reasons it survived the dinosaurs going extinct. Having said that, saying it didn't change over time is obviously hogwash, we have tons of different crocodiles and the ones we have today aren't exactly like the ones 200 million years ago. They were very similar in many ways, but saying crocodiles didn't evolve is hogwash.

I'm not going to discuss the validity of evolution again, because that would be off topic. You've already proven in the thread you created that you will blatantly ignore every fact that goes against your belief...what's more, you are willing to LIE to keep your fantasy world intact.

Also, if you think I'm not believing in god because I'm a rebel and because of my childhood...that's a hilarious statement to make given that you don't know me. My mom is Catholic, my dad is an atheist...and they compromised by letting me choose my religion when I'm old enough to make up my mind and look at facts...instead of indoctrinating me with blind belief (that's what happened to you I presume).

My opinions are based on scientific evidence and proof, not blind, ignorant belief!
edit on 23-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Not only do I think evolution is compatible with Creation, I also think all of the religions could be the direct outcome of evolution. That ~97-98% of "junk" DNA could contain every sacred book, holy vision, work of art, invention, discovery, etc. ever conceived by man.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Everyones gonna hate it when im right.... Gook luck with the next few years.

Although the begining is obviously abiogenisis and from there evolution through natural selection does the rest. Its not out of the realm of possibility that one day this planet will change enough that humans will have to leave and allow the next species to evolve. Its also possible that humanity may go to other worlds and bring with them their genetic designer furbies who when left behind would rule the planet with an iron fist.

Its also not out of the realm of possiblity for a trillion trillion years from now for humanity to be using networks of machines that stretch trillions of light years to move stars and planets.... Beyond that what form would humanity take when looked at from a larger perspective..... a single celled organism?



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Its also not out of the realm of possiblity for a trillion trillion years from now for humanity to be using networks of machines that stretch trillions of light years to move stars and planets.... Beyond that what form would humanity take when looked at from a larger perspective..... a single celled organism?


What if trillions of years ago, stars and planets formed a network that stretched trillions of light years to create and move humanities?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join