question about Creationism

im fairly new to these boards and from reading most of your posts ive stumbled across a question i cant seem to answer, hopefully i explain this right

creationism is supposed to be the belief that god created all living things and we came from adam and eve right??? well if god created all living things how is it new species have emerged? im pretty certain there are species of animals today that werent around a million years ago... isnt the simple fact the new species emerge enough to prove evolution is real???

im not saying i believe in evolution cuz for all i know it could be wrong, but on the issue of religion im agnostic

Many religions, including Christianity, have partially or fully accepted evolutionary theory, and have only maintained a belief in Deism or Old Earth Creationism, both in which the proposed god is said only to have created created the necessary ingredients for life, then left it to develop on its own. This view, in my opinion, while perhaps still somewhat ignorant, is much more compatible with information age science, and is as such a step in the right direction for religion as a whole. Evolution is an observable pattern, so Young Earth Creationism is becoming more fundamentalist than ignorant, and in a non-scientific front, or sometimes even in a scientific one, it is pointless to argue with its proponents. I often do it for fun (the views are such an easy ridicule ) and always for a lack of a better thing to do at the moment.

reply to post by AlexG141989


Scientists have very recently actually observed lizards evolve in the space of just a few months. Months! So, that pretty well puts a lid on the whole 'Evolution vs. Creationism' debate as far as I'm conscerned. Not that I had any doubts really...

J.

but how can they accept it if it doesnt go with their religion??? if there is a god his word should be the end all be all, people shouldnt be able to tweak his words around so that it fits their beliefs (hopefully you understand what i meant)

well anyway, thanks for the replies

reply to post by AlexG141989


The books held near and dear by the spiritual societies were written hundreds of years after the events unfolded in the stories. These words may have come from God originally, but they were twisted long before pen was even taken to paper.

Gorillas are a newly discovered species in contrast to our near-ancient knowledge of most animals. They were only recently discovered in the 19th century. Just because we're recently finding new species does not mean they were not always there. We just hadn't found them yet.

And please, let's not forget there is a vast difference between microevoltuion and macroevolution.

Humans do not have near ancient knowledge of other animals. The vast majority of known species have been discovered in the last 200 years.

Also the OP wasn't mentioning us simply finding new species; he/she is commenting on how evolution is still occasionally rejecting despite its observability.

but how can they accept it if it doesnt go with their religion??? if there is a god his word should be the end all be all, people shouldnt be able to tweak his words around so that it fits their beliefs (hopefully you understand what i meant)

Well, the circles of religion that have accepted evolution do so because they realized that science can now explain what was once inexplicable. They still retain all their religious values, ethics etcetera; they simply no longer cling to a belief that they view as incompatible with current knowledge.

The reason that religion is often contested by evolutionists is because they (and me) see creationism being unable to exist in a world without religion. I'm sure its fair to say that if theistic religion truly were compatible with science, that it would see very few to no opposition in the form of science.

...

And before I forget and have to edit, to JPhish: macroevolution occurs as a result of a "piling up" of microevolution, not simply out of thin air as you accuse it to claim.

"You've just been OWNED"

reply to post by SlyCM (work)



I didn't think i would have had to dumb down my post for you to understand it. But i will since i obviously have to . . .

The reason i used gorillas as an example is because they are large. Most of the large animals on the planet we (human beings as a collective) have near ancient knowledge of. I thought it was pretty self explanatory given the way that i presented it. Also taking into consideration the manner in which gorillas were discovered. Most people refused to believe such animals existed until an explorer brought back the bones.

Evolution is not observable, if it was, it wouldn't be a theory. Micro evolution is observable. I had thought that the OP did not know the difference between environmental adaptation and evolution. I was trying to help him out in regards to his query. However, with your statement about evolution being observable, im not so certain that you do either.

Why do people have to accept a theory? I'm failing to see why anyone, regardless of their tenets should adhere to a theory.

Incorrect once again about one of your assumptions. I was raised atheist and was atheist until a few years ago. I always said that macroevolution didn't make any logical sense before i became spiritual. So your assumption that you must be religious to deny evolution is false. Ben Stein is not a religious zealot and he thinks macro-evolution is false.

I never claimed that anything came out of thin air. I merely said that micro evolution is not the same as macroevolution. Again making assumptions that are incorrect.

Who are you trying to convince Sly? Because your rationale is quite flat. The only person you're capable of convincing at this point is yourself.

[edit on 4/20/2008 by JPhish]

well then how did humans come about??? the bible version is absurd, and im not to certain about evolution on that either.... i just dont see how one day a monkey all of the sudden gave birth to a human....

Why do people have to accept a theory?

The "it's just a theory" bit of reasoning appears to be incredibly common. A theory is not just a guess or a quick observation. It is:

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

Evolution is observable. Two common examples are the fact that many mosquito populations are now resistant to DDT (whereas none were fifty years ago) and the peppered moths near London.

What is your definition of macroevolution? A "big change"? Yes, and they occur as a result of many smaller changes. No one ever claimed that speciation would occur over night.

This is also why Xians are trying to SO HARD to label "creationism" and/or "intelligent design" as a theory on the same levels as "evolution". Scams' up!!

Originally posted by AlexG141989
im fairly new to these boards and from reading most of your posts ive stumbled across a question i cant seem to answer, hopefully i explain this right

creationism is supposed to be the belief that god created all living things and we came from adam and eve right???

Well, I would consider myself a "creationist" but that notion as you lay it out sounds ridiculous to me so the answer would be no. Either that or I am using a different meaning for the word creationist than the official meaning of the word.

well if god created all living things how is it new species have emerged?

Perhaps because "God" didn't create all living things. Perhaps he/it did. But also, perhaps not. It's worth mulling over.

If you believe that Earth is it and contains the only living things, then the answer won't wash well.

im pretty certain there are species of animals today that werent around a million years ago... isnt the simple fact the new species emerge enough to prove evolution is real???

For some, maybe. For others, species can come and go, and then come back again. "Extinct" and "new species" should come with the caveat... "as far as we know".

Evolution, God and Creationism... everyone's flapping around trying to make one of 'em work, or both, when neither of them may be correct.

I probably haven't helped much... but hey ho.

I feel that when reading the bible you have to understand that it was meant for that audience of that time along with all the magic in it. It's fun to read and maybe there's truth to some of it here and there but I wouldn't use it as fact in your quest. Whatever or however this earth was created or made could of been a little of both. Somehow we are here and all the tools for life to flourish is here. If this was creationism then all the tools were supplied for evolution etc... I'm still ignorant on the subject too, so this is just my own litttle theory.

reply to post by JPhish


Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory. Gravity is also a scientific THEORY, yet you don't get bible-bashers complaining that they can't fly around the room. Creationism, on the other hand, is just a basic theory along the lines of "I think I'd like a sandwich for dinner", only a lot less testable

It's misunderstandings like this that prolong this ridiculous discussion.

As for your Gorillas argument, that has no bearing on the other species we know to have evolved recently. Take the specific species of mosquito that live only in the London Underground. Clearly the London Underground didn't exist before humanity, so God couldn't have "created" these insects at the same time as he created everything else. That is a massive blow to creationism in itself. Then there's the speciation that's been observed in fruit flies fed starch or sugars - after a few generations they can't interbreed, and have become different species.

The ol' chestnut of "macroevolution vs. microevolution" is hilarious, as it implies there's something different between the two mechanisms. The only difference is one is readily observable, the other is indirectly observable. In the sense that one scientist can observe "microevolution", yet it takes looking at DNA etc. to figure out "macroevolution", when really macroevolution is just a whole bunch of microevolutionary steps.

People who cling on to creationism do so through ignorance. Every person I've come across who didn't believe in evolution was severely ignorant of many key fact about the theory, just how thoroughly it's been tested, and the masses of evidence that supports it.

Here's a graph that shows the acceptance of evolution in many countries around the world:



Clearly either the US and Turkey are right, or everyone else is :-P

[edit on 21/4/08 by dave420]

Because I didn't have time before, I will finish this now. In continuation of my last post on this thread.

I didn't think i would have had to dumb down my post for you to understand it. But i will since i obviously have to . . .

Actually you didn't. Man evolved in Africa, or was magically created in a garden, depending on whether one takes the side of reason or faith. Either way, we couldn't have had "ancient knowledge" of even large animals, most obviously, because they (ancient people) did not have the same degree of ethology or biology we have today.

Secondly, this idea still leaves the vast majority of the Earth unexplored, especially the oceans. To sum, man hadn't even seen most organisms, or even most large ones, in "ancient times" so couldn't possibly have had "ancient knowledge" of them.

Incorrect once again about one of your assumptions. I was raised atheist and was atheist until a few years ago. I always said that macroevolution didn't make any logical sense before i became spiritual. So your assumption that you must be religious to deny evolution is false. Ben Stein is not a religious zealot and he thinks macro-evolution is false.

I fail to see how you being incapable of understanding evolution and scientific reasoning, then later reverting to a more infantile view of the universe, adds weight to your argument. Indeed, the defining mark of a creationist: ignorance, usually followed by fundamentalism. An Ad Hominem attack for an Ad Hominem attack, eh?

Furthermore, my assumption stands; to believe in a magical creator = some sort of theism = religion. Simple as.

we may think we've explored the whole planet but in reality we haven't seen it all. there is probably millions of species of animals that we haven't seen. I know for a fact that deep sea diving is bringing up new species every year that we've never seen before. I believe God created all things in the beginning....but, i also wonder if new species are created by different methods of breeding over long periods of time.



Keeper

New species don't emerge. It has never been witnessed by any scientist, only change within species, which has been observed. Breeding a mutt into a purebreed Siberian Husky is not the creation of a new speices. It is still a dog capable of breeding with other 'species' of dogs, like say a Poodle. So this does not prove anything for evolution.

well how about animals from today like lions, tigers, cheetahs etc, were they around all those years ago and if so how come we havent uncovered their fossils...im pretty sure we would have

Simply put, the majority are too young. Hundreds of thousands of years are needed for a fossil to form. Otherwise, they'll just be bones.

Also,

www.sciencemag.org...

reply to post by dave420


the theory of gravity, especially coupled with SR, is full of fallacies. The modern view/explanation of gravity falls incredibly short from what it actually is/might be.