Creationism vs. Darwinism

[Zuleus]

I find it interesting that people believe in Darwinism. I'm not sure why they believe it even when the truth is in front of them. According to scientists that believe in evolution, we come from some single celled organism which evolved over time to become the human beings we are today. But according to D.N.A. (or deoxyribonucleic acid) which is what makes our chemical makeup that determines the difference between a frog and a human, there are different chemical traits and behaviors. And they like to say that monkeys or apes (or whatever it is) are our supposed closest relatives. We can't climb trees like them or hang off branches from our tails.

Genesis 1:20-21 - Then God said, "Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind." So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and ever sort of bird-each producing offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, "Let us make human beings" in our image, to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.  

[Priestley]

Zuleus

I find it interesting that people believe in Darwinism. I'm not sure why they believe it even when the truth is in front of them.

I'm sure it is equally as interesting that people believe in creationism in one form or another when there is evidence in front of them.

Zuleus

According to scientists that believe in evolution, we come from some single celled organism which evolved over time to become the human beings we are today.

Let's be clear that evolution is not a cell becoming any other animal. It is variations in generation after generation of such cells and the survival of certain cells to reproduce that determines traits of following generations.

Zuleus

But according to D.N.A. (or deoxyribonucleic acid) which is what makes our chemical makeup that determines the difference between a frog and a human, there are different chemical traits and behaviors.

What relevance does this have on your previous statement about cells?

Zuleus

And they like to say that monkeys or apes (or whatever it is) are our supposed closest relatives. We can't climb trees like them or hang off branches from our tails.

We share more DNA with them than with other species. The variations in their DNA compared to ours mean we can climb trees too, but not as efficiently, and we have no tails to help us do this. They are better suited to their environment than we are. The same variations mean that they can also do some things that we do but can't do them as well as we can. We are better suited to our environment than they are. What is difficult to understand about this?  

[Etaoin Shurdlu]

I fail to see any contradiction between science and Christianity. And neither do most Christians. Only a minority of mostly American Christians believe that science has it wrong, and attempt to prove the literal truth of a mythological document.

I believe that Yahweh inspired men to write the Bible, filtering truths through their understanding and using stories as Jesus did to convey truths. That the stories may not have literally happened does not necessarily invalidate the spiritual truth which is being expressed.  

[Matt Pniewski]

I find it idiotic that people don't believe in evolution when we can actually watch it as it happens. How about you do a little bit of research?

http://galtroarc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/1218doonesbury_lg.gif


We watch viruses evolve, simple organisms evolve every day. Also, have you read both "The Bible" and "The Origin of Species" or just The Bible?


Genesis 1:20-21 - Then God said, "Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind." So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and ever sort of bird-each producing offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, "Let us make human beings" in our image, to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.


How is there a contradiction? Even if life evolved, God still created us. He knew how everything would turn out.


Let's also throw in this one: Maybe Human evolution ISN'T exactly as Darwin claimed. But we cannot deny evolution itself. But we cannot deny that evolution happened at some point. Where along the road? Of course, humans still must have evolved from something at one point, and I can prove that to you in two words: TAIL BONE.  

[Pirate Munke]

First of all, I'd like to say that this is not an argument, it is a discussion. All emotional attachments should be disregarded, and the topic should be discussed objectively. People have disagreed for centuries over many different things, causing family fueds and even wars! This topic is just as touchy, but we should all try not to toss insults and be cruel just because someone thinks differently.

Now that that's said, I would like to say that until recently(like a few weeks ago), I've considered myself an evolutionist. Even though I grew up in a catholic school, they taught evolution. It was ingrained in my head as the only answer; I never even knew that there was another choice. When I found out, I began studying more about this creationism, and when I study I really mean that I study. I look into as many sources as possible and dig as deep as I can. The more I found, the more I realized my life was a lie. At least as far as science goes.

The 'evolution' that most people talk about is really just natural selection at work, but they call it 'evolution' anyway. All of the genes of a creature are there, but some are 'turned off' or mutated depending on what type of environment they live in, what the predators are, etc. Thus they change(microevolution, natural selection) to fit their environment. Survival of the fittest. With the mutating bacteria, that's exactly what it is. Their genes have been mutated or turned off or turned on depending on what they need to survive. When God made us, he made us with everything we'd ever need. He's pretty smart, you know. ;D

As far as us being 'related' to monkeys, that's silly. We're as close to monkeys as we are to snails as we are to trees. DNA is the building block of life. Think of it like that. When you build something here in reality, you use your wood or metal or concrete, etc. But if you look closely, using a microscope, you find out that all of these different materials are really made of atoms, which all have the same structures. They each have a nucleas of protons and nuetrons with electrons rolling around crazily. DNA is the biological atom, so to speak.  

[Priestley]

Pirate Munke

I began studying more about this creationism, and when I study I really mean that I study. I look into as many sources as possible and dig as deep as I can. The more I found, the more I realized my life was a lie. At least as far as science goes.

Did you also study biology and the modern theory of evolution to the same extent to which you studied creationism?

Pirate Munke

The 'evolution' that most people talk about is really just natural selection at work, but they call it 'evolution' anyway.

Natural selection does not produce new species, it is merely the natural factors - both internal (genes) and external (environment) - that cause one or many in a species to thrive or die.

Evolution, however, incorporates natural selection on such a grand scale that new species are produced and old species die off. For example, there will be no new species being produced from the dodo since the dodo is extinct. However, the majority of reptiles are descendents of some dinosaurs that must have survived for these reptiles to have come about.

Pirate Munke

All of the genes of a creature are there, but some are 'turned off' or mutated depending on what type of environment they live in, what the predators are, etc. Thus they change(microevolution, natural selection) to fit their environment. Survival of the fittest. With the mutating bacteria, that's exactly what it is. Their genes have been mutated or turned off or turned on depending on what they need to survive.

Most natural environmental factors do not change the genes in a living organism to help it survive. However, the survival of a living organism is a factor in passing down genes which might help its offspring to survive also. It is in the passing down of favourable genes fitting to a particular environment that helps survival, not the reaction of genes within an organism to its environment. This is fundamental.

Pirate Munke

When God made us, he made us with everything we'd ever need. He's pretty smart, you know. ;D

For some reason, I'm reading this in a way that suggests to me that you think humanity is a species exempt from the natural laws you have mentioned.

Pirate Munke

As far as us being 'related' to monkeys, that's silly. We're as close to monkeys as we are to snails as we are to trees.

Actually, I have to correct you. DNA testing shows that we are more closely related to monkeys than snails or trees. The order of similarity to humans from greatest to least goes: monkeys, snails, trees. You would know this if you looked at taxonomy and the role of DNA in identifying relationships between species of organism.

Pirate Munke

DNA is the building block of life. Think of it like that. When you build something here in reality, you use your wood or metal or concrete, etc. But if you look closely, using a microscope, you find out that all of these different materials are really made of atoms, which all have the same structures. They each have a nucleas of protons and nuetrons with electrons rolling around crazily. DNA is the biological atom, so to speak.

When we are talking about similarity in species, we are talking about similarity in the structure and configuration of DNA, not the similarity in the building block itself. Think of it like this: a brick is a brick is a brick, but many bricks can make a house or a town hall, depending on the configuration of said bricks. It is this configuration of DNA that distinguishes one species from another, both in DNA profile and looks.

If anything, the fact that most living things are made from DNA means that we are not made from a unique material. What makes us unique is the configuration of said DNA - a configuration that happens to give us these supersentient (but don't take my word for it) brains that allow us to understand these things. Nonetheless, it is an evolutionary advantage, just like bacteria's ability to multiply rapidly and infect other organisms.  

[zz1000zz]

I find it remarkable when people talk about having studied "creationism" caused them to change their scientific views. I would hope scientific views would be changed by studying science rather than theology.

The world would be much nicer that way.  

[Priestley]

What amazes me is that I barely passed high school and I can still understand the basic principles underlying the idea of natural selection and the theory of evolution when so many of my fellow people can't, or can but refuse.  

[Pirate Munke]

Priestley

Pirate Munke

I began studying more about this creationism, and when I study I really mean that I study. I look into as many sources as possible and dig as deep as I can. The more I found, the more I realized my life was a lie. At least as far as science goes.

Did you also study biology and the modern theory of evolution to the same extent to which you studied creationism?

I have; I have studied it for years. I am a nerd when it comes to knowledge and the wanting to learn, and was thrilled when they found all the different 'missing links' such as Lucy. I remember her the most because she was my favorite.

Priestley

Pirate Munke

The 'evolution' that most people talk about is really just natural selection at work, but they call it 'evolution' anyway.

Natural selection does not produce new species, it is merely the natural factors - both internal (genes) and external (environment) - that cause one or many in a species to thrive or die.

Evolution, however, incorporates natural selection on such a grand scale that new species are produced and old species die off. For example, there will be no new species being produced from the dodo since the dodo is extinct. However, the majority of reptiles are descendents of some dinosaurs that must have survived for these reptiles to have come about.

Genes never die, they're always there. They become a part of the 'junk' DNA, or are simply turned off because they aren't needed. They don't poof; at least I have not come across anything that has said they do. I am still in the middle of researching, though.

The dodo is extinct because of natural selection, not evolution. Present day reptiles are here because of natural selection, not evolution. A reptile is a reptile, whether it's giant or tiny. This is where most evolutionists become confused with the natural selection thing. Evolution means that one creature 'evolved' into an entirely new creature, like apes to humans or birds from reptiles. This is impossible. They are two completely different creatures, and there is no 'missing link' for this. If you're thinking of archaeopteryx as the missing link, you're wrong. The true missing link would have to have evidence of a skin covering that was somewhere between feathers and scales. No such creature can be found.

Priestley

Pirate Munke

All of the genes of a creature are there, but some are 'turned off' or mutated depending on what type of environment they live in, what the predators are, etc. Thus they change(microevolution, natural selection) to fit their environment. Survival of the fittest. With the mutating bacteria, that's exactly what it is. Their genes have been mutated or turned off or turned on depending on what they need to survive.

Most natural environmental factors do not change the genes in a living organism to help it survive. However, the survival of a living organism is a factor in passing down genes which might help its offspring to survive also. It is in the passing down of favourable genes fitting to a particular environment that helps survival, not the reaction of genes within an organism to its environment. This is fundamental.

I believe that we're arguing towards the same goal, here. I did not say environmental factors changed genes, merely that they turned them off or on. I agree that the survival of a creature is a factor, in fact the biggest factor, in which genes are 'kept' or 'lost'. But without the environment, what's the point of survival? You're contradicting yourself. How can you say in one sentence that the survival of a creature is what decides which genes stay 'on', and then in the next sentence say the environment they live in has nothing to do with it?

If an environment is cold, the "long hair" gene will be dominant because all of the creatures with the "short hair" gene will be dead. The "short hair" gene will be 'lost' to history, at least for that particular species, but it will always be somewhere in their DNA.

Priestley

Pirate Munke

When God made us, he made us with everything we'd ever need. He's pretty smart, you know. ;D

For some reason, I'm reading this in a way that suggests to me that you think humanity is a species exempt from the natural laws you have mentioned.

Nope, not at all. Why do you think some of us have darker skin or wider eyes? Depending on where we've chosen to live, on what the environment and weather was like, those genes have become dominant. That's why people near the equator have dark skin and people up north are so white. We're the same as everything else he created, at least as far as natural selection goes.

Priestley

Pirate Munke

As far as us being 'related' to monkeys, that's silly. We're as close to monkeys as we are to snails as we are to trees.

Actually, I have to correct you. DNA testing shows that we are more closely related to monkeys than snails or trees. The order of similarity to humans from greatest to least goes: monkeys, snails, trees. You would know this if you looked at taxonomy and the role of DNA in identifying relationships between species of organism.

You are correct in that our DNA is very similar. But did you ever think that maybe it's because DNA is the building block of life? If you twist something here, change something there, you could become a snake or a cow or a monkey. God made us in his image, so think about it: why would he make us completely different when he could use the same base to start with? Each organism is a step or two up from the one before it. DNA similarities don't prove that we're related to them as if they're our ancestors. They prove that we're related because God made us all, and so we are all connected.

Priestley

Pirate Munke

DNA is the building block of life. Think of it like that. When you build something here in reality, you use your wood or metal or concrete, etc. But if you look closely, using a microscope, you find out that all of these different materials are really made of atoms, which all have the same structures. They each have a nucleas of protons and nuetrons with electrons rolling around crazily. DNA is the biological atom, so to speak.

When we are talking about similarity in species, we are talking about similarity in the structure and configuration of DNA, not the similarity in the building block itself. Think of it like this: a brick is a brick is a brick, but many bricks can make a house or a town hall, depending on the configuration of said bricks. It is this configuration of DNA that distinguishes one species from another, both in DNA profile and looks.

If anything, the fact that most living things are made from DNA means that we are not made from a unique material. What makes us unique is the configuration of said DNA - a configuration that happens to give us these supersentient (but don't take my word for it) brains that allow us to understand these things. Nonetheless, it is an evolutionary advantage, just like bacteria's ability to multiply rapidly and infect other organisms.

This supports what I was trying to say, as far as the DNA is concerned. It is essentially the same as your bricks, and just like you said, depending on how it's configured you can have various organisms. It is not an evolutionary advantage, however, because a bacteria does not evolve. It changes through natural selection.


I used to be like you guys, believing that people who thought the earth was made in 6 days were obsessed religious psychos. But you know, it wasn't a problem to believe God's word back in the times of the Bible, so why is it so hard now? If you use carbon dating as your 'proof' as to how old the world is, do some research. There are many factors that effect the dating process. If you go by the theory that fossils take long periods of time to make, there is evidence that in reality it doesn't take nearly as long. Instead of outright denying the possibility, do some research as far as creation goes. Look up 'out of place artifacts', look up 'carbon dating' and 'carbon dating doesn't work'. Get both sides of the story in your head before you begin to go against the Bible.

Preistly, this is not only directed at you, because you do seem well studied, but I would like to ask you anyway to at least look at the other side of things with a clear and objective mind.  

[Pirate Munke]

zz1000zz

I find it remarkable when people talk about having studied "creationism" caused them to change their scientific views. I would hope scientific views would be changed by studying science rather than theology.

The world would be much nicer that way.

Your opinions seem rather empty. I notice that you post like this all over the site, and am wondering if you really believe what you say or if you're going by what's been spoonfed to you.  

[zz1000zz]

Pirate Munke

zz1000zz

I find it remarkable when people talk about having studied "creationism" caused them to change their scientific views. I would hope scientific views would be changed by studying science rather than theology.

The world would be much nicer that way.

Your opinions seem rather empty. I notice that you post like this all over the site, and am wondering if you really believe what you say or if you're going by what's been spoonfed to you.

I am not sure what you mean by "all over the site." If you mean in this guild, I believe my posts generally contain as much, or more, content as anyone else's. If you go outside this guild, my posts are well above average in terms of content.

If you think "creationism" has such scientific merit, would you perhaps discuss some of the science supporting it? Vaguely asserting it exists while making snide remarks is usually indicative of a weak position.

P.S. For those who may not know, "creationism" is theology, and it does not make any scientific claims. Fundamentalist Christians have bastardized "Creationism" in an attempt to obscure their agenda.  

[Pirate Munke]

zz1000zz

Pirate Munke

zz1000zz

I find it remarkable when people talk about having studied "creationism" caused them to change their scientific views. I would hope scientific views would be changed by studying science rather than theology.

The world would be much nicer that way.

Your opinions seem rather empty. I notice that you post like this all over the site, and am wondering if you really believe what you say or if you're going by what's been spoonfed to you.

I am not sure what you mean by "all over the site." If you mean in this guild, I believe my posts generally contain as much, or more, content as anyone else's. If you go outside this guild, my posts are well above average in terms of content.

If you think "creationism" has such scientific merit, would you perhaps discuss some of the science supporting it? Vaguely asserting it exists while making snide remarks is usually indicative of a weak position.

P.S. For those who may not know, "creationism" is theology, and it does not make any scientific claims. Fundamentalist Christians have bastardized "Creationism" in an attempt to obscure their agenda.

Let me say that I have not 'bastardized' anything. Creationism is definitely a part of theology, but there is scientific evidence proving it. Yes, there is evidence out there to suggest that fossils don't really take millions of years to form, evidence that points to a very young earth compared to evolutionists' ancient earth theory. The only agenda I have is to provide the evidence and argument for the other side, since it seems most modern-day christians have decided that God's Word is not good enough for them.

It's really sad that when a christian begins talking about creationism, they're jumped on because of their ideas. Poor Zulus hasn't posted since their original post, and I'm wondering if they left this guild altogether.

As far as the scientific evidence goes, I usually am referring to Ooparts, or Out of Place Artifacts. Also there's the (very real) evidence showing that fossils do not take as long to form as previously thought. And then there are other scientific studies as well that most scientists shove under the rug because it doesn't fit with their theories. They don't want to be wrong; I wouldn't either if I were going against God's Word.

Good Introduction Article on Fossils
Very In-Depth Site with everything from fossils to DNA
Answers in Genesis search for 'young age earth'

Those are good places to start as far as research goes. Also, I highly recommend The New Answers book.

There is research and scientific evidence out there which both sides examine. It depends on which side you're originally batting for in how you interpret the evidence. Up until just a few weeks ago I didn't even know the truth existed- I'd been told evolution as a fact, and creationism never came up. This is pretty depressing, considering I went to a Catholic school. I only ask that y'all read these articles with an open mind, willing to learn and question yourself. If you find out that you still think you're right, then that's okay, but I still want you to question.

It's when we stop questioning things that we are truly stupid.  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

The only thing I have to add to this is what I've said before when this exact same topic was in here: evolution is adaptation (natural selection) after a much longer period of time. Evolution is not Satan, it's not evil, and I don't understand why so called creationists are afraid of it. confused Evolution just means change. If a species started off with five fingers on each hand and one of those fingers got selectively smaller until it was gone, it has changed, the species has evolved to where they now have four fingers on each hand (btw, this is where humans are headed). Evolution doesn't mean that one species came from an entirely different species overnight, or in one generation. Human beings have evolved from a single-celled organism, because the single-celled organism, at some point, mutated in its reproduction, and that mutation allowed it to survive much better than its counterparts, and so on and so forth.

Humans are the only mammals that can drink milk beyond infancy, aside from Koreans and some other ethnicities that I can't think of. By some freak mutation in the DNA that makes up how we digest and process lactose, humans have mostly evolved to be able to drink milk without getting sick. We have evolved, we have changed.  

[zz1000zz]

My head really hurts right now, so I am going to make this brief. Much more could be said about your post, but for now I will strictly be looking at the "evidence." I feel it is worth pointing out that, as usual for this topic, links were provided without discussing their contents. This is a bad practice.

Pirate Munke

Good Introduction Article on Fossils
Very In-Depth Site with everything from fossils to DNA

Neither of these links had any evidence I could find. The second link did have some 70 numbered links at the bottom of the page, so I assume some evidence may be on the site. I am not going to dig for it. If either of these pages has any evidence, you did nothing to provide it. As it is, all these links are is some people saying some things.

Pirate Munke

Answers in Genesis search for 'young age earth'

Here is a link to a bunch of links. It took almost no time for me to see this site was bogus. I will provide a single example of this. I have no intention of going through each and every link on the page, but if anyone would like me to comment on any particular ones I would be glad to.

I trust providing a single example is satisfactory Pirate Munke, since you didn't even bother to discuss any of the links. The example I will use is from the link How old are Saturn's rings? The key arguments of this article are:

Quote:

-Saturn is believed to be billions of years old, but the present condition of its rings means they can't be more than 100 million years old.
-The universe is believed to be about 15 billion years old, but the circumstances which might form Saturn's rings could not possibly happen in this time.

For the first point, I slightly disagree. The current evidence sets the upper limit above 100 million years, but only by a small margin. It doesn't make any difference. The only part which matters is the second argument, which is given in more detail as:

Quote:

Astronomer Wing-Huan Ip, from the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, looked into the conditions necessary for a moon to break up. He says the combined mass of Saturn’s rings would amount to a moon at least 100 kilometres wide (Earth’s moon is 3,473 kilometres wide). Ip says that such a moon could be shattered by a comet only two kilometres across. Yet Ip calculates that such a ring-forming collision would not happen in 30 billion years. This is about twice the age claimed for the universe by most evolutionists.

There are two problems with this argument (aside from the glaring problem of there being no source or evidence provided for it). The first problem is this calculation would be a statistical calculation. It would only say the odds of such a calculation. While the odds may suggest something would not happen within a particular timeframe, they can never prove it like the bold section claims. One in a million chances happen all the time.

The second problem is far more important. The first problem is largely immaterial since there isn't any way to discuss it without references the article lacks (the only reference in the article is an almost 20 year old magazine reference which would not have had the details of such a calculation). This problem is the article assumes the rings were formed by a moon destroyed by impact with a comet. There is absolutely no reason to assume such.

This brings me back to the Roche limit. I will provide a brief description of it, though the Wikipedia article does a much better job. The Roche limit is defined in that article as:

Roche limit

The distance within which a celestial body, held together only by its own gravity, will disintegrate due to a second celestial body's tidal forces exceeding the first body's gravitational self-attraction.

Basically an object, such as a moon, orbiting a planet can be destroyed by the gravity of that planet. What happens is the force exerted on the moon is not uniform. Tidal forces, like what creates ocean tides, cause the moon to distort. Over time it becomes less spherical, and more stretched. In the case of Saturn, these tidal forces are so strong they can tear a moon apart. The Roche limit is used to figure out under what circumstances this will happen.

This Roche limit is relatively easy to calculate for Saturn, and scientists have dealt with this issue for quite some time. There is no reason to assume the moon destroyed to make Saturn's rings was destroyed due to a comet, so the article's claims are rendered invalid.  

[zz1000zz]

I took a look through some more of the links on that site, and none of them are any better. There is a link discussing tidal recession which relies on DeYoung's shoddy work, which was refuted before he even published it. There is a link discussing the Earth's magnetic field relying on Barne's tautological nonsense.

I am not well versed in all the fields covered by that website, but each link discussing a subject I know about relies on work which is known to be wrong. As a matter of fairness, I am going to ask anyone who wants to discuss evidence they claim supports creationism to read the evidence they are providing. Having done that, give at least a basic summary of the evidence along with your link.

I think this is perfectly reasonable.