What if evolution was part of creationism?

[Cecilie1200]

There's no such thing as "micro-evolution" or "macro-evolution". They are terms that religious fanatics made up to differentiate between the evolution they can't possibly deny, and the part of evolution they can still try to ignore.

Have you observed a non human turning into a human?

have you observed jesus dying on the cross? have you observed antibiotics killing bacteria? Have you ever seen a cell divide? have you observed the sun provide energy to plants? Did you see the first car ever made? How do you know any cars were made then!?

We can't see evaporation, but we can still feel the rain.

There are MANY things we don't need to see to obtain factual information on.

Regardless, you basically just ignored every single point in that previous post to make a ridiculously ignorant claim. Perhaps you should go try again.

Nice try, dumbass. We believe Jesus died on the cross because we were told that it happened by people we trust who witnessed it, much the same way we know anything else in history happened. What eyewitnesses to evolution do you have?

As for observing antibiotics killing bacteria and cells dividing, that actually CAN be observed if you have a powerful enough microscope. And could you tell me, please, what specific piece of equipment one requires to personally witness evolution from one species to another taking place?

Epic fail. As usual.

 

[KittenKoder]

Have you observed a non human turning into a human?

have you observed jesus dying on the cross? have you observed antibiotics killing bacteria? Have you ever seen a cell divide? have you observed the sun provide energy to plants? Did you see the first car ever made? How do you know any cars were made then!?

We can't see evaporation, but we can still feel the rain.

There are MANY things we don't need to see to obtain factual information on.

Regardless, you basically just ignored every single point in that previous post to make a ridiculously ignorant claim. Perhaps you should go try again.

Nice try, dumbass. We believe Jesus died on the cross because we were told that it happened by people we trust who witnessed it, much the same way we know anything else in history happened. What eyewitnesses to evolution do you have?

As for observing antibiotics killing bacteria and cells dividing, that actually CAN be observed if you have a powerful enough microscope. And could you tell me, please, what specific piece of equipment one requires to personally witness evolution from one species to another taking place?

Epic fail. As usual.

Actually we do have many records and observed evolutionary steps, as well as fossil records for complete evolutionary tracts of several species.

 

[Diuretic]

Have you observed a non human turning into a human?

have you observed jesus dying on the cross? have you observed antibiotics killing bacteria? Have you ever seen a cell divide? have you observed the sun provide energy to plants? Did you see the first car ever made? How do you know any cars were made then!?

We can't see evaporation, but we can still feel the rain.

There are MANY things we don't need to see to obtain factual information on.

Regardless, you basically just ignored every single point in that previous post to make a ridiculously ignorant claim. Perhaps you should go try again.

Nice try, dumbass. We believe Jesus died on the cross because we were told that it happened by people we trust who witnessed it, much the same way we know anything else in history happened. What eyewitnesses to evolution do you have?

As for observing antibiotics killing bacteria and cells dividing, that actually CAN be observed if you have a powerful enough microscope. And could you tell me, please, what specific piece of equipment one requires to personally witness evolution from one species to another taking place?

Epic fail. As usual.

You believe Jesus died on the cross. Do you know it though? The evidence is hearsay, it's not able to be tested. Having said that I'm quite able to accept that a historical figure called Jesus (apparently a common name) existed in the time and place alleged and that He was crucified. I'll accept that because there does seem to be a preponderance of circumstantial evidence to suggest those claims are true. As to Jesus being the Son of God, that's a different matter. But then that's not the topic being discussed.

The process of evolution (outside of virii and bacteria) is slow and human lifespans are short in comparison so no individual can claim to have witnessed evolution taking place in a species over thousands or millions of years. But the evidence is there for it and the inference can be drawn from that evidence that evolution is a known biological process.

The important difference is that in the case of Jesus and His crucifixion it is a matter of belief. That belief is fairly solidly built on circumstantial evidence of His existence. But the state of knowledge is still subjective belief. That belief can be developed in others who may agree that the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to ground that belief.

There is no belief in evolution as a biological process. The fact of evolution can be demonstrated and the physical evidence produced. Someone can refuse to accept evolution as a biological fact but a refusal to believe doesn't stop the evidence being led and inferences drawn in a validly scientific manner.

Belief isn't knowledge. A belief in Jesus' existence, a belief He was crucified, a belief in His divinity, all are beliefs, not knowledge.

The knowledge of evolution as a biological process is developed from empirical studies of physical evidence. It is a posteriori,

As for evolution by one species into another. I'm not sure that happens, but then I'm not a scientist.

 

[gcomeau]

Nice try, dumbass. We believe Jesus died on the cross because we were told that it happened by people we trust who witnessed it,

People you trusted witnessed it and told you it happened???

What 2000 year old people do you know? And can you introduce us?

much the same way we know anything else in history happened. What eyewitnesses to evolution do you have?

A whole army of evolutionary biologists for one thing. Ones we can actually talk to, and who present actual evidence of WHAT they witnessed. See below.

As for observing antibiotics killing bacteria and cells dividing, that actually CAN be observed if you have a powerful enough microscope. And could you tell me, please, what specific piece of equipment one requires to personally witness evolution from one species to another taking place?

The eyeball, you moron.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Epic fail. As usual.

You were saying?

 

[JD_2B]

What if evolution created god as an explanation for things not understood?

There is evolution to some degree. Progression might best fit as the term to be used. However, if evolution and creation have worked together, creation is where it all began, and what God said He created as is is how He created it. For example, God said He created man in His image, and He said He created woman from the man, so that is how He did it. He created birds (the foul of the air), fish in the sea, and land animals all to reproduce after their kind. Any of these might have been able to progress for survival. There is no evidence of evolution from one species to another, regarding anything that God said He created. There are plenty of things around that we don't see in His statement of creation, however, He is very specific about man, above all others.

Yep -- evolution or god -- both are theories, just one has a few more facts behind it.
Thanks for pointing that out.

Hmmm.. How to respond to this notion.. Facts are being used here to describe things and objects that you can touch, am I correct?

But being unable to see or touch something, does not make it less real or factual.

I am a purveyor of an evolved creation.. I just dont see how you can get something from nothing. It is impossible, as far as anyone on Earth knows.

Of course, then you have God there- saying he is the alpha and the omega, the first and the last- and even that is not logical. Wouldn't God have an origin, or a creator- or did he evolve into what he is, from a place we are unaware of, and then create our life (through science of course) and proclaim himself to be an all powerful God?

I love to discuss the wonders of the universe, particularly the origins.

I would also like to add a few details that are very interesting- God did not simply "create" man and woman- he "formed" Adam from the dirt.. The Genesis account of creation is incomplete and not a literal translation, overall- but there are certainly clues that guide us through it to see that nobody waved a magic wand, and said "Voila!"

In the making of Eve- God is said to have taken out a rib of Adam's and used it to create the woman. Well, all men still are born with all of their ribs- So whats the catch?

The "rib" is only referring to the X chromosome, really. Man was formed with an X and a Y chromosome, the Y chromosome making them male- opposing women, who have two X chromosomes.

Picture Adam's rib cage, for an illustration, and imagine that there are all Y chromosomes on the left and all X chromosomes on the right. God takes an X chromosome, and creates- Ta-Da! Woman!!!

Oh and that whole 7 days of creation thing- thats obviously hokey- because God also said that Adam and Eve would "surely die within the day" if they ate from or touched the forbidden tree. Adam and Eve both lived for more than 800 years.. A "day" in God-speak, is an arbitrary amount of time. In the case of Adam and Eve, it was likely about a thousand years.. and that is applying the concept of "day" to a meager human mind- not an all powerful God mind. So a day for GOD might even be a million years.. One who has been around forever would not think of a million years as such a long time. I know that compared to being a child, sitting down for 2 minutes with nothing to do, or a test of patience, is hardly a blink to me, now that I am 32.. compared to when I was a toddler. The longer I am alive, the shorter time feels to me- and also, the more expertise and experience I get at doing things, so I can do a whole lot more WITH that time.

When God made the cosmos for us- there was no sun to begin with- there was a whole day devoted to the creation of light. The sun was made in a day- before a planet was made. A day to us, is the amount of time it takes for the Earth to rotate completely- a 24 hour period. Without an rotative Earth to tell time with, then a day cannot be considered a 24 hour period at all.. not logically.

Anyways- I support evolution, but I think that evolution had to start with something, somehow- and you simply cannot go from a zerothings to an actual onething without having some kind of appreciable help.. LOL

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Just throwing this out there to see what you guys think.

What if evolution and creationism were one in the same. What if god really did create life on earth and his plan was for that life to evolve over time.

Is it an interesting idea or am I just treading water here?

I'll include a poll for fun

What if evolution created god as an explanation for things not understood?

I like the way you think MountainMan

I can dig that idea.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just throwing this out there to see what you guys think.

What if evolution and creationism were one in the same. What if god really did create life on earth and his plan was for that life to evolve over time.

Is it an interesting idea or am I just treading water here?

I'll include a poll for fun

What if evolution created god as an explanation for things not understood?

I like the way you think MountainMan

I can dig that idea.

That evolution could lead to the development of God works if randomization of events in the creations of species is the beginning.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What if evolution created god as an explanation for things not understood?

I like the way you think MountainMan

I can dig that idea.

That evolution could lead to the development of God works if randomization of events in the creations of species is the beginning.

No i think you missed MM's point.

He was saying that evolution created beings smart enough to understand most of their surroundings. Their intelligent brains then made up the concept of god to explain these unexplainables.

I'm pretty sure thats what MountainMan was getting at.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Nice try, dumbass. We believe Jesus died on the cross because we were told that it happened by people we trust who witnessed it, much the same way we know anything else in history happened. What eyewitnesses to evolution do you have?

Oh? You trust these people? What makes them trustworthy? Did they get an FBI fingerprint ciminal background check? Can you tell me the name of any member of these's trustable people's family? Perhaps their address or phone number so I could ask them a few questions?

Oh that's right! You "trust" them because you were told you could trust them, by someone who was told by someone else they could trust them.

The beauty of science is that it needs no witnesses. Gravity exists whether someone you trust witnesses it or not. Antibiotics kill bacteria whether you believe in them or not. Light has a finite measurable speed despite the fact that no person's eyeball or reflexes can time it. Evolution is true, whether you "witness" it or not; whether you have the tools to study it or not; whether you are educated, or whether you're an ignorant hick.

As for observing antibiotics killing bacteria and cells dividing, that actually CAN be observed if you have a powerful enough microscope. And could you tell me, please, what specific piece of equipment one requires to personally witness evolution from one species to another taking place?

Exactly correct. You need specific tools to be able to gain data needed to make conclusions. When it comes to evolution, such tools include radiomateric dating methods, anatomical studies, and genetics, to name a few. We can look inside our genome and find the parts that look like our closest ancestors; we can find the garbage we don't use anymore; we can observe vestigial structures which serve no purpose. Why do humans have the remnant of a third eye? Why do human fetuses start off with gill slits like fish? Why do our chromosomes look like fused great-ape chromosomes? Microscopes, PCR machines, radiometric analysis, etc etc.

If you want a "witness" for evolution, it can be you. You can go to a local university lab and witness this reproducible data for yourself anytime. It's there, and it's true, whether you want to see it or not.

Oh but hey - if you claim I'm dumb and I fail enough, maybe it will be enough to compensate for the complete lack of factual evidence or refutation you have provided.

I am a purveyor of an evolved creation.. I just dont see how you can get something from nothing. It is impossible, as far as anyone on Earth knows.

There are good ideas behind the Big Bang, but the beauty of evolution is that it is a stand-alone model. It doesn't require anything before life to still be correct. That is to say, all the questions regarding where matter or the world came from are completely irrelevant. Once life was on this planet, evolution began (and not before).

 

[Cecilie1200]

have you observed jesus dying on the cross? have you observed antibiotics killing bacteria? Have you ever seen a cell divide? have you observed the sun provide energy to plants? Did you see the first car ever made? How do you know any cars were made then!?

We can't see evaporation, but we can still feel the rain.

There are MANY things we don't need to see to obtain factual information on.

Regardless, you basically just ignored every single point in that previous post to make a ridiculously ignorant claim. Perhaps you should go try again.

Nice try, dumbass. We believe Jesus died on the cross because we were told that it happened by people we trust who witnessed it, much the same way we know anything else in history happened. What eyewitnesses to evolution do you have?

As for observing antibiotics killing bacteria and cells dividing, that actually CAN be observed if you have a powerful enough microscope. And could you tell me, please, what specific piece of equipment one requires to personally witness evolution from one species to another taking place?

Epic fail. As usual.

You believe Jesus died on the cross. Do you know it though? The evidence is hearsay, it's not able to be tested. Having said that I'm quite able to accept that a historical figure called Jesus (apparently a common name) existed in the time and place alleged and that He was crucified. I'll accept that because there does seem to be a preponderance of circumstantial evidence to suggest those claims are true. As to Jesus being the Son of God, that's a different matter. But then that's not the topic being discussed.

Way to cherrypick the words in a post so that you don't have to respond to any concepts you know you don't have an answer for. Sure, the evidence of Christ's crucifixion is hearsay. Most eyewitness testimony is. The evidence for the Peloponnesian War is also hearsay, but I don't see anyone accusing me of being superstitious and gullible for believing THAT happened. Which brings us back to the huge difference between believing something based on eyewitness testimony - history and religion - and something with no eyewitnesses - evolution. I guess I'm still going to wait for you to comment on THAT.

The process of evolution (outside of virii and bacteria) is slow and human lifespans are short in comparison so no individual can claim to have witnessed evolution taking place in a species over thousands or millions of years. But the evidence is there for it and the inference can be drawn from that evidence that evolution is a known biological process.

And now I'm getting excuses. YOU chose the comparisons, not me, so don't blame me if they weren't the brilliant "Aha!" moment you hoped they were.

If "the evidence for it is there", would you mind telling me where "there" is, instead of trying to snippily - and incorrectly - tell me that I'm believing other things without evidence when I'm not?

The important difference is that in the case of Jesus and His crucifixion it is a matter of belief. That belief is fairly solidly built on circumstantial evidence of His existence. But the state of knowledge is still subjective belief. That belief can be developed in others who may agree that the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to ground that belief.

No, the important difference is that they're BOTH belief, and I just don't happen to trust the people vouching for evolution as much as I do the ones vouching for the crucifixion.

There is no belief in evolution as a biological process. The fact of evolution can be demonstrated and the physical evidence produced. Someone can refuse to accept evolution as a biological fact but a refusal to believe doesn't stop the evidence being led and inferences drawn in a validly scientific manner.

Amazingly enough, telling me it's been proven and the evidence can be produced isn't the same as showing me the proof and evidence. I don't trust YOUR word for it any more than I do any of the other people testifying on evolution's behalf.

Belief isn't knowledge. A belief in Jesus' existence, a belief He was crucified, a belief in His divinity, all are beliefs, not knowledge.

A belief that evolution between species really happens and that there's proof of it isn't knowledge, either.

The knowledge of evolution as a biological process is developed from empirical studies of physical evidence. It is a posteriori,

Telling me that it's a fact and that there are "empirical studies of physical evidence" is ALSO not knowledge, nor is it credible. In fact, it's damned suspicious that all I ever get is assertions that the evidence exists instead of the evidence itself. If it really exists, you'd just show it to me, instead of telling me four times in one post that it's out there . . . somewhere.

As for evolution by one species into another. I'm not sure that happens, but then I'm not a scientist.

THAT'S for damned sure. You're also not an historian, apparently, but I'm sure they'll all be happy to know that you've declared their field to be all belief and no knowledge.

 

[Diuretic]

Eyewitness evidence isn't hearsay Cecilie, it's direct evidence when it's given. The testimony can be examined, the credibility of the witness can be tested. If B stands up and says A told him something then that something can't be tested. That's hearsay.

And as I said, I can accept the evidence for the existence of Jesus due to the preponderance of circumstantial evidence about His existence. Just like the Peloponnesian War.

The evidence for evolution is well known, no point in me going on about it. You don't accept it, your choice.

On belief. It's only a state of mind and as such it's subjective. You can believe in the Tooth Fairy, doesn't go to proving it exists. Your beliefs, my beliefs, they matter to you, to me, they don't matter to anyone else. And importantly beliefs don't matter as regards the objective existence of something. It is or it isn't, belief doesn't go its existence or non-existence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I like the way you think MountainMan

I can dig that idea.

That evolution could lead to the development of God works if randomization of events in the creations of species is the beginning.

No i think you missed MM's point.

He was saying that evolution created beings smart enough to understand most of their surroundings. Their intelligent brains then made up the concept of god to explain these unexplainables.

I'm pretty sure thats what MountainMan was getting at.

Oh, I agree with that. I should have been more clear. It occurred to me, "What if evolutionary process led to the development of God."

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Which brings us back to the huge difference between believing something based on eyewitness testimony - history and religion - and something with no eyewitnesses - evolution. I guess I'm still going to wait for you to comment on THAT.

Because the things which can be reproduced and observed at any given time regardless of original eye witnesses are known as science. Gravity, for example, continues to exist regardless of whether there were humans to witness it or not. Again, let's compare and contrast

History and religion: stories passed down from generation to generation. Not reproducible. Events happened once. Events cannot be confirmed in present times, only other people who claimed they happened (which brings in an uncertainty).

Science: reproducible evidence that can be observed by any person anywhere in the world and be repeated elsewhere to find the exact same results.

Note which one relies on an unreliable psychology of human beings, where the other relies on factual evidence that can be confirmed at any time.

If "the evidence for it is there", would you mind telling me where "there" is, instead of trying to snippily - and incorrectly - tell me that I'm believing other things without evidence when I'm not?

Genetics? Anatomy? Physiology? Take your pick and I'll show you the evidence. Here's a nice little start:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk]YouTube - Ken Miller on Human Evolution[/ame]

No, the important difference is that they're BOTH belief, and I just don't happen to trust the people vouching for evolution as much as I do the ones vouching for the crucifixion.

False. Science is not belief. Science relies on no one person. Science is the study of facts. Scientific reasoning is contested and purposely scrutinized by other scientists to ensure nothing gets through to publication without being logically sound. Religion, on the other hand, uses the exact opposite practice, whereby belief is strengthened not through challenge, but through blind agreement.

 

[THE LIGHT]

i prefer science....the earth has existed for more years than creationist wish to admit...there is no evidence of a massive flood in core samples....at least not a world wide one...

Just curious. What would you expect as evidence for a world wide flood?

 

[gcomeau]

i prefer science....the earth has existed for more years than creationist wish to admit...there is no evidence of a massive flood in core samples....at least not a world wide one...

Just curious. What would you expect as evidence for a world wide flood?

How about sufficient water existing on the planet to flood it in the first place? You know, just as a starting point.

 

[THE LIGHT]

i prefer science....the earth has existed for more years than creationist wish to admit...there is no evidence of a massive flood in core samples....at least not a world wide one...

Just curious. What would you expect as evidence for a world wide flood?

How about sufficient water existing on the planet to flood it in the first place? You know, just as a starting point.

What else?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The LIGHT - do you plan on completely ignoring the points on evolution and instead focus on something completely different until someone proves you wrong there at which point you'll jump topics again?

 

[KittenKoder]

Just curious. What would you expect as evidence for a world wide flood?

How about sufficient water existing on the planet to flood it in the first place? You know, just as a starting point.

What else?

If you saw the geographical samples used to determine such events you'd understand it better. There was no world wide flood, there were however massive floods, and with the understanding of the size of the world at the times they occurred, the legend could have come from any one of those regions as they would have thought it was the whole world.

 

[THE LIGHT]

How about sufficient water existing on the planet to flood it in the first place? You know, just as a starting point.

What else?

If you saw the geographical samples used to determine such events you'd understand it better. There was no world wide flood, there were however massive floods, and with the understanding of the size of the world at the times they occurred, the legend could have come from any one of those regions as they would have thought it was the whole world.

That doesn't prove or disprove the idea of a world wide flood.

Again, what else?

 

[THE LIGHT]

The LIGHT - do you plan on completely ignoring the points on evolution and instead focus on something completely different until someone proves you wrong there at which point you'll jump topics again?

Are you trying to change the subject because you know you have no answer, Hick?