Evolution, what evidence is there and what does creationism have?

[Autodidact]

There is hardly a scientist in the world that does not embrace
the "Big Bang" theory as the way the universe came into existence.
Which means they embrace "creationism." For they are admitting
the world came to be out of nothingnes.

Nope. The Big Bang does not address creation in any way.
In any case, this assertion is also totally off topic. This thread is about EVOLUTION. If you wish to discuss the Big Bang, string theory, quantum mechanics or abiogenesis, please start a thread. Thank you.

 

[painted wolf]

Ah yes... the big scary "nothing"!

wa:do

 

[emiliano]

emiliano:

If by "creation" you mean the general idea that God created all things, science has no quarrel with that. If you mean that God magically poofed one of each species into existence a few thousand years ago, that no new species ever come into existence, that God destroyed all living things in a flood a couple of years after that, then no, there is no such evidence. That is clearly false, and anyone who has studied the evidence knows that. It's an ancient creation myth, nothing more.

No I have a simple faith, I see the the magnificent creation all around me and I know that there is God a creator, the good ole Id.:shout

 

[Autodidact]

No I have a simple faith, I see the the magnificent creation all around me and I know that there is God a creator, the good ole Id.:shout

Right. So which one do you mean by "creationism," the general idea that God created everything, or literal Genesis, a very specific (and mistaken) version of that?

 

[emiliano]

The statements of religious people... even scientists, is not evidence for creationism.
[/font]What is a "Homin person"?
Does he mean Hominid? if so that means Chimps have an immortal soul.
If he means only those after Chimps... then would he consider Lucy and her species to have a soul?
[/font]Yeah, let's look at some of his other quotes shall we?
About ID:

they fall short in providing any mechanisms for the efficient causes that primarily engage scientists in our age. ID does not explain the temporal or geographical distribution of species, or the intricate relationships of the DNA coding. ID is interesting as a philosophical idea, but it does not replace the scientific explanations that evolution offers. [/quote]
He also admits that it isn't evidence that moves him ... but emotion.

The god’s in the science - The Daily Cardinal

but yes, you are right... science doesn't demand atheism. I'm not an atheist. But I realize that 'evidence' for Creators role in the universe comes from within...not without.
It's not scientific.

wa:do[/quote]

I am glad that you agree with me.
You know that the Bible is not a scientific treatise; well at least I hope that your do. Having said that I don’t see the compulsion for demanding atheism in a scientist, I like this quote, it makes it soooo clear ”Nevertheless, just as I believe that the Book of Scripture illumines the pathway to God, so I believe that the Book of Nature, with its astonishing details, the blade of grass” Or even better expressed:

Psa 8:3
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, ​

 

[emiliano]

Right. So which one do you mean by "creationism," the general idea that God created everything, or literal Genesis, a very specific (and mistaken) version of that?

No is just that I don't live in fears that science is going to to prove that God does not exist as science can only tell us how wonderful He is.The more humanity learns about the things created the more that we know that there is God, we stand in awe of His qualities, praise and worship Him.

 

[Autodidact]

they fall short in providing any mechanisms for the efficient causes that primarily engage scientists in our age. ID does not explain the temporal or geographical distribution of species, or the intricate relationships of the DNA coding. ID is interesting as a philosophical idea, but it does not replace the scientific explanations that evolution offers.

He also admits that it isn't evidence that moves him ... but emotion.

The god’s in the science - The Daily Cardinal

but yes, you are right... science doesn't demand atheism. I'm not an atheist. But I realize that 'evidence' for Creators role in the universe comes from within...not without.
It's not scientific.

wa:do[/quote]

I am glad that you agree with me.
You know that the Bible is not a scientific treatise; well at least I hope that your do. Having said that I don’t see the compulsion for demanding atheism in a scientist, I like this quote, it makes it soooo clear ”Nevertheless, just as I believe that the Book of Scripture illumines the pathway to God, so I believe that the Book of Nature, with its astonishing details, the blade of grass” Or even better expressed:

Psa 8:3
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, ​

[/quote]

Of course not, that would be silly. This thread is not about atheism, it's about the Theory of Evolution (ToE) which has nothing to do with atheism. There are thousands of devout Christian scientists, including Biologists who accept ToE. Now, do you have anything to say about evolution?

 

[Father Heathen]

No is just that I don't live in fears that science is going to to prove that God does not exist as science can only tell us how wonderful He is.The more humanity learns about the things created the more that we know that there is God, we stand in awe of His qualities, praise and worship Him.

Science doesn't concern itself with theology, and as it has been said a billion times before, the concept of god and evolution are not mutually exclusive. The only thing evolution conflicts with is literal interpretations of creation myths. These facts have been repeated over and over, and if people aren't going to pay attention then they shouldn't be participating in these sorts of threads.
Theistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[logician]

, the concept of god and evolution are not mutually exclusive.Theistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The concepts of an "Intervening god", and evolution, are however, mutually exclusive.

 

[fantome profane]

It is an error to think that evolution disproves the existence of God, the creator of all there is. And science does not demand atheisms.

You are absolutely correct. There is nothing in science that disproves or even challenges the existence of “God”, not evolution or any other scientific theory.

Which is why the pseudoscientific nonsense that often goes under the name creationism or ID should be an insult to the intellect of any reasonable thinking person, regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

 

[Bedlam]

The Theory of Evolution most certainly claims that the six-day creation myth is wrong. The two cannot possibly be compatible without a huge, unnecessary leap in logic.

Science does not require Atheism, as there are plenty of Theistic biologists, but if the ToE is correct, then the belief in a young earth and the Garden of Eden must be incorrect.

 

[darkendless]

No is just that I don't live in fears that science is going to to prove that God does not exist as science can only tell us how wonderful He is.The more humanity learns about the things created the more that we know that there is God, we stand in awe of His qualities, praise and worship Him.

Funnily enough God is totally outside the scope of science.

 

[emiliano]

He also admits that it isn't evidence that moves him ... but emotion.

The god’s in the science - The Daily Cardinal

but yes, you are right... science doesn't demand atheism. I'm not an atheist. But I realize that 'evidence' for Creators role in the universe comes from within...not without.
It's not scientific.

wa:do

I am glad that you agree with me.
You know that the Bible is not a scientific treatise; well at least I hope that your do. Having said that I don’t see the compulsion for demanding atheism in a scientist, I like this quote, it makes it soooo clear ”Nevertheless, just as I believe that the Book of Scripture illumines the pathway to God, so I believe that the Book of Nature, with its astonishing details, the blade of grass” Or even better expressed:

Psa 8:3
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, ​

[/quote]

Of course not, that would be silly. This thread is not about atheism, it's about the Theory of Evolution (ToE) which has nothing to do with atheism. There are thousands of devout Christian scientists, including Biologists who accept ToE. Now, do you have anything to say about evolution?[/quote]

What can I say? Evolution is evident, present day humans for example are quite different than they were in the beginning when God created humankind, but they are just as God ordained them ” Humans” and all other animal are exactly as He ordained them, and so is the entire universe that it is made to order for life to exist, exactly as He ordained it. Scientists are trying to find the what, when and how of the creation and the supernatural force that sustains it.

 

[Tristesse]

I am glad that you agree with me.
You know that the Bible is not a scientific treatise; well at least I hope that your do. Having said that I don’t see the compulsion for demanding atheism in a scientist, I like this quote, it makes it soooo clear ”Nevertheless, just as I believe that the Book of Scripture illumines the pathway to God, so I believe that the Book of Nature, with its astonishing details, the blade of grass” Or even better expressed:

Psa 8:3
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, ​

Of course not, that would be silly. This thread is not about atheism, it's about the Theory of Evolution (ToE) which has nothing to do with atheism. There are thousands of devout Christian scientists, including Biologists who accept ToE. Now, do you have anything to say about evolution?[/quote]

What can I say? Evolution is evident, present day humans for example are quite different than they were in the beginning when God created humankind, but they are just as God ordained them ” Humans” and all other animal are exactly as He ordained them, and so is the entire universe that it is made to order for life to exist, exactly as He ordained it. Scientists are trying to find the what, when and how of the creation and the supernatural force that sustains it.[/quote]

No one is demanding that our scientist be atheists. Because the process of science works best when it stays completely neutral on the issue of a god. That way you aren't polluting your mind with a bias. And you can actually work towards determining the truth, and not just going with what feels comfortable.

 

[Autodidact]

I am glad that you agree with me.
You know that the Bible is not a scientific treatise; well at least I hope that your do. Having said that I don’t see the compulsion for demanding atheism in a scientist, I like this quote, it makes it soooo clear ”Nevertheless, just as I believe that the Book of Scripture illumines the pathway to God, so I believe that the Book of Nature, with its astonishing details, the blade of grass” Or even better expressed:

Psa 8:3
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, ​

Of course not, that would be silly. This thread is not about atheism, it's about the Theory of Evolution (ToE) which has nothing to do with atheism. There are thousands of devout Christian scientists, including Biologists who accept ToE. Now, do you have anything to say about evolution?

What can I say? Evolution is evident, present day humans for example are quite different than they were in the beginning when God created humankind, but they are just as God ordained them ” Humans” and all other animal are exactly as He ordained them, and so is the entire universe that it is made to order for life to exist, exactly as He ordained it. Scientists are trying to find the what, when and how of the creation and the supernatural force that sustains it.

Yup. All this goes without saying. Now, specifically, what Biologists have learned about that is that ToE explains the diversity and appearance of life on earth. You agree?

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., if we've got that down, here's the basic explanation, for blu.

The question we are answering, remember, is how do we get new species? How does a new species come about?

We could use any kind of example: fish, birds, lizards, flowers. Let's say fish. Say you have an insignificant species of fish--call it Fishius blua. Say it's 3" long, brown with some yellowish and greenish speckles, eats aquatic bugs, lays around 50 eggs every 3 moths, and it takes 2 months to reach maturity. O.K.? Now say of those 50 eggs 10 of them reach maturity, cuz it's tough on a fish. Of those, they will all look basically alike to us, but if you look close there are little variations--size, shade, number of speckles, and other differences that we can't see--immunity, speed, eye-sight. Just tiny variations. But since they're all the same species, all those variations keep getting mixed back into the pool, so they keep getting distributed around and the whole species changes either not at all, or together.

O.K. but say something happens so one lake full of Fishius blua gets cut off from the group. Like an earthquake changes the river drainage or whatever. Now they're isolated. And that lake is a little different--little colder, has a fungus that prefers yellow speckles and a predator that can't see greenish ones, etc. So over time, the green speckles will predominate, maybe the bigger ones tend to survive better, and it works better to lay 60 eggs, etc.

Now let 100 years go by, which is 600 generations of Fishius. At this point, the two groups look pretty different. They're a different size, different color, reproduce a little differently. It's a very slow and gradual process. At some point the two groups can no longer breed together. At that point Biologists say, "Whoa, Nelly. We're going to call the separate group a different species. And since my name is Tristesse, I shall call it Fishius tristessa." Voila--a new species.

That's how ToE says we get new species.

What say you, blu?

 

[painted wolf]

I am glad that you agree with me.
You know that the Bible is not a scientific treatise; well at least I hope that your do. Having said that I don’t see the compulsion for demanding atheism in a scientist,

Science doesn't demand atheism...

Sure you can't answer a question with "god did it"... but that's because you can't test for god. Science only deals with what you can test and observe and demonstrate.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

blu: My post is the core concept of evolutionary theory. If you understand that, we can move along. You're like 50% of the way there. Do you understand my fish example? If so, do you agree or disagree that this process would result in a new species?

 

[bluZero]

O.K., if we've got that down, here's the basic explanation, for blu.

The question we are answering, remember, is how do we get new species? How does a new species come about?

We could use any kind of example: fish, birds, lizards, flowers. Let's say fish. Say you have an insignificant species of fish--call it Fishius blua. Say it's 3" long, brown with some yellowish and greenish speckles, eats aquatic bugs, lays around 50 eggs every 3 moths, and it takes 2 months to reach maturity. O.K.? Now say of those 50 eggs 10 of them reach maturity, cuz it's tough on a fish. Of those, they will all look basically alike to us, but if you look close there are little variations--size, shade, number of speckles, and other differences that we can't see--immunity, speed, eye-sight. Just tiny variations. But since they're all the same species, all those variations keep getting mixed back into the pool, so they keep getting distributed around and the whole species changes either not at all, or together.

O.K. but say something happens so one lake full of Fishius blua gets cut off from the group. Like an earthquake changes the river drainage or whatever. Now they're isolated. And that lake is a little different--little colder, has a fungus that prefers yellow speckles and a predator that can't see greenish ones, etc. So over time, the green speckles will predominate, maybe the bigger ones tend to survive better, and it works better to lay 60 eggs, etc.

Now let 100 years go by, which is 600 generations of Fishius. At this point, the two groups look pretty different. They're a different size, different color, reproduce a little differently. It's a very slow and gradual process. At some point the two groups can no longer breed together. At that point Biologists say, "Whoa, Nelly. We're going to call the separate group a different species. And since my name is Tristesse, I shall call it Fishius tristessa." Voila--a new species.

That's how ToE says we get new species.

What say you, blu?

Ok, from what I read the fauna that was cut off by the wall of China also produced changes. That is beautiful.

A new species but from a primal gene pool. So the actual change, is adaptation of the individual being in its new environment?

Not to drag this out, but years ago I heard that pple of like gene pools seek each other out, unknowingly, yet some how they find each other. could it be possible that that could happen that in breeding can be cut off from the human gene also.

 

[Autodidact]

Ok, from what I read the fauna that was cut off by the wall of China also produced changes. That is beautiful.

A new species but from a primal gene pool. So the actual change, is adaptation of the individual being in its new environment?

Not to drag this out, but years ago I heard that pple of like gene pools seek each other out, unknowingly, yet some how they find each other. could it be possible that that could happen that in breeding can be cut off from the human gene also.

No. Individuals do not adapt. The individual does not change throughout their lives. Some individuals are born a little better adapted to their environment. They will therefore get to survive and reproduce. By reproducing, they pass their better-adapted-traits on to their offspring, who likewise survive and reproduce. Those who are a little less well-adapted will have a lower chance of surviving to reproduce, to their less-adapted traits will tend to die out. No single individual is half-one, half-the other. Each individual is just what it is. But over time, the whole species, the population gradually changes, because each generation is a little different than their parents. Get it?