Mutually Exclusive?

[rusra02]

Old question perhaps but are Creation and Evolution really mutually exclusive? I'm not so sure. While I'm a fundemental Christian and accept the six day Creation story as acurrate, I am not what is often called a Young Earth Creationist, at least not in the traditional sense.

Yes, they are mutually exclusive. Either God created plants and animals according to their kinds, or He didn't. (Genesis 1:24) If Adam and Eve is a myth, then the sin they committed was also a myth, and the Bible is untrue. Further, Jesus would be a false witness and died for nothing, not to take away the sin of the world. (John 1:29) Many evolutionists try to drown out opposing viewpoints through ridicule and bullying. But the evidence for Creation is available to those who look for it, as well as the fatal flaws in the ToE.
The YEC, who claim that God created the earth in 6 24-hour days, are also in error. The Bible does not say when God created the earth except it was "In the beginning."
The 6 creative periods mentioned in Genesis are not 24-hour periods, but were apparently thousands of years long (Hebrews 4:1-5, where the seventh day is spoken of as continuing after thousands of years).

 

[ninerbuff]

Ninerbuff- You are correct that while evolution is backed by science, creationism is not. At its core creationism is less about the physical relm but rather about the creation of the physical relm. That is it focus's on the what came first idea, before the physical relm, beyound the scope of science.

To help you out so that people know you're responding to them, hit the QUOTE button on that post then you can respond without having to post each person name you're responding too.
But back to the subject........creationism to me is more about people who can't deny science, but can't deny religion. So that's why it was created.

 

[orcel]

PolyHedral - What exists in that extra-physical relm beyound our universe is debatable, mainly because we do not and can not know. Its beyound science. Perhaps its the Christian God perhaps its another universe with diferent physical laws.

 

[orcel]

To help you out so that people know you're responding to them, hit the QUOTE button on that post then you can respond without having to post each person name you're responding too.
But back to the subject........creationism to me is more about people who can't deny science, but can't deny religion. So that's why it was created.

Thanks.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

I suggest God created past, present and future all at once. Mankind therfore was created whole, with a past that may include evolution.

Would you be able to expound on that a bit further? I don't think i'm grasping your meaning

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Many evolutionists try to drown out opposing viewpoints through ridicule and bullying. But the evidence for Creation is available to those who look for it, as well as the fatal flaws in the ToE.

I would love to see this evidence for creation. Also, to imply the TOE has fatal flaws is to suggest it has flaws that completely disprove the theory. I would also like you to demonstrate these flaws. A pretty bold statement to be sure.

 

[Oneatatime]

Old question perhaps but are Creation and Evolution really mutually exclusive? I'm not so sure. While I'm a fundemental Christian and accept the six day Creation story as acurrate, I am not what is often called a Young Earth Creationist, at least not in the traditional sense.

Creationism is not compatabile with science let alone evolution. Testable creationists claims have been disproven and while science can't deal with the untestable claims they have no credibility and simply reflect what creationists want to be true i.e. the Bible.

 

[Skwim]

PolyHedral - Agreed there can be no time before time, it makes no sence. However what could exist is an higher plain of existence beyond our physical universe where time does not exist. This reality while weird to our intelect, is possible all be it hard to comprehend.

While it's easy to speculate about such things, the speculation must conform to the meaning of the words we use to describe it, otherwise our speculations end up as gibberish. When one says that there's a form of existence where time doesn't exist then there's no possibility of anything happening because the notion of time implies Act B follows Act A. As soon as something, anything, happens time raises its head. Conversely, where time doesn't exist nothing happens. Of course if that's what you're saying, that there's a higher plain where nothing happens, fine; however, any existence would be in absolute stasis, and would be a meaningless one.

 

[orcel]

While it's easy to speculate about such things, the speculation must conform to the meaning of the words we use to describe it, otherwise our speculations end up as gibberish. When one says that there's a form of existence where time doesn't exist then there's no possibility of anything happening because the notion of time implies Act B follows Act A. As soon as something, anything, happens time raises its head. Conversely, where time doesn't exist nothing happens. Of course if that's what you're saying, that there's a higher plain where nothing happens, fine; however, any existence would be in absolute stasis, and I would be a meaningless one.

Skwim, true to us a non-Tempral existence would seem boring, not that we'd notice without time there would be no change and therefore our tempral minds would not function. If something exists in an extra-tempral reality that something would be to us almost frozen or as you state static. Prehaps however that static state is the state of creation. Then we find a creator (God? Perhaps, Another non-temperal Universe? perhaps. ) external from this universe always creating this universe. Creating Past, Present and Future.

basicall I'm not proving anything, rather offering a possible senerio where a Christian like God could have created exactly as Genesis details and still not controdict the scientificlly observed fossil record

 

[PolyHedral]

Skwim, true to us a non-Tempral existence would seem boring, not that we'd notice without time there would be no change and therefore our tempral minds would not function. If something exists in an extra-tempral reality that something would be to us almost frozen or as you state static. Prehaps however that static state is the state of creation. Then we find a creator (God? Perhaps, Another non-temperal Universe? perhaps. ) external from this universe always creating this universe. Creating Past, Present and Future.

The act of creation is meaningless without time. "Creating" something implies that there was a point beforehand where the thing didn't exist.

 

[Jose Fly]

So how is this any different than Last-Thursdayism?

 

[Skwim]

Skwim, true to us a non-Tempral existence would seem boring, not that we'd notice without time there would be no change and therefore our tempral minds would not function. If something exists in an extra-tempral reality that something would be to us almost frozen or as you state static. Prehaps however that static state is the state of creation.

Trouble is, creation is state of change, and change necessarily requires time, therefore a state of creation and a static state cannot co-exist.

Then we find a creator (God? Perhaps, Another non-temperal Universe? perhaps. ) external from this universe always creating this universe. Creating Past, Present and Future.

And again, creating is a state of change.

basicall I'm not proving anything, rather offering a possible senerio where a Christian like God could have created exactly as Genesis details and still not controdict the scientificlly observed fossil record.

I recognize your attempts here and applaud your effort to make sense of it all, but I don't think this one is working.

 

[Katzpur]

Old question perhaps but are Creation and Evolution really mutually exclusive?

Yes they are, and welcome to RF. Creationists say all life was created a few thousand years ago, whereas evolutionist will tell you it began millions of years ago.

I don't believe they are incompatible, but maybe I'm using the terminology incorrectly. I believe in evolution and in a very, very old earth (Skwim, you should know that evolutionists would tell you the earth has been around not for millions but billions of years.) I believe the process unfolded pretty much as described by evolutionists, except that it happened in accordance to God's plan. I also suspect that I'm not alone in believing as I do.

 

[Alex_G]

Old question perhaps but are Creation and Evolution really mutually exclusive? I'm not so sure. While I'm a fundemental Christian and accept the six day Creation story as acurrate, I am not what is often called a Young Earth Creationist, at least not in the traditional sense.

I think that they are fundamentally opposed in the principles that underlie them, and also in some of the content or conclusions drawn.

Evolution is an arm of science, and has compelling evidence to support it. Creationism has no such backing. You could say that you subscribe to both, in a way that no overlap happens, and thus no conflict, but then you miss the point about how they differ so greatly in the rational.

I don’t deny the mystery and wonder of the universe, and the huge amount still unknown to us. Whether there exists a responsible mind in this universe is not proven either way, but to be truly scientific, one would not jump to complex and specific conclusions without reason. Authority is no way to validate a truth claim, as that is just committing a logical fallacy. A doctor isn’t infallible about a specific issue purely by virtue of his title.

I think that one either understands that core principle of science or does not. And I think in that sense, creationism and evolution are opposed, and either someone is ignorant to the facts, or is choosing to be somewhat untrue to themselves, compartmentalising their brain, keeping the 2 separate from one another. I see no virtue in such a thing.

For example, I see not how one can simultaneously subscribe to 1; claims of creationism such as the creation of all animals as they are today, whilst also genuinely holding an understanding of evolution.

There will be a point where conflict arises in the content presented in both, and one must be faced with the decision of which way to turn. To selectively 'believe' aspects of science merely because they do not directly interfere with your religious belief is not executing true scientific thought. Quality of the evidence is what should guide your views. The difficulty with religion in my opinion is, that one’s strong emotional attachment, nay reliance on religion, forces irrational protection of it. If it is wrong about one thing, then what’s stopping it from being wrong altogether? Accepting a piece of well proven scientific study could theoretically undermine a whole structure of belief, something so profoundly difficult to face, that denial, even in the face of convincing data will occur.

Alex

 

[Skwim]

I don't believe they are incompatible, but maybe I'm using the terminology incorrectly. I believe in evolution and in a very, very old earth (Skwim, you should know that evolutionists would tell you the earth has been around not for millions but billions of years.)

Yes, the Earth for 4,600 million years, and life for possibly 4,500 to 3,500 million years.

 

[orcel]

Trouble is, creation is state of change, and change necessarily requires time, therefore a state of creation and a static state cannot co-exist.

And again, creating is a state of change.

Skwim - Agreed the action of creating is change, if first one is not creating and then one is creating. Perhaps this alternate universe or God is entirely and eternally one creating action. IE no change.

Oddly this fits well with the Christian notion of God as perfect as any change regardless of how small would be a change away from perfection. The Christian God is an eternal static being.

 

[Autodidact]

Old question perhaps but are Creation and Evolution really mutually exclusive? I'm not so sure. While I'm a fundemental Christian and accept the six day Creation story as acurrate, I am not what is often called a Young Earth Creationist, at least not in the traditional sense.

I think you either accept that science helps us learn about the natural world, or not. It says nothing about whether you believe that God exists. "Creationist" doers not mean "believes in God." It means, "rejects science."

 

[Autodidact]

Ninerbuff- You are correct that while evolution is backed by science, creationism is not. At its core creationism is less about the physical relm but rather about the creation of the physical relm. That is it focus's on the what came first idea, before the physical relm, beyound the scope of science.

Except they like to lie and call it "creation science." That's because they know science works, so they want to cloak themselves in it, even as they reject it.

 

[orcel]

Would you be able to expound on that a bit further? I don't think i'm grasping your meaning

Imagine a 3D columb where the hight of the columb is Time. The length and width of any cross-section represents the entire physical universe at any given second. Looking at the columb as a whole we can see both the past and future.

This is the extra-tempral perspective. From here we see the past, present and future all co-exist at different cros-sections.

 

[orcel]

I think you either accept that science helps us learn about the natural world, or not. It says nothing about whether you believe that God exists. "Creationist" doers not mean "believes in God." It means, "rejects science."

Agreed: Not mutually exclusive. Evolution is a scientific theory (and a rather good one) that looks at development of life within the physical universe. Creation focus's on an act of God that transends the physical relm and is therefore beyond the scope of science.