• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

On Evolution & Creation

Argentbear

Well-Known Member
If all you want is a correlation, then knowledge of origins are not needed. But all rational models, which are more advanced, do benefit and even need origins. The current model for evolution, assumes there is no sense of direction to evolution, therefore it is hard to predict.
Evolutionary changes are the result of environmental pressures so of course there is no direction or goal as the traits that provide a reproductive benefit will vary over time and location and situation.
While the current universe model assumes there is no center of the universe, even though the BB model, conceptually, implies a point of origin; an original center.
You are misinformed about the big bang theory. The big bang created space not just matter and it created it everywhere
Where is the center of the universe?
These empirical models both assume a confusing gap of dice and cards. Logic and evolution have a sense of direction; 2nd law has to increase. The 2nd law over time is not random but net increases.
We have a sense of direction evolution does not.

And if you are referring to the second law of thermodynamics you might want to look up the wording of that law as entropy increases in a CLOSED system. and we don't live in a closed system
Entropy is also a state variable meaning any state of matter has a constant amount of entropy. Species represent entropic states, with the gap between species, imply these states are quantified; jumps and not continuous. Distinct species cannot breed with other distinct species. Evolution has to follow a narrower species path.
We don't live in a CLOSED system
Putting aside the data and theory content of both Evolution and Creation, the fundamental science approach of Creation; done by a creator, assumes logic. It assumes an omniscience God had a plan; brooding, and then a blue print; rational model (divine plan). It is more like applied science or the God, the architect, getting the plan ready, leaving little to chance. It is evolution that assumes dice and cards or the older approach of the whims of the gods, instead of a logical plan. The universe and life happened on a random whim, which is a primitive science approach, stuck at empirical.
That is a bunch of nonsense.

Creationism isn't based on assumptions but rather on a set of conditions predetermined on the beliefs of its adherents. "Evidence" is evaluated not on observation or experimentation but rather it is evaluated on how well it fits the beliefs of creationists.
I would be more impressed if evolution was more rational, with future things more easily inferred and deduced even before finding fossils. That would be more advanced, but it will also require more knowledge of origin; abiogenesis.
A creatio9nist wants evolution to be more rational. :D
Abiogenesis, to me, is similar to the original state of evolution, that I call chemical evolution. Chemical evolution, by natural selection, would eventually lead to self replicators, which become the origin of the evolutionary theory. If a form of early chemical evolution was the case, did that chemical evolution stage stop, when the replicators appeared? Or does this nanoscale version of evolution; chemical, still run parallel to the macro changes, inferred from fossils and Evolution, proper? My guess is it still runs parallel; origins. Natural selection at the nanoscale follows natural selection at the macro-scale and vice versa. Dice and card is more of a way to average these unknown but logical chemical processes, behind continued chemical evolution, But an average does not give all the needed details for a rational model.

The most logical chemical behind natural chemical selection at the nanoscale of life, is water. Water forms hydrogen bonds, with each water molecule able to form up to four hydrogen bonds, with other water. This is very stabilizing to water and give it water high boiling point for such a small molecule.

The fluidity of life processes is based on secondary bonding forces, that can break and reform, with the hydrogen bonding the strongest secondary bonding force used by life. DNA, RNA and protein all inherited this from water. Water is given off when they polymerize. With water the dormant hydrogen bonding material, both in shear number of molecules; 100 times as many water molecules as all the rest, combined, and water has to largest total number of aqueous hydrogen bonds, it is the most logical source for natural selection at the nanoscale; big dog of secondary bonding, running the show.

Water is optimized to itself, since it can form up to four hydrogen bonds with other water molecules. While all organics in water, will raise the surface tension in the water to some extent; breaks one of more hydrogen bonds between water. This is why even soluble organics in water, like alcohol; ethyl alcohol, will alter the natural surface tension of the body's water; increase, and this can cause equilibrium changes, not always for the best; brain, skin, liver, kidneys, blood vessels, etc. Stopping can reverse this; lowers global surface tension.

When any organic is placed in water, the water will feel the deficit, and try to minimize the surface tension, which then forces these organics to accommodate. Proteins are packed and folded, by water, to minimize their surface tension in water. Water is like a bunch of army ants that can, as a team, man handle larger objects like protein. The final shape is bioactive. The protein will not just assume that state, if water was not present or if you add another solvent. If water folded a new style protein, and there is residual surface tension, there is a lingering surface potential for change, until that ship is rightened.

The lowering of surface tension of organics in water also places protein, for example, into lower entropy states. There is more complexity or freedom, all stretched out wiggling. The lowering of surface tension comes first; enthalpy and entropy loss. The containment, to lower surface tension, creates an entropic potential; a target for the 2nd law. This helps the nanoscale odd makers by loading the dice in a specific game. Reactions on enzymes is a way to satisfy the 2nd law.

Water, 3-D hydrogen bonding liquid continuum, organic surface tension, lowering organic entropy, entropic potential; selective change. Water is near and far for both global and selective local changes. While evolution of cells; organic structure, alter the global water set point.
Sorry I dozed off there......
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I realize this to you will probably not answer the question, but from what I understand, it is humans (not monkeys) that conduct scientific experiments and in some cases test animals in cages.
Humans have a brain size around 4X the size of a chimp's brain, and that extra size is with our cerebrum, which is the thinking part of the brain. Chimps can and do think creatively, but nowhere near the same level as us.

BTW, can you run as fast as a cheetah? swing as fast through the trees as a gibbon? swim as fast as a dolphin?
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
I realize this to you will probably not answer the question, but from what I understand, it is humans (not monkeys) that conduct scientific experiments and in some cases test animals in cages.
We're so advanced we even put people in cages.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Humans have a brain size around 4X the size of a chimp's brain, and that extra size is with our cerebrum, which is the thinking part of the brain. Chimps can and do think creatively, but nowhere near the same level as us.

BTW, can you run as fast as a cheetah? swing as fast through the trees as a gibbon? swim as fast as a dolphin?
According to you, the "spirit" is universal -- (what spirit, anyway?) "the" spirit? lol, I guess so...
 

Astrophile

Active Member
It wasn't that I was a disbeliever in the Bible (because I did not do much reading of the Bible even though I respected it but was not taught it and did not understand it much), but rather, when I saw life around me, the horrible events such as genocides, plus things like some religions denying Christ as savior, that alongside with celebrations like Christmas and Easter, I began to figure there cannot be a God with all this confusion and conflict of religious ideas. Until something changed my mind quite some time later. (I do not take everything literally in the Bible, by the way.)
Before something changed your mind, you accepted evolution. Why did you reject it when your mind changed? It can't have been because Biblical creationism offers a better explanation of genetics, the fossil record, biogeography, or any other biological facts. Whatever the Bible teaches, it is not a biological textbook.

I was brought up as a Christian, and I knew little about biology or evolution; my main scientific interest has always been astronomy. When I fell in with a group of young-Earth creationists, whose ideas of biology and geology flatly contradicted my own, I decided to improve my knowledge by reading books about evolution by scientists, and some creationist books, particularly Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris. This experience confirmed my opinion that young-Earth creationism is nonsense and that living things have evolved over a period of at least 3500 million years. Did you do this, or did you adopt creationism because that is what the Bible teaches?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Before something changed your mind, you accepted evolution. Why did you reject it when your mind changed? It can't have been because Biblical creationism offers a better explanation of genetics, the fossil record, biogeography, or any other biological facts. Whatever the Bible teaches, it is not a biological textbook.

I was brought up as a Christian, and I knew little about biology or evolution; my main scientific interest has always been astronomy. When I fell in with a group of young-Earth creationists, whose ideas of biology and geology flatly contradicted my own, I decided to improve my knowledge by reading books about evolution by scientists, and some creationist books, particularly Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris. This experience confirmed my opinion that young-Earth creationism is nonsense and that living things have evolved over a period of at least 3500 million years. Did you do this, or did you adopt creationism because that is what the Bible teaches?
Aside from the fact that I agree with the unfolding of events (although not as some would make it) in the Genesis account as well as explanations that make sense to me, I have seriously come to question the statements claimed by scientists in many respects. Not all religions claiming to be Christian would be those I would choose, by the way.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I was brought up as a Christian, and I knew little about biology or evolution; my main scientific interest has always been astronomy. When I fell in with a group of young-Earth creationists, whose ideas of biology and geology flatly contradicted my own, I decided to improve my knowledge by reading books about evolution by scientists, and some creationist books, particularly Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris.

I didn't know much about biology, myself, as the science I have studied was mainly applied physics, for courses like Civil Engineering and Computer Science.

While I have heard of mutations, and such from here and there, I didn't know it had to do with Evolution. I didn't know what Evolution is, before 2003.

2003 was time, when I first joined my first forum (forum for computer programmers, but they have sections to speak of non-computer things), when I first heard the arguments between biologists and creationists.

I already know Genesis Creation, but I have never heard of Creationism, or people calling themselves creationists.

So what I didn't know, I did a personal reading & researches on Evolution, so I borrowed my cousin's old biology textbook.

The textbook don't make me expert, but it wasn't about being professional expert, it was just about general understanding of what Natural Selection, Mutations and other mechanisms are.

While the 1990s biology textbook was perhaps out of date, at least I now understand it better than I did, and since then I have learned more.

But Evolution isn't the only science that interested me, as the last 20 years, I started learning more about astronomy, cosmology, relativity, quantum mechanism, just about any science that catch my interests.
 

Astrophile

Active Member
Aside from the fact that I agree with the unfolding of events (although not as some would make it) in the Genesis account as well as explanations that make sense to me, I have seriously come to question the statements claimed by scientists in many respects. Not all religions claiming to be Christian would be those I would choose, by the way.
You still haven't explained how you went from being an atheist (and implicitly a disbeliever in the Bible) and a person who accepted evolution to being a Biblical fundamentalist who agrees with the unfolding of events in the Genesis account. It certainly wasn't because the Bible explains the observed facts of biology (e.g. anatomy, biochemistry, genetic and biogeography) better than the theory of evolution does.

You can't seriously question scientific statements without understanding them. The fact that you keep saying, 'gorillas remain gorillas' as if that disproved evolution shows that you do not understand evolution and therefore cannot seriously question scientific statements about it.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I wonder what makes you feel or believe there is a universal spirit? Based on...?

This was covered in my old signature statement, which was this: "Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call GOD and pretty much just leave it at that." For better or worse, this is the approach that Spinoza and Einstein took.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You still haven't explained how you went from being an atheist (and implicitly a disbeliever in the Bible) and a person who accepted evolution to being a Biblical fundamentalist who agrees with the unfolding of events in the Genesis account. It certainly wasn't because the Bible explains the observed facts of biology (e.g. anatomy, biochemistry, genetic and biogeography) better than the theory of evolution does.

You can't seriously question scientific statements without understanding them. The fact that you keep saying, 'gorillas remain gorillas' as if that disproved evolution shows that you do not understand evolution and therefore cannot seriously question scientific statements about
For one thing, I did not have any explanation of the Bible until I accepted a Bible study. It was a struggle to get me to that point. I wouldn't say I disbelieved in the Bible before that, I just did not understand it and my birth religion (Judaism) did not explain it to me although they celebrated certain holidays and had certain customs. But in general we did not read the Torah and subsequent writings held to be scripture prior to the appearance of Jesus. (P.S. I did not become an atheist until I went to college and saw all the different religions, all in contrast to the other, as I saw it. So I figured God must not exist since it didn't make sense to me.)
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This was covered in my old signature statement, which was this: "Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call GOD and pretty much just leave it at that." For better or worse, this is the approach that Spinoza and Einstein took.
And it's not the usual God-concept. God is usually considered a conscious, intentional personage, not a constellation of impersonal laws and constants. One does not worship universal gravitation or the inverse square law.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
This was covered in my old signature statement, which was this: "Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call GOD and pretty much just leave it at that." For better or worse, this is the approach that Spinoza and Einstein took.
All right that is apparently true for you that you reason along the lines of Spinoza and/or Einstein. Although both Spinoza and Einstein were born Jews and educated in that milieu. At different time periods, of course. And thank you for offering your take on this. And of course this is a thread regarding evolution and creation...so again, while you personally do not see "God" as a Trinity or perhaps as the Pope and church dogma see these things, my question relates to the concept of Mary's considered perpetual virginity as related by the Catholic church...would you say as a reasoning individual this might be in contrast to the theory of evolution? I'm guessing you believe the perpetual virginity of Mary is mythical as well, even though I don't think the Catholic Church and the Pope considers that mythical.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
And it's not the usual God-concept. God is usually considered a conscious, intentional personage, not a constellation of impersonal laws and constants. One does not worship universal gravitation or the inverse square law.
No, but one is generally bound to the earth because of the gravitational force. According to the laws of nature, it's hard to escape. Even birds can only go up as far as the law of nature allows. Can't see gravity, but we figure it's there. Somehow.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
And it's not the usual God-concept. God is usually considered a conscious, intentional personage, not a constellation of impersonal laws and constants. One does not worship universal gravitation or the inverse square law.
Ya, exactly. When I "pray", it's largely a form of meditation.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Ya, exactly. When I "pray", it's largely a form of meditation.
Long ago, when I was reading everything on the MBTI that I could get my hands on, I ran across a book "Prayer and Temperament: Different Prayer Forms for Different Personality Types" by Chester P. Michael and Marie C. Norrisey. I was surprised to find that there were forms of prayers that were unlike what I was used to. There are all sorts of ways people connect with the Divine.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Long ago, when I was reading everything on the MBTI that I could get my hands on, I ran across a book "Prayer and Temperament: Different Prayer Forms for Different Personality Types" by Chester P. Michael and Marie C. Norrisey. I was surprised to find that there were forms of prayers that were unlike what I was used to. There are all sorts of ways people connect with the Divine.

Interesting, and I'm not familiar with that book.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Nope.

Assuming evolution is true, you can see evolution as a mean used by a creator to create life's complexity, while evolution does not need that, since it stands on its own feet. So to speak. A creator might need evolution, while evolution does not necessarily need a creator.

IOW: Evolution, assuming it true, is necessary but not sufficient for creation. Therefore the two things are not logically equivalent.

Ciao

- viole
The Theory of Evolution begins at the first replicators. However, there is no direct or fossil evidence for this. Dinosaurs are one thing. This starting point is a creation by man, based on genetic centric thinking, which may not be the best assumption. The DNA is the hard drive and not the processor.

If you started with replicators, for the sake of argument, the question becomes, where does all the needed materials and logistics to replicate come from, so they can replicate? A replicator by itself does not replicate. It needs logistical support; raw materials and enzyme complexes. In the lab, humans can provide this. But where did this support come from, before life and only naked replicators?

The replicators theory has the first replicators all set up for success, which make no sense, unless the protein had previously reach a level of sophistication to provide the logistics.

For the created replicator theory to work, we will need essentially a basic cell, with all the logistics to perform all the needed process steps. That is one recipe for success. When modern DNA is duplicated, and is packed into condensed chromosomes, the DNA is off line. The rest of the cell does the work. It makes more sense that proteins and enzymes need to evolve, even before replicators, or the replicator will not be able to do anything; too many bottlenecks. They would need to wait and would break down waiting.

It makes more sense for the protein to evolve first, so we have a way to provide the key logistics to push the replicators over the top. Protein are simply polymers of amino acids, which is simple and straight forward. RNA and RNA polymerization is more complex; multi-group monomers; phosphate, sugar and nucleic acids, than the simple protein monomers. Protein has an edge with amino acid easy to make with simple materials. The Miller experiments were able to make more amino acids types than natures uses. It can be done in both oxidizing and reduced environments.

The wild card is water. Protein create surface tension in water, so water will process these raw protein, the same way; minimizing the surface tension in the water. This is a good way for water to grade protein by residual surface tension. This then will encourage higher and lower tension packed protein, to come together to lower the composite surface tension. This grading and combining is not random but has sweet spots. While water packing protein, lowers entropy and adds an entropic potential; catalytic. Water is a major processor, getting protein ready, so they can also process.

One problem with protein polymerization is water is a product of amino acid polymerization. When done in water, protein tends to back add water and reverse the protein. However, when water packs protein, this offers a way to shield the oily core from the water reversal. I can see packed protein reversing, but only so far; become smaller oily membrane protein.

The Miller experiments also produce resinous solids, too complex to analyze in the 1950's. This suggests the precursors of what we call fossil fuels, may have been around before life, and was part of the abiogenesis mixture; oils and membrane. Polymerizing amino acids in oil has the advantage of making water reversal harder, and the water produced will separate out of the oil and sink.
 
Top