Two questions for Creationists

[dyanaprajna2011]

I have two questions for creationists. Over the course of debating the evolution vs. creationism idea here at RF, two things have come up, that I find confusing, so maybe some creationists can help me out in trying to understand them.

1. Creationists often conflate evolution with abiogenesis. These are two completely different scientific concepts. There's some relation, sure, but not as much as creationists tend to give it. Without life beginning, life couldn't have evolved, and that's the extent of their relation in science. However, creationists tend to believe that one is impossible without the other, or rather, that evolution is impossible without abiogenesis. They believe that by refuting one, they are refuting both. This seems odd to me, as there are millions, possibly over a billion people, of the Abrahamic faiths, who believe that God started life miraculously, and then set evolution in motion. Refuting one does not refute both.

2. Creationists often tend to think that by refuting evolution automatically proves god's existence. There are several problems with this. The first is that, even if evolution didn't happen, this doesn't automatically mean creationism did. As a matter of fact, geology tends to discount creationism, particularly young earth creationism. Second, even though evolution happened, this is no proof or evidence that god does not exist. The fact or fiction of evolution has nothing to do in the debate on the existence of god. There is no relation of one to another. Yet creationists seem to make that correlation. Refuting evolution does not automatically mean that creationism is true or that god exists.

So, these are two things I've noticed, and I'm confused by the reasoning behind them. Maybe some of our creationist friends here can help clear these up.

 

[johnhanks]

I have two questions for creations. Over the course of debating the evolution vs. creationism idea here at RF, two things have come up, that I find confusing, so maybe some creationists can help me out in trying to understand them.

1. Creationists often conflate evolution with abiogenesis. These are two completely different scientific concepts. There's some relation, sure, but not as much as creationists tend to give it. Without life beginning, life couldn't have evolved, and that's the extent of their relation in science. However, creationists tend to believe that one is impossible without the other, or rather, that evolution is impossible without abiogenesis. They believe that by refuting one, they are refuting both. This seems odd to me, as there are millions, possibly over a billion people, of the Abrahamic faiths, who believe that God started life miraculously, and then set evolution in motion. Refuting one does not refute both.

2. Creationists often tend to think that by refuting evolution automatically proves god's existence. There are several problems with this. The first is that, even if evolution didn't happen, this doesn't automatically mean creationism did. As a matter of fact, geology tends to discount creationism, particularly young earth creationism. Second, even though evolution happened, this is no proof or evidence that god does not exist. The fact or fiction of evolution has nothing to do in the debate on the existence of god. There is no relation of one to another. Yet creationists seem to make that correlation. Refuting evolution does not automatically mean that creationism is true or that god exists.

So, these are two things I've noticed, and I'm confused by the reasoning behind them. Maybe some of our creationist friends here can help clear these up.

Forgive me, but I'm going to raise a pedantic quibble here. Please don't flatter our resident creationists by giving them the impression that they or anyone else have 'refuted' evolution. An idea has been refuted only when it has been shown conclusively to be wrong. What creationists do is dispute evolution: no-one has ever refuted it.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Forgive me, but I'm going to raise a pedantic quibble here. Please don't flatter our resident creationists by giving them the impression that they or anyone else have 'refuted' evolution. An idea has been refuted only when it has been shown conclusively to be wrong. What creationists do is dispute evolution: no-one has ever refuted it.

What I meant by what I said was more along the lines that they attempt to refute evolution, not that they had done so. But that is a good point, I see how it could be misunderstood.

 

[miss interpret]

funny I always thought that by science proving evolution, evolutionists some how thought that disproves the existence of God but what the hey potato, potato.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

funny I always thought that by science proving evolution, evolutionists some how thought that disproves the existence of God but what the hey potato, potato.

Not at all. Evolution and the debate of god's existence are two completely separate issues. I don't know of anyone who would think that evolution would disprove god's existence. The fact that there are many who believe in theistic evolution shows that the two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Draka]

funny I always thought that by science proving evolution, evolutionists some how thought that disproves the existence of God but what the hey potato, potato.

I don't see that logically claimed anywhere. All the ToE proves is that we evolved. It doesn't say anything about a deity. The only thing that can be logically said is that since we know we evolved we know that particular creation stories are not literally true. That does not mean that they do not have allegorical or metaphorical meaning or that any concept of deity does not exist. Besides, one cannot unprove something. One cannot prove something does not exist. That isn't logically possible.

 

[Man of Faith]

On the subject of abiogenesis, the reason that it is brought up is because you can’t have evolution without it. So if it isn’t there, then evolution couldn’t have happened. If life didn’t come about from non-life naturally then why even debate evolution in the first place? That’s like someone saying:
Person A: “I took a train from the United States to Japan”
Person B: “There isn’t a train that goes from the United States to Japan”
Person A: “That is a different subject than I took a train from the United States to Japan”

If evolution is refuted then it goes a long way to proving the existence of a creator, of course evolutionists will just extend the evolution to another planet that we aren’t aware of and say something like “aliens did it and they evolved naturally from some other planet”.

 

[Gharib]

2. Creationists often tend to think that by refuting evolution automatically proves god's existence. There are several problems with this. The first is that, even if evolution didn't happen, this doesn't automatically mean creationism did. As a matter of fact, geology tends to discount creationism, particularly young earth creationism. Second, even though evolution happened, this is no proof or evidence that god does not exist. The fact or fiction of evolution has nothing to do in the debate on the existence of god. There is no relation of one to another. Yet creationists seem to make that correlation. Refuting evolution does not automatically mean that creationism is true or that god exists.

So, these are two things I've noticed, and I'm confused by the reasoning behind them. Maybe some of our creationist friends here can help clear these up.

I will say something about this second point.

Those who believe in God to be real have their own kind of evidence for it, which is partly based on belief (I'm sure you understand what I mean).

We also believe that when he says he created us, not through evolution but rather fully (the case of Adam, our ancestor), we believe that to be true, and the reasoning he uses is reasonable to us.

Then there is evolution, it has a hidden agenda to prove that God doesn't exist, most faiths teach creationism and not evolution, so by that, whether directly or indirectly, evolution implies that this creator God doesn't exist.

So as a result since those who believe in God are convinced 100% of his existence, there is every chance that evolution could be wrong and/or that scientists who promote it are doing so for their lack of belief in God and find such a belief of things evolving and coming to life on their own as a substitute of God. And actually, belief in God is no different to their belief that life came about by chance, we believe someone who has always existed created it, they believe it came to exist on it's own without God in the picture.

I hope that is helpful and makes sense. I am a little tired and probably didn't make a very good response.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I will say something about this second point.

Those who believe in God to be real have their own kind of evidence for it, which is partly based on belief (I'm sure you understand what I mean).

We also believe that when he says he created us, not through evolution but rather fully (the case of Adam, our ancestor), we believe that to be true, and the reasoning he uses is reasonable to us.

Then there is evolution, it has a hidden agenda to prove that God doesn't exist, most faiths teach creationism and not evolution, so by that, whether directly or indirectly, evolution implies that this creator God doesn't exist.

So as a result since those who believe in God are convinced 100% of his existence, there is every chance that evolution could be wrong and/or that scientists who promote it are doing so for their lack of belief in God and find such a belief of things evolving and coming to life on their own as a substitute of God. And actually, belief in God is no different to their belief that life came about by chance, we believe someone who has always existed created it, they believe it came to exist on it's own without God in the picture.

I hope that is helpful and makes sense. I am a little tired and probably didn't make a very good response.

Neither biological evolution nor the Theory of Evolution have a "hidden agenda to prove that God doesn't exist". You only feel this way because some revealed revelation tells you that life was put here as is. You feel threatened that if that is not so, then it is an attack on your God.

Faith should be able to accept reality. As Galileo once said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.'

In my view, rejecting reality in order to build a base around faith is the same as using sand as foundation for your home.

 

[Gharib]

Neither biological evolution nor the Theory of Evolution have a "hidden agenda to prove that God doesn't exist". You only feel this way because some revealed revelation tells you that life was put here as is. You feel threatened that if that is not so, then it is an attack on your God.

Faith should be able to accept reality. As Galileo once said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.'

In my view, rejecting reality in order to build a base around faith is the same as using sand as foundation for your home.

But that's the thing, God is part of my reality while he is not part of the atheist evolutionist.

So to you, I am denying reality, but that's not true one bit.

Life having come about by chance on it's own is just as much based on belief as God being the creator of all that exists. With such technological advancement we are still un-able to create life or bring back to life something that is dead. When all this supposedly happened on it's own as a result of chance in wild conditions.

God makes more sense to me.

 

[tumbleweed41]

But that's the thing, God is part of my reality while he is not part of the atheist evolutionist.

Atheist evolutionist? Do you assume that everyone who accepts biological evolution is an atheist? I am not an atheist. Nor are the many theists on this very forum who accept biological evolution.

So to you, I am denying reality, but that's not true one bit.

You deny the facts of biological evolution. One might as well deny the facts of gravity and the structure of the atom. This is reality.

Life having come about by chance on it's own is just as much based on belief as God being the creator of all that exists. With such technological advancement we are still un-able to create life or bring back to life something that is dead. When all this supposedly happened on it's own as a result of chance in wild conditions.

This is exactly what I mean. In order to dismiss reality, you bring it down to the level of faith.

God makes more sense to me.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that God exists. I know my concept of God differs from yours so we will settle on the Abrahamic God in general.
The only argument here is how God created the diversity of life on earth.

All scientific evidence points to biological evolution. The only basis for creation of life, as is, is the writings of man. We can argue if that is the word of God and get nowhere. But we do know, assuming God exists, that God had a hand in life existing.
Where then should we look for how God created such diversity?
The writings of men who had no understanding of modern biology? Or should we look at God's creation? Using the science and reason that God gave us?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

On the subject of abiogenesis, the reason that it is brought up is because you can’t have evolution without it. So if it isn’t there, then evolution couldn’t have happened.

Not so. Evolution simply deals with how life diversifies. How that life got there in the first place is irrelevant to the process.

If life didn’t come about from non-life naturally then why even debate evolution in the first place?

Because, as has already been said, how life originated has no bearing on whether or not evolution actually occurred.

If evolution is refuted then it goes a long way to proving the existence of a creator

No, it won't. One idea being wrong does not automatically make another idea right.

If evolution were conclusively disproved tomorrow, so much the worse for evolution. However, without positive evidence to support it, creationism would still be dead in the water.

of course evolutionists will just extend the evolution to another planet that we aren’t aware of and say something like “aliens did it and they evolved naturally from some other planet”.

Doubtful. Especially considering that 'Directed Panspermia' is a concept regarding the origins of life, not life's diversity. Appealing to directed panspermia as an alternative to evolution would make no sense.

 

[wubs23]

I will say something about this second point.

Those who believe in God to be real have their own kind of evidence for it, which is partly based on belief (I'm sure you understand what I mean).

"Partly" based on belief? Okay..

Apart from the 'part' that is based on belief... what else is it based on?
I would say it is "fully" based on belief..

 

[rusra02]

I have two questions for creationists. Over the course of debating the evolution vs. creationism idea here at RF, two things have come up, that I find confusing, so maybe some creationists can help me out in trying to understand them.

1. Creationists often conflate evolution with abiogenesis. These are two completely different scientific concepts. There's some relation, sure, but not as much as creationists tend to give it. Without life beginning, life couldn't have evolved, and that's the extent of their relation in science. However, creationists tend to believe that one is impossible without the other, or rather, that evolution is impossible without abiogenesis. They believe that by refuting one, they are refuting both. This seems odd to me, as there are millions, possibly over a billion people, of the Abrahamic faiths, who believe that God started life miraculously, and then set evolution in motion. Refuting one does not refute both.

Evolutionists who claim life has the ability to evolve must prove that claim. Implicit in this claim is that life somehow started with the ability to evolve into other life forms. The beginning of life forms the foundation for the ToE. Since evolutionists cannot explain this foundation in any convincing way, they ignore the issue, sweeping the question under the scientific rug of "abiogenesis", a word meaning "The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter."
The fact that many who profess belief in some god also believe in evolution does not make the theory any more convincing. People tend to follow the crowd, and ToE proponents have been marketing their theory relentlessly for at least 150 years.

2. Creationists often tend to think that by refuting evolution automatically proves god's existence. There are several problems with this. The first is that, even if evolution didn't happen, this doesn't automatically mean creationism did. As a matter of fact, geology tends to discount creationism, particularly young earth creationism. Second, even though evolution happened, this is no proof or evidence that god does not exist. The fact or fiction of evolution has nothing to do in the debate on the existence of god. There is no relation of one to another. Yet creationists seem to make that correlation. Refuting evolution does not automatically mean that creationism is true or that god exists.

So, these are two things I've noticed, and I'm confused by the reasoning behind them. Maybe some of our creationist friends here can help clear these up.

While evolution may not address the issue of God's existence, it certainly is a repudiation of the Bible and true Christianity. So evolutionists who claim to be "Christian" are not following Christ's teachings.

​

​

I do agree that YECs are in error. Your contention is that people who believe in Creation think by refuting evolution they are proving God's existence. Evolutionists often tend to be atheists, so I think the theory does correlate to atheistic beliefs. Many atheists ascribe life as the product of "chance".
God's existence is proved by what He created. As the Bible states: "For [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship." (Romans 1:20) It is also proved by his historical dealings with mankind. (Exodus 9:16)

 

[FearGod]

Watch islam point of view regarding evolution by Abdur-Raheem green explaining
that evolution happen by god control and management and not arbitrary.

[youtube]g66o9Pkyq08[/youtube]
What does Islam say about the evolution theory? - Abdur-Raheem Green - YouTube

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Evolutionists who claim life has the ability to evolve must prove that claim.

I think this has been done satisfactorily. You would disagree.

Implicit in this claim is that life somehow started with the ability to evolve into other life forms.

Ok, that makes sense.

The beginning of life forms the foundation for the ToE. Since evolutionists cannot explain this foundation in any convincing way, they ignore the issue, sweeping the question under the scientific rug of "abiogenesis", a word meaning "The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter."

Which is why abiogenesis is a separate scientific concept than evolution. The only thing evolution is meant to explain is the diversification of species, that's all. It's not meant to address the topic of exactly how life began in the first place. Is there overlap? Sure, I'll give you that. But they're not the same field of study. That's the whole point of part of my OP.

The fact that many who profess belief in some god also believe in evolution does not make the theory any more convincing. People tend to follow the crowd, and ToE proponents have been marketing their theory relentlessly for at least 150 years.

And it's not meant to. What it's meant to show is the fallacy that creationists use to try to correlate the two, meaning that since science as yet has no satisfactory answer to the question of exactly how life started in the first place, doesn't mean that that automatically means that evolution couldn't or didn't happen. I think the reason, or one of the reasons at least, why creations conflate the two is that they believe that life had to exist in the first place, which is not the case.

While evolution may not address the issue of God's existence, it certainly is a repudiation of the Bible and true Christianity. So evolutionists who claim to be "Christian" are not following Christ's teachings.

Only in your version of Christianity. Many would disagree. But this is not a thread for polemical debate.

I do agree that YECs are in error. Your contention is that people who believe in Creation think by refuting evolution they are proving God's existence. Evolutionists often tend to be atheists, so I think the theory does correlate to atheistic beliefs.

While atheists do tend to accept evolution, it's not a completely atheistic teaching. Many religions, including a vast number of Christians, see no harm to their religion by accepting scientific findings. They understand that science and religion are two separate spheres, and that the Bible is a book of religion and spirituality, not a science textbook, nor is it meant to be. They believe what St. Augustine said about religion and science, that anyone who tries to make religious dogma about things science has shown to be incorrect are doing a great disservice to the faith. Also, the majority of religious people on the planet accept evolution. It's only a small minority of Christians and Muslims, and perhaps a handful of Jews, who don't accept it. It's not about religion versus atheism, it's about being able to accept reality and not letting blind faith and dogmatism rule out over what's actually there.

Many atheists ascribe life as the product of "chance".

This might just be splitting hairs, but chance is a wrong word to use, as it implies chaos and disorder. A better word would be probabilistic.

God's existence is proved by what He created. As the Bible states: "For [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship." (Romans 1:20) It is also proved by his historical dealings with mankind. (Exodus 9:16)

I've always heard that, but I've never had it explained to me exactly why that is. It's a great way for theists, and particularly creationists, to try to "prove" god's existence without actually having to offer up any evidence. So, I started a thread on this exact topic here. You should offer your insight to it. Because, after believing in the Christian god for 30 years, I failed to see how what's been made somehow proves his existence.

 

[shawn001]

Evolutionists who claim life has the ability to evolve must prove that claim. Implicit in this claim is that life somehow started with the ability to evolve into other life forms. The beginning of life forms the foundation for the ToE. Since evolutionists cannot explain this foundation in any convincing way, they ignore the issue, sweeping the question under the scientific rug of "abiogenesis", a word meaning "The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter."
The fact that many who profess belief in some god also believe in evolution does not make the theory any more convincing. People tend to follow the crowd, and ToE proponents have been marketing their theory relentlessly for at least 150 years.



While evolution may not address the issue of God's existence, it certainly is a repudiation of the Bible and true Christianity. So evolutionists who claim to be "Christian" are not following Christ's teachings.

I do agree that YECs are in error. Your contention is that people who believe in Creation think by refuting evolution they are proving God's existence. Evolutionists often tend to be atheists, so I think the theory does correlate to atheistic beliefs. Many atheists ascribe life as the product of "chance".
God's existence is proved by what He created. As the Bible states: "For [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship." (Romans 1:20) It is also proved by his historical dealings with mankind. (Exodus 9:16)

"Evolutionists who claim life has the ability to evolve must prove that claim."

Evolution is both a fact and a scientific theory.

"Evolutionists who claim life has the ability to evolve must prove that claim."

They have. You just keep refusing to accept it.

a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin

American academy of sciences position statement.

The Vatican has aceepted it, the Church of England has accepted it.


Was Darwin Wrong? - Naked Science - National Geographic Channel

For well over a century, critics have charged that Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species can't possibly explain the development of life on our planet. They counter with the belief in "Intelligent Design". This hour seeks to put science to the test to see how wrong, or right, Darwin was.

[youtube]sXOXdXcQY28[/youtube]
Was Darwin Wrong? - Naked Science - National Geographic Channel - YouTube

 

[shawn001]

Watch islam point of view regarding evolution by Abdur-Raheem green explaining
that evolution happen by god control and management and not arbitrary.

First this guy is a preacher and in no way a scientist.

Second

"The Life of Muhammad is a recent BBC documentary series which has been described as the first full account of Muhammad’s life to be displayed on Western television.


To assist them in the momentous task of analysing the life of such an important historical figure the BBC called upon the services of one "Abdur Raheem Green".
Abdur Raheem Green throughout his career as a preacher has launched attacks on many of the prized values of liberal society. He has lambasted the idea of sexual equality stating that society pressures our daughters to get degrees, to be doctors or engineers” describing this as “sick”.
Green also states that both homosexuality and adultery are “crimes” which should be dealt with “by a slow and painful death from stoning”. Most shockingly Green appears to sing the praises of violent jihad opining that “dying while fighting Jihad is one of the surest ways to paradise and Allah’s good pleasure”.

The Commentator - Is the BBC complicit in legitimising hatred?_

This guy is bad.

 

[shawn001]

Fossils of the extinct hominid known as Australopithecus sediba were accidentally discovered by the 9-year-old son of a scientist in the remains of a cave in South Africa in 2008, findings detailed by researchers last year. The fossils' mix of human and primitive traits found in the brains, hips, feet and hands make a strong case for it being the immediate ancestor to the human lineage, scientists report in the Sept. 9, 2011, issue of the journal Science.




Image Gallery: Our Closest Human Ancestor | Australopithecus Sediba & Human Evolution | Human Origins | LiveScience


This seems to be one of our closest ancestors

 

[wubs23]

Evolutionists who claim life has the ability to evolve must prove that claim. Implicit in this claim is that life somehow started with the ability to evolve into other life forms.

search wiki for 'liger'

A cross between two species.