Why " evolution vs creationism"

[Subduction Zone]

To tell you the truth I really don't know. I guess we could set up a poll. But even that would depend on the question. Are man, monkeys and fish related because they were all created by God? I imagine the response would show a high amount of Christians answering yes. Or could God have used similar DNA in all life forms. I would assume again a lot would answer yes to the possibility.

But a couple of questions for you. Do you feel all life on earth here evolved from one organism? Couldn't more than one organism started life off here on earth with different DNA, making the plants, mammals, fishes, and other life forms?

Many, if not most Christians do accept the theory of evolution worldwide. Creationism is largely a U.S. belief, though there are some followers of it almost everywhere.

I would not conflate Christianity with creationism.

 

[blü 2]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"? This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment.

Are we talking about YECs? I know from non-trivial experience that the previous generation of YECs didn't believe anything to which the word 'evolution' was applied.

The present generation, roughly since Dover 2005, accept descent with modification but deny that evolution can produce new genera, new classes, even over time. Indeed, YECs told me the world is less than 10,000 years old, so what's with long ages anyway?

Is that your position? Are you YEC or OEC?

But creationists DO accept these things. Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

Who is arguing for 'new traits/things that materialize out of nowhere'? Certainly not science. Whereas Genesis creation is a long string of materializations out of nowhere, starting with heaven and earth and 'Let there be light' and then on through the six days, no?

How does God do that, by the way? By what method did [he] make the heavens and the earth? Bring light into being? Plants and fruiting trees (especially since there was no sun at that time)? Flying things? Swimming things? Land critters?

What are the techniques involved?

 

[Misunderstood]

I would not conflate Christianity with creationism.

You are right, and I really do not know why I did that. I was not discussing Christians but Creationists. Every place I used Christian it should have been Creationist. Thanks for the catch, my bad.

Many, if not most Christians do accept the theory of evolution worldwide. Creationism is largely a U.S. belief, though there are some followers of it almost everywhere.

For the most part that is what I am trying to say. Like you said "Many, if not most Christians do accept the theory of evolution worldwide" (I would even add creationists). It is just some parts they take issue with. The issue is with how life began. So I do not know why the argument is even called 'evolution vs creation'; a creationist can be both to a degree, and I feel most are.

 

[Altfish]

To tell you the truth I really don't know. I guess we could set up a poll. But even that would depend on the question. Are man, monkeys and fish related because they were all created by God? I imagine the response would show a high amount of Christians answering yes. Or could God have used similar DNA in all life forms. I would assume again a lot would answer yes to the possibility.

But a couple of questions for you. Do you feel all life on earth here evolved from one organism? Couldn't more than one organism started life off here on earth with different DNA, making the plants, mammals, fishes, and other life forms?

I can understand people who believe that evolution was a process started by a deity; I don't agree with them but can see how it perhaps links the overwhelming evidence for evolution with their faith.
Do you feel all life on earth here evolved from one organism?
I don't 'feel' anything to do with evolution. The evidence is overwhelming that we (and all living things) have evolved from very simple singular cell. This may have happened in more than one location at more than one time. I don't know if I am honest.
Couldn't more than one organism started life off here on earth with different DNA, making the plants, mammals, fishes, and other life forms?
But the 'tree of life' indicates that all life forms lead back to one common source, not multiple sources.

 

[exchemist]

To tell you the truth I really don't know. I guess we could set up a poll. But even that would depend on the question. Are man, monkeys and fish related because they were all created by God? I imagine the response would show a high amount of Christians answering yes. Or could God have used similar DNA in all life forms. I would assume again a lot would answer yes to the possibility.

But a couple of questions for you. Do you feel all life on earth here evolved from one organism? Couldn't more than one organism started life off here on earth with different DNA, making the plants, mammals, fishes, and other life forms?

This strikes me as an interesting question. From what I understand, the prevailing view is probably all have arisen from one population of pre-biotic systems, but nobody can really say for sure. What does seem certain is that there is only one surviving biochemistry system. For instance all life uses the ADP<->ATP as the energy transfer agents in cellular processes, plus the same suite of amino acids and sugars.

DNA would most likely have not been present at the outset. The evidence suggest RNA is more ancient. All DNA replication still proceeds via RNA as an intermediate step, which makes it look as if DNA came along later as an extra refinement. And perhaps even RNA may have been preceded by some simpler replication template.

This will take a very long time to elucidate and until it is, there will continue, quite rightly, to be rival hypotheses. Abiogenesis is possibly the most interesting subject in modern science. I am only sorry that I will not live to see most of the puzzles resolved.

 

[Jumi]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"? This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment. But creationists DO accept these things. Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

A lot of creationists believe things materialize out of nowhere, by God. Whereas I don't know anyone who believes in evolution who believes traits and things appear out of nowhere.

 

[Misunderstood]

I can understand people who believe that evolution was a process started by a deity; I don't agree with them but can see how it perhaps links the overwhelming evidence for evolution with their faith.
Do you feel all life on earth here evolved from one organism?
I don't 'feel' anything to do with evolution. The evidence is overwhelming that we (and all living things) have evolved from very simple singular cell. This may have happened in more than one location at more than one time. I don't know if I am honest.
Couldn't more than one organism started life off here on earth with different DNA, making the plants, mammals, fishes, and other life forms?
But the 'tree of life' indicates that all life forms lead back to one common source, not multiple sources.

Thanks for your honesty, I feel there is a lot we don't know. There are so many questions that I would like to know the answers to, but I feel I will not find out at least in this life anyway. I do want to expand a little on were I am going with this but am getting tired, maybe I will finish tomorrow.

Thanks so much for being civil and at least listening to what I said. I don't expect you to agree with me, but it is nice to have a good discussion on things.

 

[Misunderstood]

This strikes me as an interesting question. From what I understand, the prevailing view is probably all have arisen from one population of pre-biotic systems, but nobody can really say for sure. What does seem certain is that there is only one surviving biochemistry system. For instance all life uses the ADP<->ATP as the energy transfer agents in cellular processes, plus the same suite of amino acids and sugars.

DNA would most likely have not been present at the outset. The evidence suggest RNA is more ancient. All DNA replication still proceeds via RNA as an intermediate step, which makes it look as if DNA came along later as an extra refinement. And perhaps even RNA may have been preceded by some simpler replication template.

This will take a very long time to elucidate and until it is, there will continue, quite rightly, to be rival hypotheses. Abiogenesis is possibly the most interesting subject in modern science. I am only sorry that I will not live to see most of the puzzles resolved.

Thanks for that compliment on the questions. Yes, I Know it is felt RNA was before DNA and there were probably even some processes before that. I was just trying to get to point where we have a single cell organism that we would recognize as life today. Did all life come from that one, or did life branch out from numerous organisms.

 

[Audie]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"? This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment. But creationists DO accept these things. Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

WHY would a creationist, or anyone else, feel it
is reasonable to attack something they know nothing
about?

 

[exchemist]

Thanks for that compliment on the questions. Yes, I Know it is felt RNA was before DNA and there were probably even some processes before that. I was just trying to get to point where we have a single cell organism that we would recognize as life today. Did all life come from that one, or did life branch out from numerous organisms.

It can only be a speculation, but by analogy with how life develops today one might imagine there were several variant but related pre-biotic biochemical systems, of which perhaps a small handful started to replicate but most of which died out pretty quickly or were overwhelmed by the success of the best one.

The most one can say from the evidence of the tree of life, as we model it today, is that there is nothing inconsistent with a single original ancestor population of organisms.

 

[Audie]

Thanks for that compliment on the questions. Yes, I Know it is felt RNA was before DNA and there were probably even some processes before that. I was just trying to get to point where we have a single cell organism that we would recognize as life today. Did all life come from that one, or did life branch out from numerous organisms.

It is hard to say where is the line between life and non
life. At least, nobody has figured it out yet.
The earliest self replication of organic molecules was
not cellular, though.

The points at which mammals, fishes etc separated
into their various lines was long long after there
were many types of multicellular organisms.

You can of course examine an evolutionary chart
for this info, based on the fossil record.

 

[Stevicus]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"? This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment. But creationists DO accept these things. Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

It doesn't have to be that way. As far as I can tell, it's the creationists who raise a big fuss over the teaching of evolution in schools. There's no reason for it. Even if one believes that some sort of "god" created the Earth, then I see nothing wrong with science making observations about it and teaching what they've learned to others.

I don't see creationists making a fuss over the weather report. Meteorologists make observations of the weather, but I don't see creationists saying that it's denying the possibility that God creates the weather.

Or even geographers mapping the shape of the continents. Whether or not God may have shaped them that way is beside the point, but they're just making observations of what they look like.

What is it about evolutionary biology which bothers and offends them so much? That's what I could never understand.

 

[Audie]

It doesn't have to be that way. As far as I can tell, it's the creationists who raise a big fuss over the teaching of evolution in schools. There's no reason for it. Even if one believes that some sort of "god" created the Earth, then I see nothing wrong with science making observations about it and teaching what they've learned to others.

I don't see creationists making a fuss over the weather report. Meteorologists make observations of the weather, but I don't see creationists saying that it's denying the possibility that God creates the weather.

Or even geographers mapping the shape of the continents. Whether or not God may have shaped them that way is beside the point, but they're just making observations of what they look like.

What is it about evolutionary biology which bothers and offends them so much? That's what I could never understand.

The bible does not say that god throws lightning bolts
with his bare hands. If it did, the meteorologists might
have some problems with the thumpers.

The bible does say that god poofed all living things
into existence in a matter of a few days. And that
the reproduce after their kind. All of this a few thousand
years ago.

Geology and ToE say that the bible is false, and that
Jesus was a liar for saying it is true.

You sure you dont understand that?

 

[Stevicus]

The bible does not say that god throws lightning bolts
with his bare hands. If it did, the meteorologists might
have some problems with the thumpers.

Mark 4:36-41


36 Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were also other boats with him. 37 A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped.38 Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”

39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!”Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

40 He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”

41 They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!”

 

[leroy]

Misleading.
Creationists don't believe small changes can accumulate. They don't believe small changes over time can create new species.
And "evolutionists" do not believe that new things materialize out of nowhere.

The difference is: one side believes in familiar, natural, observable, testable processes.
The other side believes in magic.

I am not aware of any creationists who deny speciation.

The difference is that evolutionists believe that changes are limitless, while creationists believe that there are limits.

If you what to extend this, it could be said that Darwinists (or neo Darwinists) believe that the process of random mutation and natural selection where responsible for most of the diversity of life, while creationists claim that only small bits of variation can be accounted by this mechanism. (not all evolutionists are Darwinists)

Sadly debates on this topic are typically based on semantic games, usually none of the sides present positive evidence for their case.

 

[Audie]

Mark 4: 36-41:


36 Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were also other boats with him. 37 A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped.38 Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”

39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!”Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

40 He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”

41 They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!”

Not quite the same but...

 

[Audie]

I am not aware of any creationists who deny speciation.

The difference is that evolutionists believe that changes are limitless, while creationists believe that there are limits.

If you what to extend this, it could be said that Darwinists (or neo Darwinists) believe that the process of random mutation and natural selection where responsible for most of the diversity of life, while creationists claim that only small bits of variation can be accounted by this mechanism. (not all evolutionists are Darwinists)

Sadly debates on this topic are typically based on semantic games, usually none of the sides present positive evidence for their case.

Scientists (not "darwinists" or "evolutonists")
do NOT think evolution is "limitless".

As for creationist belief in limits, we see a wide range
of notions as to where the limits might be, but-one
things we do NOT see is the faintest hint of any sort of
mechanism that says "so far, but no further".

So the creationist belief is faith based, unevidenced.

(not all evolutionists are Darwinists)

That is so, in fact, I dont think there has been one
anywhere since maybe about 1880.

Sadly debates on this topic are typically based on semantic games

Refraineth thou, then. from the game of introducing
invidious terms.

In the event, what is actually sad, from my pov, is
that the creationists invariably argue biblical
ideology, and have no competence to discuss maters
of science.

It is sad for a couple of reasons. Sad to see people debase
themselves, trying to uphold their faith with illogic
and ignorance, sad also, in that any field of knowledge
or research can always use people who raise reasoned
objections, and look for real errors.

The Challenger explosion, and the Hubble telescope
out-of-focus lens fiasco were times when a bit more
critical examination would have really paid off.

We are unaware of any useful contribution, ever,
by any creationist, to any aspect of science.

Please let us know if you are aware of any.

 

[leroy]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"? This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment. But creationists DO accept these things. Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

You have a point, evolution and creationism are umbrella terms with many different definitions, both sides should clarify their position and provide evidence for their view.

For example I personally

Accept the fact that organisms change and adapt

Accept the idea that we share a common assertor with other organisms, but I think hat the idea is controversial and there is room for reasonable doubt

Reject the idea of natural selection and random mutations being the main cause of the diversity of life.

Accept that the universe is billions of years old,

Reject natural biogenesis

Accept the big bang

Etc.

Should I label myself as an evolutionist or as a creationist?

 

[leroy]

Scientists (not "darwinists" or "evolutonists")
do NOT think evolution is "limitless".

As for creationist belief in limits, we see a wide range
of notions as to where the limits might be, but-one
things we do NOT see is the faintest hint of any sort of
mechanism that says "so far, but no further".

So the creationist belief is faith based, unevidenced.

(not all evolutionists are Darwinists)

That is so, in fact, I dont think there has been one
anywhere since maybe about 1880.

Sadly debates on this topic are typically based on semantic games

Refraineth thou, then from the game of introducing
invidious terms.

In the event, what is actually sad, from my pov, is
that the creationists invariably argue biblical
ideology, and have no competence to discuss maters
of science.

you confirmed my point

Sadly debates on this topic are typically based on semantic games

Not to mention that creationists do provide examples of what they claim are “absolute barriers” that prevent any “bigger” change, Irreducibly complexity, genetic entropy, statistical improbabilities Haldane's dilemma etc. would be examples of such barriers.

You might argue that creationists are wrong and that such barriers do not exist, but YEC do provide testable and verifiable evidence, that may be proven to be ether correct or wrong.

 

[exchemist]

Scientists (not "darwinists" or "evolutonists")
do NOT think evolution is "limitless".

As for creationist belief in limits, we see a wide range
of notions as to where the limits might be, but-one
things we do NOT see is the faintest hint of any sort of
mechanism that says "so far, but no further".

So the creationist belief is faith based, unevidenced.

(not all evolutionists are Darwinists)

That is so, in fact, I dont think there has been one
anywhere since maybe about 1880.

Sadly debates on this topic are typically based on semantic games

Refraineth thou, then. from the game of introducing
invidious terms.

In the event, what is actually sad, from my pov, is
that the creationists invariably argue biblical
ideology, and have no competence to discuss maters
of science.

It is sad for a couple of reasons. Sad to see people debase
themselves, trying to uphold their faith with illogic
and ignorance, sad also, in that any field of knowledge
or research can always use people who raise reasoned
objections, and look for real errors.

The Challenger explosion, and the Hubble telescope
out-of-focus lens fiasco were times when a bit more
critical examination would have really paid off.

We are unaware of any useful contribution, ever,
by any creationist, to any aspect of science.

Please let us know if you are aware of any.

Surely it should be "refrainest thou", shouldn't it?