- Luke Hobbs
- Brisbane
- Australia
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Just curious, but why do "creationism" and "evolution" have to be different? Could it not just be God's will to have us evolve?
Everything needs a process, you can't just turn the Moon into a rubber duck at the snap of a finger. So why is it so bad for religious bodies, especially the American Christian Club, to look at evolution? Children are being taught the "Loch Ness Monster is real and thus disproves evolution" doesn't seem logical at all. Just because one cake takes 10 minutes to bake doesn't mean all cakes are that quick...
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Peter Law 30+
The reason creationists don't accept evolution is because they don't accept the 'evidence' for it. Darwin showed with his finches how creatures adapt to their environment through natural selection. Sometimes a long beak was an advantage, sometimes a short one. Same with the peppered moths, the exposed ones got eaten. We now know that each creature has a bank of different possibilities built into their genetics to help them adapt.
Darwin however extrapolated this ability & reasoned; quite logically; that given time these changes could eventually give rise to a completely different creature. Also, going backwards, that the same mechanisms could explain the rise of very simple organisms into those of today. It is this 'macro' evolution that gets stuck in the creationist craw. There is little or no empirical evidence for it. All we have is the opinions of scientists. Within these opinions we have the whole gambit from those who believe it as a fact, to those who don't believe it at all.
Many Christians find the biblical scenario more at one with the material facts than the idea that we all somehow emerged by chance through some, as yet unknown, mechanical process.
The Loch Ness Monster has little to do with anything. It is assumed that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. A similar assumption was made for the Coelacanth until it turned up alive &.well in fishing nets. There are hundreds of examples of creatures found in deep rock which are still alive today, why not dinosaurs? There are many credible dragon legends, & many accurate depictions, & models of known dinosaurs drawn by people who had no other way of knowing about them unless they had lived with them.
Creationists just ask awkward questions, that's all.
:-)
John Dunbar 10+
Peter what can you do to circumnavigate the evidence shown here. This certainly disputes the claim of the earths creation 6,000 years ago.
Peter Law 30+
For every website there is an equal & opposite website.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n2/cavemen-different
:-)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Not one modern mammal found with dinosaur fossils - because they hadn't evolved yet. If they ever find a rabbit with a T-Rex then we have a problem.
If there were T-Rex around before the flood, you'd think they would have been terrorising human populations and mentioned in the bible.
Not one cave painting dated back 30,000 years showing a dinosaur.
Not one statue or figurine reasonably resembling any dinosaur species.
What fantasy has been created to explain the disappearance of the marine dinosaurs?
Not one ounce of evidence that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans and plenty that they didn't. Did unicorns miss out on the ark, centaurs, griffin, hydra, chimera, gargoyles?
You pick one mythical creature that is reptilian looking and this is your argument that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans. Its not a good argument.
Some sharks also have remained similar looking to their ancestors, some less so. Same with cockroaches etc. Single cell lifeforms still exist. This is entirely consistent with evolution.
The mechanism for evolution via natural selection is very well understood. There are questions still about the origin of life. To just jump to all kinds created, with flawed bodies (crappy eyesight etc), simply because evolution is relatively slow compared to when the stories in the bible were first told is a weak argument.
Many believe the bible stories. Pity they don't fit the evidence. Pity they twist some observations like dinosaur fossils into something that fits their beliefs as per the fanciful dragon story. Pity they misrepresent observations like species that resemble their ancient ancestors and reject much.
Re: "We now know that each creature has a bank of different possibilities built into their genetics to help them adapt." this is not my understanding of what science shows.
Stewart Gault 30+
Megalodon= sharks
Big crocs= little crocs
Most small dinosaurs= modern day birds
I felt like crying when I went on answering genesis. Especially on the flood and ark page.
It's like it's straight from the mouth of Kent Hovind. Just realised how this answers the question as to why creationism and evolution can get along together. Like I said earlier get a word for evolution with a guiding hand and give the believers that, but as to creationism, it's just plain stupid, and I don't normally play people's ideas down but this really really deserves it.
1)It provides no evidence other than a bronze age book
2)Has no evidence that the writer of the book didn't just make it all up
3)Refutes the evidence evolution has merely because the bible says differently.
Like if you're going to be such a literalist on this book why aren't you stoning homosexuals? Why do you have a job? Sure Jesus said leave your jobs follow me, think not for the morrow, know that your God will provide. And if you dare say you don't stone gays because we've "moved on" why can't you move on from believing in a young earth with no evidence!
Peter Law 30+
Hopefully now you get a feel for why creation & evolution can't live together.
Thanks Guys
:-)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Some of it is interpreting evidence differently or just ignoring it like the fossil record, or dating techniques.
I see the tree of life, the evolutionary threads that connect apes, then mammals, then vertebrae etc, every with DNA. Somehow creationists see this as design efficiency.
I see crappy eyes, a useless appendix, a nerve that goes from the brain under the heart and back from our marine days before we had necks, and creationists see gods perfect creations tainted by sin etc.
I see a transition of hominid ancestors. Creationists see extinct ape, ape, ape, ape - man.
I see we share so much with apes and animals not just in biology, but in our instincts, drives, functionality, group dynamics. We sure look like apes and interact like big brained apes. Even the sex act and aggression is so animal.
I see light from galaxies that has taken billions of year to reach us, effectively looking back in time, and creationists have some explanation for this.
Some very creative people have come up with the creationist apologetics. And people want to believe and fit things with this belief. And a powerful deity could be used to explain nearly everything even a 6000 year old planet looking 4 billion years old.
And I guess they criticise scientists for misinterpreting the data or some deliberate conspiracy. And fitting the evidence to what we want to believe.
But I honestly believe an objective look at the evidence supports an evolutionary and naturalistic old universe.