Evolution vs Creation

[CNP]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

Maybe I should edit my post to say in science in school.

And cssd can't teach creation as fact. Actually pretty much everywhere in North American creation can't be taught as fact. Many court cases and forum arguments like this one have been had.

Can't teach creation as fact.

Ha ha on the backpeddle. There are hundreds if not thousands of Christian based schools in Canada. I assure you that Creation is not taught as fiction in any of them. I agree with separation of Church and State but courts in Canada won't be ruling on the Supremacy of God any time soon. I am loathe to what schools in Canada are permitted to teach/reveal to our children.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Why would seeds have to be collected? Birds and animals would persih in the flood but seeds could float around for months and then germinate and grow with no assisatance from man once the water receeded.

Good theory. Pull all the worlds seeds together. Then toss all the seeds into the salt water ocean.

Then try and germinate.

How many seeds do you thinks will just die.

How many terrestrial seeds do you think are water tolerant and even salt water tolerant?

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

What does it take to make life? Simply amino acids and energy.

Very simple isn't it?

If it were that simple science would have created at least one lifeform by now.
Yet despite our vast knowledge of our universe science has never created a single living thing from just amino acids and energy.

In fact, science has not been able to produce even a single living cell solely from amino acids and energy.

As I understand it, for a hypothesis to become scientific proof it must produce the results expected and it must be repeatable and achieve the same results each time.

So who exactly is believing things based solely on faith? Seems to me that both sides are.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

If it were that simple science would have created at least one lifeform by now.
Yet despite our vast knowledge of our universe science has never created a single living thing from just amino acids and energy.

In fact, science has not been able to produce even a single living cell solely from amino acids and energy.

Actually, they have created a new life form in a lab environment - just google it up. They aren't far off from creating life. How complex would it have to be for you?

Originally Posted by KegRiver

As I understand it, for a hypothesis to become scientific proof it must produce the results expected and it must be repeatable and achieve the same results each time.

So who exactly is believing things based solely on faith? Seems to me that both sides are.

Einstein's theory of relativity mathematically proved the existence of black holes. Many laughed at him - others challenged him but really, it couldn't be proven wrong. Well, now we have the Event Horizon telescope on the verge of discovering black holes - including one in the center of the milky way.

There was a time when people wondered if there were planets around other stars. Well, they came up with different ideas to find out. How?

Use ground telescopes and take series of pictures of stars over long periods of time. Guess what they found? These stars "wobble" just like our own sun. Why does it wobble? Due to the gravitational pull of the planets on the sun. Theory proven.

And finally had the technology to guarantee that yes indeed - there are planets that are capable of supporting life in the butter zone. Now we have telescopes able to take pictures of them.

NIST is actually doing teleportation of atoms using the theory of entanglement, something that was always in the realm of quantum mechanics. Something that Einstein argued about.

Wait for it my friend. It's all coming around.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Good theory. Pull all the worlds seeds together. Then toss all the seeds into the salt water ocean.

Then try and germinate.

How many seeds do you thinks will just die.

How many terrestrial seeds do you think are water tolerant and even salt water tolerant?

I don't know, how many do you think might survive and then evolve into new plants that were not water tolerant or salt tolerant?

And while we are at it, who says the flood was salt water?

Most floods are fresh water aren't they?

[ROA]

"I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible."

A quote from one of the (if not THE) smartest men alive today, Christopher Langan.



And another one that made me first laugh then think...

Reporter to Langan- Does god exist?

Langan- Yes

Reporter- How do you know?

Langan- You don't.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Actually, they have created a new life form in a lab environment - just google it up. They aren't far off from creating life. How complex would it have to be for you?

You don't see the contradiction?

Yes I googled it.

Adding synthetic DNA to an existing life form, even if it is E Coli, is not creating a new lifeform, it is altering an existing life form.

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

I don't know, how many do you think might survive and then evolve into new plants that were not water tolerant or salt tolerant?

And while we are at it, who says the flood was salt water?

Most floods are fresh water aren't they?

This was a special flood though. Even though our atmosphere doesn't have the capacity to hold the water needed to put the entire planet underwater it supposedly managed it. Who knows if it was fresh or not ... or unicorn tears.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the kangaroos managed to get to the Arc and back. Long way to hop on the return trip ... especially with no food considering everything dead.

Or porcupines 🤔 how would one get from here to Iraq and back?

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by fitzy

This was a special flood though. Even though our atmosphere doesn't have the capacity to hold the water needed to put the entire planet underwater it supposedly managed it. Who knows if it was fresh or not ... or unicorn tears.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the kangaroos managed to get to the Arc and back. Long way to hop on the return trip ... especially with no food considering everything dead.

Or porcupines 🤔 how would one get from here to Iraq and back?

Maybe the problem is not the story but the way we interpret the story.

Of course we interpret the story based on our understanding of our world.

Why couldn't it be that those who wrote that story, wrote it based on their understanding of the world around them at that time, not our understanding of the world today?

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

You don't see the contradiction?

Yes I googled it.

Adding synthetic DNA to an existing life form, even if it is E Coli, is not creating a new lifeform, it is altering an existing life form.

So, Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and thymine are the 4 building blocks that give life. They have used synthetic bases X and Y that don't belong in nature to create a new life form.

And you go meh.

What is your definition of life?


And I like how you ignore the rest

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by fitzy

This was a special flood though. Even though our atmosphere doesn't have the capacity to hold the water needed to put the entire planet underwater it supposedly managed it. Who knows if it was fresh or not ... or unicorn tears.

The atmosphere wouldn't be able to handle that much water. However, it could be the polar ice caps melting.

But the people in the bible would have no knowledge of all this.

[Buckhead]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Maybe the problem is not the story but the way we interpret the story.

Of course we interpret the story based on our understanding of our world.

Why couldn't it be that those who wrote that story, wrote it based on their understanding of the world around them at that time, not our understanding of the world today?

Exactly.

It is a story of the events through the eyes of the people that went through the experience at that time.

I don't recall anything about the entire planet and all it's land masses being covered by water.

[Buckhead]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

The atmosphere wouldn't be able to handle that much water. However, it could be the polar ice caps melting.

But the people in the bible would have no knowledge of all this.

It is theorized that the melting of the North American and European glacial cover raised the ocean levels by around 400 feet.

A pretty good flood if you ask me.

Considering a lot of people would be living along the coast lines.

One can still see the outlines of the ancient coastlines and river channels on Google Earth.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

I don't know, how many do you think might survive and then evolve into new plants that were not water tolerant or salt tolerant?

And while we are at it, who says the flood was salt water?

Most floods are fresh water aren't they?

So the tale says Noah had seven days to board all plants and animals. Then the Earth flooded. Boat ended up on top of a mountain.

Sounds like some potential sea water in the mix.

Toss all your garden seeds next year in salt water. Wait 150 days. Plant and let me know how you do.

[silverdoctor]

By some peoples' definition - fire can be considered a life form. It eats, it breathes, seems to have a mind of it's own, and seems to have survival traits. Yet, a flick of a lighter can create it.

Why would creatures be born and live in utter darkness deep underground where they will never see the sun? They don't have eyes, they don't need them - use them or lose them.

Who would have thought there would be life at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, yet it thrives.

Yellowstone and all it's hot geysers, there is life in these extreme environments. They are very simple life forms, single cell, very primitive but nonetheless, they are alive.

How about Stromatolites, oldest life on earth - still exists today. Horseshoe crab, horseshoe shrimp, Coelacanath, sturgeon, Nautilis etc. All alive today - and all part of the fossil record over millions of years.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

So, Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and thymine are the 4 building blocks that give life. They have used synthetic bases X and Y that don't belong in nature to create a new life form.

And you go meh.

What is your definition of life?


And I like how you ignore the rest

Some parts aren't worth responding to.

And you have your own unique way of avoiding the truth.

I see you conveniently ignored the contradiction in your own statement.

It's impossible to create life and not create a life form. For it to be life, it has to have the capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

That's not my definition. It's science's definition.

But the truth is science has not even done that. What they have done is creates something synthetic, inject it into an existing life form and then that life form, not science, replicated that synthetic DNA.

That's a long long way from creating life.

[6.5swedeforelk]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

...There was a time when people wondered if there were planets around other stars. Well, they came up with different ideas to find out. How?

Use ground telescopes and take series of pictures of stars over long periods of time. Guess what they found? These stars "wobble" just like our own sun. Why does it wobble?

Due to the gravitational pull of the planets on the sun. Theory proven...

The theory proven is that ONE cause of star wobble is the
gravitational pull of planets, no?



Silver, sorry about clipping your quote, but you tend to ramble

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Buckhead

It is theorized that the melting of the North American and European glacial cover raised the ocean levels by around 400 feet.

A pretty good flood if you ask me.

Considering a lot of people would be living along the coast lines.

One can still see the outlines of the ancient coastlines and river channels on Google Earth.

400 feet above sea level is not enough to deposit a boat on top of Mount Ararat after 150 days. Mount Little Ararat is 12,752 ft above sea level.

But it is a cool story.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by 6.5swedeforelk

The theory proven is that ONE cause of star wobble is the
gravitational pull of planets, no?

Isn't that what I said?

[alta270]

Originally Posted by fitzy

This was a special flood though. Even though our atmosphere doesn't have the capacity to hold the water needed to put the entire planet underwater it supposedly managed it. Who knows if it was fresh or not ... or unicorn tears.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the kangaroos managed to get to the Arc and back. Long way to hop on the return trip ... especially with no food considering everything dead.

Or porcupines 🤔 how would one get from here to Iraq and back?

I'm wondering where the remnants of all the eucalyptus trees are that were needed to feed the koalas.

Or how the heck the penguins got from the Antarctica to a desert.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

By some peoples' definition - fire can be considered a life form. It eats, it breathes, seems to have a mind of it's own, and seems to have survival traits. Yet, a flick of a lighter can create it.

Why would creatures be born and live in utter darkness deep underground where they will never see the sun? They don't have eyes, they don't need them - use them or lose them.

Who would have thought there would be life at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, yet it thrives.

Yellowstone and all it's hot geysers, there is life in these extreme environments. They are very simple life forms, single cell, very primitive but nonetheless, they are alive.

How about Stromatolites, oldest life on earth - still exists today. Horseshoe crab, horseshoe shrimp, Coelacanath, sturgeon, Nautilis etc. All alive today - and all part of the fossil record over millions of years.

You make an exultant point, about how people define the world around them, according to their understanding at the moment.

Moose still exist today, Kangaroos still exist today. We have only science to say that Sturgeon existed a million years ago.
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. I don't know of anyone who was alive back then to confirm or deny that claim.

Science makes the claim, defines what is proof, then provides the proof.

In any other circle that would be referred to as an incestuous relationship.

[6.5swedeforelk]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Isn't that what I said?

No.

As you stated... our star(sun) wobbles due to planetary pull.

Star "x" wobbles.

Therefore, star "x" has planets (that's the ONLY possibility).

Where did I err given your statements?

[Buckhead]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

400 feet above sea level is not enough to deposit a boat on top of Mount Ararat after 150 days. Mount Little Ararat is 12,752 ft above sea level.

But it is a cool story.

That is where the interpretation part comes in.

I am not a believer in the Noahs Ark on Mount Ararat legend.

There is possibly something there just not what people think.

[ReconWilly]

What if the ark wasn't an ocean ship but instead it was an advanced space ship operated by advanced beings?

What if they collected and catalogued the DNA of all the species that they wanted to save, and then they collected and catalogued all the seeds and spores?

What if they reseeded life minus the life forms that were not deemed worthy and were the reason for the flood?

EVERY SINGLE CULTURE ON EARTH acknowledges the flood in one way or another, the flood is a story told by cultures that had never even heard of Christianity, and like most stories it's likely been exaggerated and embellished over time, but it's likely that some type of disaster must have occurred when so many unlinked cultures recorded it as a significant event.

What if I'm wrong? WHAT THEN?
What if i go fishing tomorrow?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

You make an exultant point, about how people define the world around them, according to their understanding at the moment.

Moose still exist today, Kangaroos still exist today. We have only science to say that Sturgeon existed a million years ago.
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. I don't know of anyone who was alive back then to confirm or deny that claim.

Science makes the claim, defines what is proof, then provides the proof.

In any other circle that would be referred to as an incestuous relationship.

Thanks for the smile. I needed that today.

[Chargerguy]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Interesting. So you believe in the story of Adam and Eve. The ability to populate the world with the genetics of one man and one woman. Essentially, the entire human race has to be a product of incest. That makes me feel much better.

Mitochondrial Eve

[covey ridge]

I have found three creation stories in the book. The first was probably written after the second.
The first starts with
In the beginning God created

At the risk of offending some of my literalistic friends I will say that I think this is not an account of creation but an account of evolution. I do not think it is an account of the evolution of species but a metaphorical account of the evolution human conscious or mind or human thinking.

Note the progressions

from formless void and dark to light.
from even to morning = 1 day
separated waters from waters
waters below and waters above
gathered waters and separated from dry land
vegetation
lights to tell seasons
greater light lesser light
water creatures
birds
living creatures on earth
man
Sabbath

The first progression is to thinking man. Thoughts concepts etc.
The second was the difference between knowing and not knowing
Thoughts are like water in some seem higher than others
Water everywhere but some thoughts seemed more real than others
The dry land is stuff he knows for sure and he can stand firm in that knowledge.
From vegetation to living creature he is becoming more evolved.
He is starting to recognize signs to predict seasons
The greater light is his thinking mind
The lesser light is his subconscious mind, the mind that takes over when he sleeps or does something by reflex.
On the sixth day he has realizes his dominion over other creatures or his lesser thoughts. He realizes that he is the dominant species on the earth and is responsible for the welfare of the earth.
Man will rest on the seventh day when he realizes that he is in partnership with his creator to manage the resources of the world fairly. He is there to take care of the garden that he did not plant.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by ReconWilly

What if the ark wasn't an ocean ship but instead it was an advanced space ship operated by advanced beings?

What if they collected and catalogued the DNA of all the species that they wanted to save, and then they collected and catalogued all the seeds and spores?

What if they reseeded life minus the life forms that were not deemed worthy and were the reason for the flood?

EVERY SINGLE CULTURE ON EARTH acknowledges the flood in one way or another, the flood is a story told by cultures that had never even heard of Christianity, and like most stories it's likely been exaggerated and embellished over time, but it's likely that some type of disaster must have occurred when so many unlinked cultures recorded it as a significant event.

What if I'm wrong? WHAT THEN?
What if i go fishing tomorrow?

You'll be a deluded fisherman with no evidence to back your "what ifs"?

[ReconWilly]

Originally Posted by sjemac

You'll be a deluded fisherman with no evidence to back your "what ifs"?

What if i wasn't serious?

What if i don't know the truth?

Should i take someone else's word for it?, or some teachings from some book?

Or should i keep my mind open to any and all possibility?

[schian]

Not sure if it's been said yet as I didn't read the whole thread but there's absolutely no reason it can't be both.
This is a huge loaded subject that I have recently had many conversations about. And the dichotomy (one or the other) thinking is silly to be honest.
Too much to really get into on here but to limit it to one or the other is very narrow minded.
And this is coming from a born and raised conservative Christian.
If you are looking at it from the Christian biblical perspective the context that the bible was written in needs to be taken in to account. Something I'm saddened to say we (the church) have miserably failed at.
Schian.