Evolution or Creation?

[MaxBuck]

Tis why I said mostly, obviously the find is pretty cool, but your "missing link" is basically a lemur. I realize its not actually a lemur, but we're not talking to far off. I'm just not impressed with that part.

You're not alone in being relatively unimpressed with this fossil.

Experts not connected with the discovery said the finding was remarkably complete because of features like stomach contents. But they questioned the conclusions of Hurum and his colleagues about how closely it is related to ancestors of monkeys and humans.
"I actually don't think it's terribly close to the common ancestral line of monkeys, apes and people," said K. Christopher Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. "I would say it's about as far away as you can get from that line and still be a primate."
Rather than a long-ago aunt, "I would say it's more like a third cousin twice removed," he said. So it probably resembles ancestral creatures "only in a very peripheral way," he said.

John Fleagle of the State University of New York at Stony Brook said the scientists' analysis provides only "a pretty weak link" between the new creature and higher primates, called anthropoids, that includes monkeys and man.
"It doesn't really tell us much about anthropoid origins, quite frankly," Fleagle said.

 

[billmac91]

Second, the Bible does not say that we evolved from a common mammal ancestor, so even a thousand monkeys stretching from two million years ago to Richrod's current wife would not move you - and for the same reasons.

amazing work.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

"Evolution or creation"

What reason is there for us to assume these are the only two alternatives at issue? Why do creationists seem to believe that poking what they believe to be holes in evolution thereby advances the creation alternative? Let's imagine that evolutionary theory is pure garbage... wrong in every way.... what does that lend to the "creation" theory? The answer is nothing, all you have accomplished is reducing alternative ideas and done NOTHING to advance the "truth" of your own. I'd like to hear some "proofs" from the creation side of the aisle as to why their theory is to be believed.

Likewise, the "it's just a theory" objection.... Gravity is just a theory which explains how I manage to stay attached to this earth. I might as well believe that some god wills me, and each of us, to stay attached to this earth. So, I say "It's just a theory..." "Yeah? And? Does it provide an explanation to a question? Does it make predictions? Do those predictions ever "come true?" In short... you asked for a "missing link" and they just gave you one... and, to no one's surprise, the response is "well, that's not the kind of link I will accept." (To Gator's valid point about never being satisfied)

As to the suggestion that Evolution cannot be the "truth" of how G-d created life (call this a straw man if you wish, I just was thinking about possible "proofs" from the creation side of the aisle)

1) The Bible doesn't mention evolution, instead saying G-d created whole creatures at a single time (which, incidentally, it doesn't - it says things like "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures" which could - on reasonable interpretation - suggest an evolution from water based life to earth based life (lest we believe the waters brought forth creatures which would have drowned))

Forgiving my parenthetical - The Bible doesn't mention gravity. The Bible doesn't mention relativity. The Bible doesn't mention Jupiter. The Bible doesn't mention the continent of Australia or North and South America... Why am I to assume that the Bible's "failure" to mention "Oh, and by the way, G-d made all this happen by a thing called "evolution" and here's how that worked....." is a crushing defeat for evolution?

Likewise, how is it that a creationist is able to assimilate other biblical "failures to mention" but evolution drives such a stake in heart?

2) Is the creation G-d you advance at all powerful enough to actually create the reality we see around us?

Let me be frank.... The creation god I hear advanced by many creationists is a bumbling weakling who can't see his hand in front of his face a lot of the time. This god is so inept that he's "incapable" of creating life in a way that conforms with our observation? Seriously? This god is only able to set things made of the whole cloth into our world? This god has no tools by which he can create the mechanism in which future life would become?

I'll try and provide an illustration - when I make spaghetti I combine things which already exist and produce a delicious meal. Your god cannot do this? He instead can only manufacture things out of the whole cloth? When he created reality in the first place, it didn't occur to him to populate that reality with life such that he might create that reality in a manner where it would replicate itself without strict attention to the issue? Instead, he is a one track mind? Today, I'll make a universe.... Tomorrow an Earth... then I'll plop some life on it in 3 specific stages....

He's incapable of doing this ALL at once?

How weak is this god?

 

[Brewtus]

Creationism is a story dependent on faith. Evolution is a collection of fossils whose linkage also relies on faith, of a different sort. The theory of evolution is exactly that - a theory. They can't prove that a 47 million year old fossil links to anything alive today without making some assumptions to bridge the gaps along the way.

A scientific theory is not a guess or hypothesis. It is an explanation of facts, observances and evidence. A theory remains an theory forever and never becomes a law or is accepted with 100% certainty. But evolution is as equally supported as atomic theory, or the germ theory of disease or the theory of plate tectonics and I don't see Creationists disputing those theories.

The funny thing is, evolutionists can get just as defensive of their beliefs as creationists can about theirs, yet neither crowd can conclusively prove their theories.

No, the funny thing is that no Theory of Creationism exists yet there are people who assume one does. If you disagree, please explain to me the Theory of Creationism and provide what evidence and observances support it.

The fact is there are certain things that are beyond our comprehension - we don't know. God, religion, creation, evolution - we can't prove any of them. They are all theories based on varying amounts of evidence, yet billions of people across the world refuse to accept that reality. They choose to rely on faith to lead them to the outcome they want to believe is true, be they religious, atheistic, or scientific.

Theology and science are not based on equal principals. Belief in God does not require any evidence. I think you're also making the assumption that one cannot believe in God and also accept evolution, which is incorrect and has been discussed already on this board.

We don't know, and I'm okay with it until someone can conclusively PROVE one of these theories.

Yes we do know. Evolution is supported by geology, paleontology, genetics and many other scientific fields that are independent of each other, yet they all support the same conclusion. Creationism is based on religious writings and has no scientific evidence to support it. But if you're looking for conclusive proof of anything, you won't find it in science. Nothing is 100% certain in science and I guess faith can only give you that level of certainty.

 

[Bleed S & G]

He's incapable of doing this ALL at once?

How weak is this god?

Vagina full of sand weak. Good post, BKB.

 

[Buckeye86]

It doesn't seem like it would take a whole lot of creativity to make the biblical creation story mesh with the theory of evolution. For instance, I have seen people say that each 'day' in the seven day creation story actually represents billions of years. And you could say that when God created the animals and the earth and sea (and whatever else) you could interpret that as God putting into motion the evolutionary and geological processes that began shaping the life and land on earth.

My own personal thought that I like to share, in particular to people who's argument consists of "I didn't come from no monkey!" is to point out that the bible says that God created man in his image, but what if God looks like a monkey? or to take that even further, what if God looked like the single celled whatever that he set in motion to evolve into modern day humans? I think it's something interesting to think about.

I don't necessarily believe these ideas, but like I said, it doesn't take much to mesh the two things together, and even if it has holes in it, it is better than undermining thought and curiosity in children who wonder why things are the way they are.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

BKB
I think we've danced around your post before so most of it I don't feel the need to get into.

But, you're spaghetti can make a cake? Because that's the comparison creationists believe is more fitting. Also it isn't that we believe God couldn't have used evolution. We do not believe there is a limit to God's power. We just believe that He didn't because of what the Bible says. Your attempt to call God weak is the easily the most uninteresting part of your argument.

As to "proof." There is no proof. But there's none for evolution either. Evolutionists and creationists have this same world to live in, explore, experience, test, and gather evidence of. We all have the same evidence. It is just how we interpret it.

As much as in the way I dismiss the "missing link" (creationist aren't the only ones: re: MaxBuck link) you dismiss evidence of a younger earth. You see layers of sediment over time. I see a fountains of the deep exploding and causing massive rock upheaval in a relatively short amount of time. You don't reject creationism because of evidence. You reject it because of what it means.

For anyone.
Does everyone realize that only in modern times is it that secular scientists are the leading scientists and that most scientists before the modern era were people curious about God's creation?

When I was little, I loved dinosaurs (ok, still do), but just because I believe they existed not so long ago doesn't decrease my curiosity and wonder of them. I'm amazed by genetics. How are body functions is an amazing thing. As I look at how blood clots: if even one of the ingredients was missing we would die, I just don't see evolution as a possibility.

 

[Buckeye86]

As I look at how blood clots: if even one of the ingredients was missing we would die, I just don't see evolution as a possibility.

but rather than continuing to look for an answer about how it could possibly happen, you say that God is responsible and end all thought on the matter

that is my main problem with the idea of creationism, and especially with teaching it to children, all it teaches them is that when you encounter something fascinating that is difficult to understand or comprehend stop thinking about it or trying to explore its origins, God is responsible and that is all you need to know about it

it is the exact opposite of expanding a child's mind

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

but rather than continuing to look for an answer about how it could possibly happen, you say that God is responsible and end all thought on the matter

that is my main problem with the idea of creationism, and especially with teaching it to children, all it teaches them is that when you encounter something fascinating that is difficult to understand or comprehend stop thinking about it or trying to explore its origins, God is responsible and that is all you need to know about it

it is the exact opposite of expanding a child's mind

I'm mostly sorry you see it that way. If "A" is true then what business do I have telling them "B". And I disagree it's only through this expanding of the mind that we truly appreciate the power in His creation. The way blood clotting works is simply amazing, and so intricately designed, without the the research done on it there is no way to know how it actually works. In the knowledge of its intricacies is great wonder and amazement. We are all often curious about origins. Saying God created it exactly as such is only wrong if He didn't do it that way.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

It doesn't seem like it would take a whole lot of creativity to make the biblical creation story mesh with the theory of evolution. For instance, I have seen people say that each 'day' in the seven day creation story actually represents billions of years. And you could say that when God created the animals and the earth and sea (and whatever else) you could interpret that as God putting into motion the evolutionary and geological processes that began shaping the life and land on earth.

My own personal thought that I like to share, in particular to people who's argument consists of "I didn't come from no monkey!" is to point out that the bible says that God created man in his image, but what if God looks like a monkey? or to take that even further, what if God looked like the single celled whatever that he set in motion to evolve into modern day humans? I think it's something interesting to think about.

I don't necessarily believe these ideas, but like I said, it doesn't take much to mesh the two things together, and even if it has holes in it, it is better than undermining thought and curiosity in children who wonder why things are the way they are.

When I'm feeling especially pessimist towards the nature of man, I believe creationists are intent on keeping people stupid so as to solidify their own power over them.... much the same way as the "The Church" stood in opposition to scientific inquiry back in the days of old.

Naturally, this "opinion" is devoid of any real reason - as creationists don't enjoy any particular authority over me. Nonetheless, I agree with you that it seems rather foolish to seek an end to inquiry. I mean, if we assume that G-d created this reality.... and that we are here in it.... shouldn't we also assume He expects us to learn something about this reality?

I'm not articulating myself well, I guess... but what I mean to say... how insulting to G-d that we would look at the reality which surrounds us and deny it in favor of some story which, as I believe Gator correctly labeled, is "palpably ridiculous."

Let us assume that G-d gives us logic and reason... Why should we throw it away in an effort to "save" that very same G-d from disappearing out of existence as if the Bible - or the stories contained therein - are the pre-requisite for His being.

I don't know if the Bible is the Word of G-d or not... reason and logic tell me that it cannot possibly be, or ... if it is, this god described therein presents little to induce my worship. On the other hand, I do not know if reason and logic in examination of the reality that surrounds me glorifies G-d... but, I do know that it gives me comfort to have a belief in G-d, as I do, that does not require me to deny what I observe with my own eyes... I do not have to accept some story of some alleged authority from antiquity...

Men of antiquity have a well documented history of having been wrong. The Earth is NOT flat. The Sun does not revolve around it. Gods do not control the changing of the seasons. But... I'm supposed to believe they're right about G-d? These people couldn't figure out things which you and I take for granted these days..... and I'm to believe they are the authority on G-d?

No thanks. However this universe works... whether evolution is "true" or not... what I can say in my own sense of certainty is no G-d worthy of my worship would create a reality that looks a certain way to me (and a significant majority of people) but actually be some other way entirely.

Such a god is a liar and a deceiver.

Ironically, "believers" have a different name for an entity with those characteristics.

 

[Buckeye86]

I'm mostly sorry you see it that way. If "A" is true then what business do I have telling them "B". And I disagree it's only through this expanding of the mind that we truly appreciate the power in His creation. The way blood clotting works is simply amazing, and so intricately designed, without the the research done on it there is no way to know how it actually works. In the knowledge of its intricacies is great wonder and amazement. We are all often curious about origins. Saying God created it exactly as such is only wrong if He didn't do it that way.

I don't really follow what you are trying to say here. I made my points though and I'm not going to change anyones mind on this so I will quietly step to the back of the room and let the conversation continue. Carry on.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BKB
I think we've danced around your post before so most of it I don't feel the need to get into.

But, you're spaghetti can make a cake? Because that's the comparison creationists believe is more fitting. Also it isn't that we believe God couldn't have used evolution. We do not believe there is a limit to God's power. We just believe that He didn't because of what the Bible says. Your attempt to call God weak is the easily the most uninteresting part of your argument.

And believing the Bible defies reason. It asks you to think that things which are impossible occurred. As my post above indicates, I cannot conceive of a G-d giving me reason if he's so intent on my not using it. There was no world wide flood. Not only is there no evidence for it, the story defies reason (see my ark thread for what I'm talking about).

For the record, I certainly didn't call G-d weak. I called god weak.

As to "proof." There is no proof. But there's none for evolution either. Evolutionists and creationists have this same world to live in, explore, experience, test, and gather evidence of. We all have the same evidence. It is just how we interpret it.

Evolutionists at least make the effort. How does a creationist explain 65 million year old fossils of dinosaurs? They sometimes go so far as to say a magical evil guy (Satan) did it.... I'm sorry... but when I ask my kid "Who spilled this milk" and he says "My invisible friend" I call BULLSHIT... and you do too.

As much as in the way I dismiss the "missing link" (creationist aren't the only ones: re: MaxBuck link) you dismiss evidence of a younger earth. You see layers of sediment over time. I see a fountains of the deep exploding and causing massive rock upheaval in a relatively short amount of time. You don't reject creationism because of evidence. You reject it because of what it means.

You're quite wrong. I do not dismiss a young earth. I have been convinced by the evidence I see around me, as it relates to other evidence I see around me (ie astronomy, etc.) that it is more likely to be true. As for rejecting "what it means" I find the comment ridiculous considering that I do in fact believe in G-d. If any one wants G-d to be real it's me...

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

You're quite wrong. I do not dismiss a young earth. I have been convinced by the evidence I see around me, as it relates to other evidence I see around me (ie astronomy, etc.) that it is more likely to be true. As for rejecting "what it means" I find the comment ridiculous considering that I do in fact believe in G-d. If any one wants G-d to be real it's me...

I don't think we need to go through most of this again. We 've been around this before. Nothing is new. I know you want God to be real. In your certain case if the earth were young it doesn't change your stance on the existence, but Who I guess. If the earth were young that would have large implications that the Judeo Christian God is God.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'm sorry you don't want to go through it again... I certainly can appreciate your position that we've been through it ad nauseum. I just enjoy the discussion, and am always looking for a new thing to consider... which I cannot get with a response of silence.

If the earth were young that would have large implications that the Judeo Christian God is God.

I'd have to think about that, but I have serious doubts that would be true for me. The age of the earth has very little bearing, to me, about what G-d is or is not. I suppose it would be some evidence that the Bible should be taken more seriously..... but, alas, the Biblical failings of reason are greater than the age of the earth (Again, in my opinion. I want to be careful that I don't come across as judgmental or derogatory... it's hard to have these conversations and be solid in one's own views without so sounding.)

 

[BayBuck]

Today, I'll make a universe.... Tomorrow an Earth... then I'll plop some life on it in 3 specific stages....

That actually sounds like the beginning of an evolutionary process set into motion by a fairly capable God...

what I can say in my own sense of certainty is no G-d worthy of my worship would create a reality that looks a certain way to me (and a significant majority of people) but actually be some other way entirely.

So God is only worthy of worship if he lays everything out there for everyone to understand without any difficulty or mystery or nuance? That kind of god (capitalization/semantics aside), who wouldn't dare to offend the arrogance of human intellect, sounds more like a weakling and simpleton from my perspective.