Evolution and Creation

[gorthan313]

Originally Posted by Bannister

Please explain why you think the bolded section is worthy of a WFT?

Bannister

THAT'S what that smilie meant! I just couldn't understand why ollie said that if there was a god, then he/she/it would "create" using Evolution instead of design. If God did use Evolution to "create", then it wouldn't exactly be "creating", but setting random processes in place that eventually brought about the life that we see today. Sorry about the smilie though.....

[hexplex?]

Originally Posted by gorthan313

THAT'S what that smilie meant! I just couldn't understand why ollie said that if there was a god, then he/she/it would "create" using Evolution instead of design. If God did use Evolution to "create", then it wouldn't exactly be "creating", but setting random processes in place that eventually brought about the life that we see today. Sorry about the smilie though.....

Couldn't God create something that evolves?

[Einar's puppy]

I'm not really sure about the backing of the Big Bang theory myself. Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't there other scientific theories on the world formed? Or is this the ony theory as of now?

If there are more than there you go. Not everyone agrees, and the topic is still wide open amung the scientific community. If it's the only theory, than I'm confused...

[gorthan313]

Originally Posted by hexplex?

Couldn't God create something that evolves?

He could create something that evolves, but the Bible doesn't say that God created something that evolved.

[gorthan313]

Originally Posted by ollie

I was trying to forestall the false identification of evolution with atheism (I was guessing that was where the conversation was heading given your citing of creationism, apologies if that is not the case.)

Believing that God (I'll use the capital as I assume we're talking about the Christian version) created all species in their current form in a single event called Creation and designed each species optimally goes against all of the evidence. Believing that God sparked life into being and let it develop via natural selection is consistent with the evidence. (It's not supported by the evidence, but it is consistent.)

Huh? Where in the Bible does it say that God created all things in their current form?

[ollie]

Originally Posted by Einar's puppy

I'm not really sure about the backing of the Big Bang theory myself. Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't there other scientific theories on the world formed? Or is this the ony theory as of now?

If there are more than there you go. Not everyone agrees, and the topic is still wide open amung the scientific community. If it's the only theory, than I'm confused...

There can be some substantial middle ground between "not everyone agrees" and "the topic is wide open among the scientific community".

The big bang is about the start of the universe, not our planet. There is broad scientific consensus that the big bang is the correct model, but there are still issues with the exact formulation of the model. It's possible to say that young earth creationism, for example, is wrong without having all of the details of the big bang pinned down.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by gorthan313

Huh? Where in the Bible does it say that God created all things in their current form?

It doesn't as far as I know. However, that doesn't seem to stop most people that I've talked to who identify themselves as creationists believing this. What is your position? You appear to be against both the standard creationist viewpoint and evolution.

[braveheart101]

Well, if you have the time, click HERE . It's quite interesting, but VERY deep.

Also, you shouldnt believe what a scientest says just because he's smart. We are all human here, and all prone to HUGE mistakes. Take Aristotle for example. For years, people believed in spontaneous generation, just because he had that idea, even though we NOW know that its totally impossible. Just you wait, in 20-30 years time, Evolution and the Big Bang Theory will be scoffed at.

[gorthan313]

Originally Posted by ollie

It doesn't as far as I know. However, that doesn't seem to stop most people that I've talked to who identify themselves as creationists believing this. What is your position? You appear to be against both the standard creationist viewpoint and evolution.

My position is the actual doctrine of the Gospel. Anybody who says that they believe in the doctrine of the Gospel, and then goes on to say that they believe that God created all things in the form we see them in today have not understood the doctrine of Creationism. If that is the "standard creationist viewpoint", then the "standard creationist viewpoint is absolutely and positively wrong!

[hexplex?]

As designer myself, I would argue that… (hold on to your britches)

Design = Evolution

Anything that is actually designed is never finished on the first draft, by definition.

After all wouldn't the greatest design be a design capable of adapting/evolving to it's own needs and environment?

[ollie]

Originally Posted by gorthan313

My position is the actual doctrine of the Gospel. Anybody who says that they believe in the doctrine of the Gospel, and then goes on to say that they believe that God created all things in the form we see them in today have not understood the doctrine of Creationism. If that is the "standard creationist viewpoint", then the "standard creationist viewpoint is absolutely and positively wrong!

I'm afraid I'm not sufficiently conversant with the gospels to know what they say about creation. How do you believe life on Earth came about?

Originally Posted by braveheart101

Well, if you have the time, click HERE . It's quite interesting, but VERY deep.

Also, you shouldnt believe what a scientest says just because he's smart. We are all human here, and all prone to HUGE mistakes. Take Aristotle for example. For years, people believed in spontaneous generation, just because he had that idea, even though we NOW know that its totally impossible. Just you wait, in 20-30 years time, Evolution and the Big Bang Theory will be scoffed at.

I briefly skimmed that article and pulled out the parts relating to math (where I do have specialist knowledge). The author does not understand either Godel's Theorem or imaginary numbers. This doesn't fill me with confidence about the rest of the article.

Even if these two theories are scoffed at and replaced by superior explanations, very rarely (ever?) in science is a discredited theory replaced with an earlier already-disproven theory. I don't see any reason to expect anything other than refinement to those two theories, but new evidence may come in. That new evidence will not point to intelligent design.

EDIT. I'm heading offline. I look forward to seeing where this conversation has gone when I'm back on Friday. Hope you all enjoy the holiday.

[ABOMINATION]

n/a