01 May 16
Originally posted by KellyJayAfter all this time discussing this topic on this forum you still view the theory of evolution as being about "life starting from non-life"?
Yes depending on how you view both of them. For life to start from non-life and change over time goes against creation.
01 May 16
Originally posted by FMFWell technically the evolution of living things would need a starting point and if you are an atheist that starting point would have to be abiogenesis.
After all this time discussing this topic on this forum you still view the theory of evolution as being about "life starting from non-life"?
01 May 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWell, abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are not one in the same thing. If you believe that they are, then you should perhaps edit your OP. There is still time.
Well technically the evolution of living things would need a starting point and if you are an atheist that starting point would have to be abiogenesis.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt depends on how an individual interprets Biblical scripture and on how strident that individual is about their view of the theme in question.
In your opinion are creation and evolution mutually exclusive?
Moses, in Genesis, writes that "man was created in the image of God". Then Moses also goes on to say "male and female he created them" indicating that God is neither male nor female, and yet Colossians tells that Jesus is the "exact fleshly representation of his (God's) being. So which is it? God is not flesh he (sic) is spirit, so how can a fleshly creation be "in his own image"? So there is some apparent ambiguity in the Bible. For whatever reason.
However, the account in Genesis is much wider than just man and woman. God brought all the beasts before Adam and told him to name them, let's ignore why he did this and think about the how. How would this happen in a world of evolution? Even if you allow for Adam being immortal at that time and the "garden of Eden" being a protected biosphere or something like that, it would take millions and millions of years and species would come into scope and exit in extinction during that time. What would be the point?
No, in my opinion creation and evolution are incompatible.
01 May 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkA creation myth is not necessarily incompatible with evolution since it can be sufficiently vague and/or not falsifiable. Any myth that is purely metaphysical will, by definition, not clash with any theory or understanding we have obtained from empirical science.
In your opinion are creation and evolution mutually exclusive?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI don't care one wit about abiogenesis in this part of the discussion, the first life however it
Well technically the evolution of living things would need a starting point and if you are an atheist that starting point would have to be abiogenesis.
started would have had to change from how the first life was coded/made up from that
point on. It is getting from that beginning point to the ones we see around us that I don't
believe is possible through evolutionary change.
With respect to creation I can see life changing over time, after all it is put together and
maintained by genetic codes which could vary yet not cause death, if the changes are
bad then life would or could end. If the changes are not life threatening we could see
a variety of things a little different than the creature looked like in the beginning on the
day of creation.
With respect to abiogenesis think on how many things in the WHOLE universe had to be
just right from the micro to the macro.
Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't care one wit about abiogenesis in this part of the discussion, the first life however it
started would have had to change from how the first life was coded/made up from that
point on. It is getting from that beginning point to the ones we see around us that I don't
believe is possible through evolutionary change.
With respect to creation I can ...[text shortened]... hink on how many things in the WHOLE universe had to be
just right from the micro to the macro.
It is getting from that beginning point to the ones we see around us that I don't
believe is possible through evolutionary change.
Evolutionary change is not a theory, it is an observation. Species can be identified in rock sediments that are no longer alive and that differ markedly from creatures living today. Genetic evidence helps to map the relationship between species. Farmers breed a range of animals and enthusiasts breed dogs or pigeons (but not often the combination of these). The flu virus changes and mutates repeatedly and we can observe how one strain prospers and others fade.
We know evolution happens, we can map the genealogy and the common ancestors of every living species and many extinct ones. And since we know it happens and can map its progress through time and we can correlate evolution with environmental changes in the history of the planet, then the idea of belief or non belief does not really arise. It is a brute fact.
What remains is the need for an explanation - it is obviously posssible you idiot since it has obviously happened and obviously continues to happen. Talk to the Dodo about it. Talk to a pigeon fancier about it. Talk to a health worker dealing with a newly antibiotic resistent strain of an infectious disease about it. Give us a biblical account of drug resistent disease or a biblical explanation of the consequences of feeding antibiotics to farm animals.
01 May 16
Originally posted by KellyJayI raised this point in a different thread where it was ignored, but maybe you would like to give it a whirl. Suppose we take the micro-evolution hypothesis and assume it is valid. Then, for each species, there must be a part of their DNA that can change and a part that is immutable, otherwise the DNA cannot "remember" that it should only change "a little." By what mechanism is this segment of DNA protected from mutations? Can we see this happening in nature?
I don't care one wit about abiogenesis in this part of the discussion, the first life however it
started would have had to change from how the first life was coded/made up from that
point on. It is getting from that beginning point to the ones we see around us that I don't
believe is possible through evolutionary change.
With respect to creation I can ...[text shortened]... hink on how many things in the WHOLE universe had to be
just right from the micro to the macro.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29595
01 May 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkOh for the love of hippos!!
In your opinion are creation and evolution mutually exclusive?
Please, please take the time to understand what evolution actually is before conflating it with creation or the beginning of life.
I have no idea how life began, but I have a pretty good understanding of how life evolved. I also see no problem with a theist believing God created the world while simultaneously believing in the evolutionary process (as the two things are quite separate).
Think of it this way, an artist develops his painting which begins as a few simple pencil marks and evolves into a complicated and beautiful picture. The development of this painting is a different matter entirely from how the paper or paint came into existence. (Okay, not the best analogy I've ever made. For one thing it didn't involve sandwiches).
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo full fledged macro evolution is falsifiable ?
A creation myth is not necessarily incompatible with evolution since it can be sufficiently vague and/or not falsifiable. Any myth that is purely metaphysical will, by definition, not clash with any theory or understanding we have obtained from empirical science.