(Closed) Follow-Up to Creationism/Evolution Bill Nye debate

posted 7 years ago in The Lounge
Post # 32
Member
9124 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: August 2013 - Rocky Mountains USA

View original reply
@Bridey77:  Totally.  But that’s no reason to reject what we CAN grasp, even if it seems “ughhh so complicated and not exactly how the Book of Genesis describes it”, I guess is my point  🙂

Post # 33
Member
5217 posts
Bee Keeper

View original reply
@lolot:  People like to put God in a box. This is why as a Christian, it has been very hard for me to find one particular denomination I am comfortable with.

If one believes that God is truly the creator of all things, then there is nothing we can learn about creation that is an offense to him. There is so much in the bible that alludes to many of the things that we are now understanding, it is amazing really. Ritual washing and cleansing ceremonies that the Hebrews follow kept them free of disease. This was never as evident as when the black plague was killing everyone around them, yet they remained almost totally unaffected. People actually accused them of creating it because of this.

Could an ancient civilization understand a microbiolgy text and a lesson on microorganisms and germs? No, they were given what they could understand at that place in time. Nothing has changed. The germs were always there. We can just understand more now about why we have been told what we have been told. This new knowledge does not negate what we already know, it just builds on it. Its amazing, really. Creation is opening up to us and we are realizing its mysteries. The more we learn, the more there is to learn. What an awesome gift that knowledge is. 

I say all this from a personal perspective, of course. There are many Christians and Atheists who would say I am wrong on both ends.

Post # 34
Member
1077 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: October 2014 - Greenbrier Country Club

Creation answers: where did life come from, not how is life changing.
Evolution answers: How life is changing, not where life comes from.

The issue is not in regards to change within species; pretty sure everyone agrees with this as there is overwhelming evidence. However, when we start talking about common ancestry and the primordial soup theory, then we have a problem.

I don’t think creation should be talked about in schools as an alternative to evolution; they are not rival theories in that they don’t answer the same question. However, as an alternative possibility to the origin of life (ID, verse primordial soup, verse…), I’d say the ID community has an argument. There really is a lot more to say about this topic, but it’s not my main point to discuss the ID argument.

The big issue is common ancestry.  Really any bible believing person would have issues with reconciling common ancestry with the biblical account of creation. Some do find ways to reconcile, others, like Ham, have not.  Either way, I think that common ancestry and Noah’s flood both encounter problems when explaining the fossil record and I do not think either side has adequately answered away the problems with their theory. In the end, I think we all will settle with which ever theory corresponds to our worldview, but I don’t think either explanation is currently adequate in fully explaining the evidence or rendering good explanations to the problems with their theories.

You’ll notice that creationists try to argue evolution and common ancestry separately, while evolutionists do not make a distinction.  So the question is, does belief in evolution within species have to mean that there is evolution from one species to another and ultimately a common ancestor to all of life?

Post # 37
Member
1077 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: October 2014 - Greenbrier Country Club

View original reply
@mrsSonthebeach:  “life could’ve started multiple times so there could be more than one common ancestor for all life.”

+100000 🙂
I think non-evolution believing Christians could get on board with this concept of multiple common ancestors. In fact they already believe this 😀

“Over long spans of time, two subpopulations can develop so differently as to create two different species.”
Why must one believe “do develope” then instead of “can”?
This is where there is a branching off…
Many feel the evidence does not necessarily support speciation: in particular of ape to human.

Post # 40
Member
1077 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: October 2014 - Greenbrier Country Club

View original reply
@mrsSonthebeach:  My bad… I made some assumtions. When you said “species,” I figured you were just usuing the word as a blanket term to describe the NEB christian’s views on ape to man, fish to land animals, land animals to birds. So I said “speciation” in the same way.
Creationsists don’t have a problem with flowers producting flower, or birds producing birds, bacteria to bacteria.

Post # 41
Member
1542 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: June 2013

I’m a Christian and I believe in Creation. I couldn’t read that article because its a blatant attack on christianity.

And the idea that science is a sin is just plain rediculous. God gave us science – and he doesn’t make mistakes. Science is a blessing – its what gives us the ability to make all these wonderful medical discoveries.

What the problem is is simply a lack of faith. (even among christians). Science only goes so far, then comes God. You can’t rely on purely science (evolution) without taking into account that God can do anything. I mean c’mon Jesus rose people from the dead, made the blind see and the crippled walk. Miracles happen everyday that scientists and medical proffessionals just can’t explain.

In order for a person to believe in creation they must also believe in God. And in order for a person to believe in Darwins evolution then they must not believe in God (The God of the bible anyway) Christians can and many do believe in a God- driven form of evolution but thats not a true meaning of evolution because evolution is based on pure science and zero miraculous activity.

Wowww you mean an aithiest doesn’t believe in Creation and they think God is fiction… um tell me something i don’t know. Don’t impose your beliefs on me (evolution or the belief that there is no God) and I won’t impose my beliefs on you.

But teaching Evolution in schools as a fact and convinsing kids its the only possible way – is imposing your beliefs on my children. Your kids can get out of saying the Pledge of Allegiance because it says “under God” but my kid can’t get out a science class/test that teaches evolution as fact. I can’t tell you how many tests i failed growing up. and having the teacher basically tell me i’m stupid in front of the entire class for daring to question evolution. But yea Creationism is the problem. Gag me.

Post # 42
Member
9124 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: August 2013 - Rocky Mountains USA

View original reply
@Kate0558:  But teaching Evolution in schools as a fact and convinsing kids its the only possible way – is imposing your beliefs on my children. 

*headdesk*  Should we also teach our children that the sun revolves around the earth?  Because that’s what the Bible says, even though it’s a FACT that it’s not true. 

Post # 43
Member
3668 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: October 2013

View original reply
@lolot:  Love that quote and I am glad you could pick up what I was trying to put out! Schools should keep teaching science as it is proven to be because then they are really showing Gods design. Hopefully religions can learn that sceience is just a compliment to God and not something that disproves their faith. “God created the world in seven days” is probably easier to comprehend than seven megaannum (or more) and I doubt there was a word back then that could explain the magnitude of the situation. 

Besides, how can someone with zero education explain the growth and change that comes from evolution? Maybe god could give them the power to understand but how would they then pass it on to others? Parts of the bible show that the followers did not always know how to describe what they learned or what they saw. Even if they could explain their freinds and family would have not understood so it was probably best to make everything easy. I feel like the bible outlined things in simple terms but doesn’t restrict us from building from the foundation. There was/is room to discover and explain. 

 

Post # 44
Member
760 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: August 2012

View original reply
@Kate0558:  the point is Creationism does not have modern scientific backing. There is no scientific creedance and it is specifically faith-based. As much as you wish it were true, evolution is NOT based on “faith” or “belief.” It is based in scientific research which is not something you find in the bible considering modern science did not come around until the 1800s… Centuries after the Bible was written.

You are comparing apples and oranges. If you want to teach Creationism in a philosophy class, be my guest. But until there is a shred of SCIENTIFIC evidence based on our modern scientific experimentation that we developed in the 1800s and continue in our modern world, I will continue to respectfully allow you to believe that the world was created in 6 days but I will not respect that same philosophical idea being taught hand-in-hand with physics, biology, or chemistry.

Post # 45
Member
772 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: October 2013 - Dalhousie Castle

View original reply
@Anna10-05-2014:  Ape to human is wrong, my previous post above.  

Also the the other people, unless there has been new evidence since I last read up on the subject, phylogenetics of all known and newly found organisms points to LUCA. This stands for Last Universal Common Ancestor. This would be a primordial organism from which all current life, in all it’s diversity, on earth is decended. There might have been other life but over time organisms decended from other sources were not able to compete and became extinct.

As a structural biologist who spends her day actually looking at the tiny componets of cells, it is remarkable the similarity of the basic structures we see in all eukaryotic cells. Changes and divergences in these structures correlate so well with the phylogenetics too. Phylogenetics is only possible as there are some molecules within cells that are sooo essential for life that they are found in every organism (bacteria, archea and eukaryota) on the planet and presumably were found in LUCA too. The relatedness of the genetic sequence, or recipe, of these essential components is what places that organism relative to others on the tree of life. 

There are also cases of convergent evolution, where distant organisms share similar structures, but not similar genetics. Here, the structural solution is soo good that it was arrived at by multiple organism in different ways. Sooo facinating. 

Also, viruses are such an interesting case. It is impossible to give them a position on the tree of life because they alone do not share these essential components. There is even debate as to whether they can be considered alive or not. They do not carry out chemical processes or reproduce in the absence of a host. Thing of them like a CD-ROM (haha old!). By itself it’s useless. It must make it into a host (computer) to be able to do anything or copy itself. Viruses opt to borrow the machinary necessary for life from other organisms. 

Now, what would be really interesting is if we could find another planet with life. If it was related, sharing the genetic code for instance or presence of some of the universal components of life on earth, pointing to the seeding of the Earth with primordial life from an extraterrestrial source. Pointing to some super universal common anscestor that would be the grandfather of all life in the universe. 

Alternatively, life could have come about independantly, from planet to planet. That would mean each world would have a seperate LUCA and might be very very different from one another, depending on the conditions of the world. I would bet everything I own that life would still have been subject to evolution and natural selection. 

Life forms must constantly compete for finite energy and resources and the best suited to do this will survive, while the weak die off. Energy flow is so crutial to life that it cannot be overstated. Our planet only sustains life because we have energy input from the sun. This constant energy imput is processed through life systems, that always seek to avoid an a low engery equilibrium state. Equilibrium = death. 

 

The topic ‘Follow-Up to Creationism/Evolution Bill Nye debate’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors