Faith vs. Fact (Creation vs. Evolution)

[John T 744]

If you look at the news you will see that people put religion way up there. They Live by it and they will die for it. 9-11 for example.

Why do people have blind faith?? My Nephew who is very intelligent and somewhat religious attends Rutgers University. He went to an organize debate titled EVOLUTION v. CREATION. Evolution is more or less stating that we came from a cell and went from there. Creation is that God put us here(Adam and Eve) and we came from there.

The debate in a nut shell went like this....All the facts that the Evolution side put on the table the Creation side tried to tear it apart but the Creation side really couldn't put up any facts for themselves since there side is built on faith and hearsay(Bible which is past down thru men/women)

So I ask why do people put faith ahead of fact? Is it a character flaw that we as humans have?? Is it the guilt that is bread in us that if we don't believe in God we are terrible people and we will go staight to.......

In the shortest words possible since most of us can write a book about this ---Why do you think Faith does thru-out the Planet beat Fact most of the time when it comes to Religion???

[Mike Williamson 198]

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Right, I believe that's what the book says... :rolleyes:

[Paul B. 523]

Does it really matter who wrote what??? Is this thread about proving Paul can think for himself and write a paper on creation, or is it about creation/evolution?

I don't think he likes me......

Phillip, this is not school (I can and shall definitely break your rules #1 and #2 - I may or may not break with "YOUR RULE #3")!

Paul's "Science 101": rules are made to be broken!

My edumacated S (scientific) WAG theory is that if you take life back far enough, you have only two choices: creation (with smart design) or evolution. Since I am not God nor am I a scientist working on proving evolution or creationism, I can not state my own scientific facts. I must use what I read in books, learn in school, hear on radio/television, etc.

In my opinion, creation is more complicated than evolution. While evolutionists have scientific facts, it is not a continously flowing river, but it is still used as FULL/TOTAL evidence even with partial and incomplete data. When is partial data total proof? In this case, neither evolution nor creationism will be fully proven by science - at least not in my lifetime.

Man and science tries to tell you we know everything and we will know even more. God tells man that we can't understand everything, there are too many things beyond our graps and scientists will be wrong many times (this prediction has proven to be true) - Evidence for creationism.

Can I believe everything I read or hear? There have been many hoaxes in the name of creationism and science (it's a fact). Is there enough scientific proof for me that human beings evolved from a single cell? Not to my satisfaction. Can science explain to me how male and female forms evolved simultaneously without dying out/becoming extinct? Not to my satisfaction.

- God explains He created man and made woman from man - so I continue to believe the creationism theory.

When evolutionists continue to use outdated and inaccurate evidence such as the "Horse Series of Fossils": a collection of unrelated fossils which was put together to look like a series, (even though there is no relationship between them) and is still use in many schoolbooks it is hard to ignore it.

(to quote Dr. Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History, where this was displayed: "It is lamentable that this is still shown in textbooks by people who know of it's speculative nature."

Should incorrect information or hoaxes be aloud to flourish in feeding the theory of evolution? I say NAY!

I have to point out the inaccuracy regardless of who tries to make rules which state you can't argue "failings or gaps in evolutionary theory"... "Disproof is not proof" - Maybe, maybe NOT! However untruths still needs to be addressed. Too many missing ingredients or incorrect ingredients can and will change/ruin a recipe!

Lets mention other hoaxes and incorrect assumptions by evolutionists:

(Again, I WILL quote others)

Neanderthal Man: Now accepted as a genuine human.

Cro-Magnon Man: Now accepted as a genuine human.

Piltdown Man: Was proven to be a deliberate hoax.

Java Man: Has been proven to be a deliberate hoax.

Nebraska Man: Proven to be an over-optimistic mistake.

Peking Man: The bones have been lost.

Zinjanthropus: Studies show this was only a primitive ape.

Lucy: Strongly suspected of having been fully ape.

The last discovery made in Africa and I believe it pre-dates Lucy

I believe they first mis-dated it by xx million years and I don't recall exactly what I read about how it fits into evolution but according to science it's big break and continues to add to the evolution theory.

Is it not curious? and how is it explained that a lot of the remains of these and other findings are located in different regions of the world. The last findings were in Africa. Where was Nebraska man found? and Peking Man? Do we think that along with evolution these pre-man/animal things also migrated thousands of miles. (most people don't like to walk to the corner, much less thousands of miles - OK i'll grant the Miami indians went from Ohio, to Florida over 1000 miles, but they already had fire, weapons and tools.) Even if it was one continent at one time, it would have been a long distance from Africa to Nebraska.

Did they migrate from south to north (warm weather to cold weather)? Was the climate in reverse? Cold in the south and warm in the north? Did they have to migrate such a distance due to lack of food? Why are we not finding packs of these animals/people? Did they die rather than continue to evolve? If one died in one place, why did another evolve somewhere else and die somewhere else? Again if you consider migration and its dangers, where each finding occurred in time line, the lack of Nabraska and Peking Man and groups, it is much easier (for me) to believe in creation/smart design than evolution.

Similarities in design such as bone structures of legs, bird's wings show common ancestry as claimed by evolutionists (you can read about the science behind this, I will not quote anyone on it, although I can). We creationists can also claim this as proof of a superior designer.

Same evolution/scientific based assumptions should be closely examined when talking about "Vestigial Organs". Was it not argued at one time that over 100 organs which were once useful have no longer uses since we outgrew their need through evolution? Lets name at least two of these organs: the appendix and the tonsils. The theory with these two along with many others have now been scientifically reversed - we now know what their intended functions were/are. Less than 15% of the 100 plus organs once thought to have been only useful in the evolutionary process still remain on that unknown list. There is no longer a "Vestigial Organs" category, although they still show up an schoolbooks. Do these organs now tend to point more toward creationism/smart design? I think so! How many mistakes are aloud by science and still follow the path of the EVOLUTION THEORY? The mistakes continue on and on, yet they still insist there is no creator or smart design.

The Bible provides very few details about original creation. However if you read (Isaah 9:7 and 60:22), it talks about the ever increasing Kingdom of God. Can that be considered proof of creation? The ever-continuous formation of planets and expansion of the universe implies that scientists and the word of God were talking about the "Big Bang Theory". Can the universe be created from nothing? Very unlikely! Can the whole universe have evolved from a single cell? Again, very unlikely. Back to my SWAG: if it didn't evolve, it must have been created.

In my previous post, the subject of DNA consistently directs circumstantial evidence toward creationism. It's details and complexity point more toward creationism than to evolution. It is less leaps and bounds in theory to believe in creationism/smart design than it is evolution when talking of DNA (IN MY OPINION).

Takes too much time to think on my own - rather use material by others!

[Deck Guy 14]

Ok, just to clear up any misunderstandings, Darwin never said or implied that we evolved from apes. That is grossly paraphrasing his theory of natural selection. To also grossly paraphrase him, his theory was that we were once a more ape-like creature that evolved into what we are today.

This theory would explain why, from Australopithecus to Homo Sapians, humans have become more suited for their environment. Here is a brief explanation of natural selection for those who can't (or won't) understand.

Using deer as an example, let's say that there are four deer, two females and two males, one white male, the others light brown (or fawn) colored. The fawn colored deer have an advantage when it comes to avoiding predators, as they are more difficult to see. Which deer is most like to be killed by predators? I would guess the white one, which also means that it will be less likely to reproduce, and therefore less likely to pass it's genes on. Eventually, white deer become extremely rare, since this is now a recessive trait.

Likewise when it come to humans breeding. For about three million years, accocording to scientists, it has been the faster, smarter, most well-equipped for the environment humans who have reproduced the most. The weaker either die, are killed, or fail to find a suitable mate, since they themselves are less desireable to females. It's that simple. Those that live long enough to breed the most will create the most offspring having those same traits, who in-turn live to produce the most offspring ad infinitum. How complicated is that? We can see the difference this makes in only 10 generations. During the Civil War, a six foot tall man was considered a giant. Now the average male stands at 5'10". That's evolution.

[Mike Williamson 198]

That's evolution.

That's NOT the evolution most creationists are arguing against. We argue against the evolution from one speciest to another...the concept that once, millions of years ago, man's ancestors were fish or fishlike creatures living in the water...the concept that even longer ago, all life evolved from single celled creatures...

I doubt that anyone with any ability to think or comprehend disagrees that animals and humans adapt through survival of the fittest, and even develop traits and abilities to deal with their surroundings.

[PLD 14]

Does it really matter who wrote what??? Is this thread about proving Paul can think for himself and write a paper on creation, or is it about creation/evolution?

I think it does matter. I could just as easily reply to every post with 500 pages of regurgitated propaganda from creationisbunk.org or some other contrarian source. But where would that get us? If this debate is not abot intelligent debate on a passionate subject, what is the point of having it? If I am the only one who wants to actually have an open discussion on the subject, let me know now.

Furthermore, one thing that really irks me. Can creationists actually support their argument, or must they simply resort to tearing down the opposition? I have yet to make a single post bashing creationism. I simply indicated that I support evolution as the origin of man, and stated my basis for that argument. I even took time to defend my position when it was attacked. But I have yet to start regurgitating volumes of "research" trying to prove that creationsists are full of cheese. IMHO, Scott is the only one who has actually supported his position. He made more sense in 27 words than the rest of this crew has in 16 pages.

Gone to fly a kite....

[PLD 14]

I don't think he likes me......

Actually, having wandered these halls with you for quite awhile I have enjoyed your company quite a bit and will do so in the future. I do not, however, like your way of conducting a debate.

Phillip, this is not school (I can and shall definitely break your rules #1 and #2 - I may or may not break with "YOUR RULE #3")!

I'm not surprised. Reading and developing original thought supporting your position is much more difficult than just copy & paste.

<yet more volumes of anti-evolution material deleted>

Takes too much time to think on my own

I think we have finally gotten to the truth of the matter...

[racechaser 64]

An excellent post. Well written, and certainly thought provoking.

Thanks Phillip!!

You see Phillip, I don't know if I can ever change your mind about what you believe. The problem I face is you never have said what you believe when it comes to God and Jesus. The only thing you have said was "We would be surprised."

I don't want to make this about you Phillip. But if you would be willing to share what you think about the existence of God and Jesus, I would like to expound some more on the gaps you see between science and Christianity. There are plausible explanations in the descrepancies your scientific mind "knows and sees" vs. what you may have learned in Sunday School as a child.

If that is too personal, maybe just listing the descrepancies you are struggling to line up between science and Christianity.

I may be able to give alternate theories about creation that would reconcile your scientific mind. I don't even have to mention evolutionism to do it. You see the main thing is , do you believe God could have done it? If you think there is a God, but the science stops you from being sure, that can be overcome I believe.

Scott

[PLD 14]

I doubt that anyone with any ability to think or comprehend disagrees that animals and humans adapt through survival of the fittest, and even develop traits and abilities to deal with their surroundings.

And if you will look at the origins information we have today you will find lots of words like theory and hypothesis. If you take Darwins theory and extrapolate it backwards 3 billion years, you reach the conclusion that we started as gasses in the atmosphere and evolved from there. That idea is called abiogenesis. Periodically science comes across a new discovery that is consistent with that idea. Over time, there have been many such discoveries that were consistent with the idea and the idea of biogenesis become a theory unto itself. As more and more evidence is located, more and more people accept the theory of abiogeneis as fact.

Are these discoveries being affected by the Heisenberg effect? I feel certain they are. But that does not change the fact that the mission of science is objectivity and that most true scientists adhere to the scientific method as much as humanly possible.

[PLD 14]

You see Phillip, I don't know if I can ever change your mind about what you believe. The problem I face is you never have said what you believe when it comes to God and Jesus. The only thing you have said was "We would be surprised."

Actually I did. Read back a little (between the rhetoric) and you will find that I not only believe in God, but that I also believe in the divinty of Jesus Christ. And while not said specifically, I meant it to infer that I am a Christian who knows Jesus as his lord and savior.

I don't want to make this about you Phillip.

All's fair in love and war. I'm pounding pretty heavily on Paul's shoulders...

I may be able to give alternate theories about creation that would reconcile your scientific mind. I don't even have to mention evolutionism to do it.

I welcome your thoughts.

You see the main thing is , do you believe God could have done it?

Yep. I even believe that he DID do it. I just don't believe that he did it as detailed in Genesis ch 1&2.

[Paul B. 523]

So then you believe in smart design that evolves to God's specifications?

[PLD 14]

Not neccesssarily.

[Paul B. 523]

And if you will look at the origins information we have today you will find lots of words like theory and hypothesis. If you take Darwins theory and extrapolate it backwards 3 billion years, you reach the conclusion that we started as gasses in the atmosphere and evolved from there. That idea is called abiogenesis. Periodically science comes across a new discovery that is consistent with that idea. Over time, there have been many such discoveries that were consistent with the idea and the idea of biogenesis become a theory unto itself. As more and more evidence is located, more and more people accept the theory of abiogeneis as fact.

In Cincinnati we refer to that as: "Brute Force Cybernetics - where a need is created and then it's filled." In otherwords, if you take a detective on a murder case and he decides so and so is guilty then he proceeds to look for things that will make that person guilty, he will most likely succeed. Again, if you have a theory and look for things to fit into it, it's most likely that you will find things that will. All good detectives know that this theory is flawed.

[Deck Guy 14]

Again, if you have a theory and look for things to fit into it, it's most likely that you will find things that will.

I guess I'm getting confused here. Who is it exactly that's looking for a theory to fit their beliefs?

[Paul B. 523]

Darwin's and other's evolutionary theory was not proposed to account for the origins of living beings, only the process of change once life exists. However, many have thought that the theory of evolution logically requires a beginning of life, which is true. Of those, many have thought that a natural account of the origin of life is necessary, and some have come up with models of that.

Darwin himself thought that life was created.

[Paul B. 523]

I guess I'm getting confused here. Who is it exactly that's looking for a theory to fit their beliefs?

Evolutionists.

Creationists already know the answer and trust the creator!

[Paul B. 523]

Yep. I even believe that he DID do it. .......Not neccesssarily.

So what is it necessarily that you DO believe HE DID?

[PLD 14]

Darwin himself thought that life was created.

He did? The origin of species was published in 1859. In 1860 he wrote:

"With respect to the theological view of the question: This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically, but I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars or that a cat should play with mice... On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance."

[Paul B. 523]

Using deer as an example, let's say that there are four deer, two females and two males, one white male, the others light brown (or fawn) colored. The fawn colored deer have an advantage when it comes to avoiding predators, as they are more difficult to see. Which deer is most like to be killed by predators? I would guess the white one, which also means that it will be less likely to reproduce, and therefore less likely to pass it's genes on. Eventually, white deer become extremely rare, since this is now a recessive trait.

Likewise when it come to humans breeding. For about three million years, accocording to scientists, it has been the faster, smarter, most well-equipped for the environment humans who have reproduced the most. The weaker either die, are killed, or fail to find a suitable mate, since they themselves are less desireable to females. It's that simple. Those that live long enough to breed the most will create the most offspring having those same traits, who in-turn live to produce the most offspring ad infinitum. How complicated is that? We can see the difference this makes in only 10 generations. During the Civil War, a six foot tall man was considered a giant. Now the average male stands at 5'10". That's evolution.

The deer analogy is well understood. The reason for increase in height of Americans is debatable. If what you state is correct then it would mean that a few tall men did all the mating while the shorter people were left outside holding the candles.

The deer analogy is somewhat like how asians, africans, aborigonese, indians and other ethnic groups came about.

Like it says in the Bible - they were spread out and breeding was limited to people in their own group, therefore the strongest traits remained.

Again, we shouldn't lose focus of the fact that the discussion was evolution or creation. Were we created or did we evolve from nothing/single cell/chemicals (adding abiogenesis).

Abiogenesis is another grasping straw - it basically says that since we can recreate the evolution of some of the same components that are in human bodies, it must be true that full life can then also evolve. The human body has salt water in it - just because you can recreate how to make salt water does not mean that you can make life.

[Mike Williamson 198]

He did? In 1860 he wrote:

".... I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance."

Yes. Simply his acceptance that laws are designed indicates his acceptance of a designer. He may not have accepted the creation account of the first chapters of Genesis as literally accurate, but he accepted the existence of a designer.

[Mike Williamson 198]

The reason for increase in height of Americans is debatable. If what you state is correct then it would mean that a few tall men did all the mating while the shorter people were left outside holding the candles.

Good point! And everyone knows there were no short men in those days...I know from reading Louis L'Amour novels that all the men in the old west were well over 6' tall!

[PLD 14]

Yep. I even believe that he DID do it. .......Not neccesssarily.

So what is it necessarily that you DO believe HE DID?

Paul, I will not answer your question. At least not until you can engage in some manner of discussion that somewhat more two dimensional than me making a point and then you shredding it. Even in this short post, you have carefully (and transparently) crafted your words and mine so that any answer I give will either appear evasive of the question or incongrous with prior comments.

Even if I was up for the spanish inquisition that will ensue, I woudn't start until you made at least a fleeting effort to support your own position. Just suffice it to say that my thoughts (and words) on the subject are not in conflict no matter how badly you wish them to be.

[PLD 14]

Yes. Simply his acceptance that laws are designed indicates his acceptance of a designer. He may not have accepted the creation account of the first chapters of Genesis as literally accurate, but he accepted the existence of a designer.

No, I am afraid he did not.

In that writing he was musing his own internal debates regarding the issue. So, taking the last sentence of that paragraph out of context of the first one may seem to support the idea that Darwin had a creationist leaning. But not if you explore his other writings:

"I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God" - Charles Darwin

"I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament; from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian." - Charles Darwin

"The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows." - Charles Darwin

And if that isn't enough to convince you, the pro-creationism web site "answersingenesis.org" maintains a list of arguments that should NOT be used in support of creationism because they are known to be false and hence using them detracts from the credibility argument. Here is the #1 item from that list:

“Darwin recanted on his deathbed - Many people use this story; however, it is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him—even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas." - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

[Mike Williamson 198]

No, I am afraid he did not.

In that writing he was musing his own internal debates regarding the issue. So, taking the last sentence of that paragraph out of context of the first one may seem to support the idea that Darwin had a creationist leaning. But not if you explore his other writings:

"I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God" - Charles Darwin

"I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament; from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian." - Charles Darwin

"The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows." - Charles Darwin

And if that isn't enough to convince you, the pro-creationism web site "answersingenesis.org" maintains a list of arguments that should NOT be used in support of creationism because they are known to be false and hence using them detracts from the credibility argument. Here is the #1 item from that list:

“Darwin recanted on his deathbed - Many people use this story; however, it is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him—even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas." - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Thanks for clearing that up.

My question is, why should it matter whether Darwin recanted or not? Whether he became a Christian or not? It isn't as if his belief, or lack of belief, in creation, the bible, or God, has any bearing whatsoever on what is true and what is not. Saying "Darwin recanted" means nothing, whether it were true or not.

[PLD 14]

Thanks for clearing that up.

My question is, why should it matter whether Darwin recanted or not? Whether he became a Christian or not? It isn't as if his belief, or lack of belief, in creation, the bible, or God, has any bearing whatsoever on what is true and what is not. Saying "Darwin recanted" means nothing, whether it were true or not.

I was replying to Pauls post that Darwin recanted and your interpretation of the excerpt I posted. But you are correct. It is irrelevant to the discussion of the validity of creationism.

Supporters of creationism seem to be really fond of the idea that Darwin was a closet Christian or had some sort of conversion and recanted all he wrote during his life. If it were true, it would be noteworthy that the "father" of modern evolutionary thought altered his views that dramatically. Even so, the significance of a single deathbed conversion as a contrarian argument is minimal as his theories have since been reviewed and accepted by hundreds of prominent scientists.

[Deck Guy 14]

If what you state is correct then it would mean that a few tall men did all the mating while the shorter people were left outside holding the candles.

The change in height probably speaks to our adaptations, most likely as a result of better nutrition and health, not necessarily breeding. Though even today, you would find that most women prefer taller men, don't they? Ask any ten women you know if they prefer a five foot tall man or a six foot tall man.

Anyway, my point was that if we can see a noticable change in 100 years, what type of changes could occur in 300,000,000 years? That speaks to our current debate. I'll attempt to be clearer in future posts, though like Phillip, I see this is going nowhere.