Creationism Vs Evolution
- Thread starter Unknowable
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
As small as those little guys are there are some very strong forces holding them together. Breaking those bonds is going to release that energy.
I am not a physicist so I can not answer these. I could attempt to contact my brother for the answers because he is a physicist.
Stars do the job. They are huge pressure machines because of the large amount of gravity and they break apart atoms which allow for the formation of newer, larger elements. Our sun turns hydrogens into helium and it is a fairly small star compared to others. An interesting side note, helium was first discovered by a spectrum analysis of the sun.
Atoms interact with each other through the electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction forces. They can bind together in many ways such as sharing or donating electrons from one to another. All of this is easy to look up and even test yourself.
Most people, especially scientists in the field, are not going to claim that these compounds came together by random chance and formed life. It is known that the necessary aminoacids and nucleotides that life uses do form in certain conditions, and these conditions were much more common on the early earth. These aren't randomly forming. There are a series of processes that bring these together and they all follow physical rules which is why creating them in a lab is repeatable. It has also been discovered that self-replicating compounds can form in these environment. They usually form when an area is being constantly flooded, dried up, and flooded again. I do not know why they form under these conditions chemically as I am not a chemist, but I have read peer reviewed scientific papers about them which adds to the credibility of this concept for me. After that it is still a long process to getting to an early thing we would call life. However once you have self replicating systems in environments that are full of the stuff it needs to replicate you get processes occurring that are similar to evolution. This occurs because the replicating compounds do sometimes make errors which sometimes cause them to be less stable but other times more stable for the environment. Eventually you get to systems of these molecules that work together as a sort of colony similar to the colonial bacterial or colonial protists but with each unit being much more simple. After several other processes these would come together to become what most scientists would consider to be life.
Remember that bacteria are giants in complexity and that scientists are not saying that the first self-replicating compounds that led to life were anything near the complexity of modern bacteria.
Well they are probably just being harmed by bacteria that are more basal to its common ancestor. Bacteria are always competing with each other for resources and some evolve ways of harming other bacteria to take their resources from them, even kill them to do so. If you are talking about how life eventually became multicellular than you need to understand a lot of complex concepts, such as endosymbiotic relationships, that allowed for prokaryotes to become eukaryote.
Mistakes in replicating the genetic information, genetic material from other sources being mixed into it by horizontal gene transfer, and even new information being placed in by viruses. These are all sources for change. Sometimes they are harmful and sometimes they aren't. Sometimes the changes are slightly harmful but not harmful enough to kill off the organism. The organism and its descendants survive and eventually changes that will change the somewhat harmful change into something useful. I have digressed, back to the main point, these changes can occur and they will be passed on if useful, neutral or not harmful enough to kill off the line. These changes can accumulate and be selected for or against under different circumstances.
There is no guiding force. The bacteria don't know where their changes are going to take them. The bacteria don't think about how they are going to change. If there is a niche to be filled and a change arises to fill that niche than those individuals will have an advantage to survive. The selection process doesn't just produce the best of the best, it produces replicating structures that are able to survive in the environment. If it is able to survive than it will. There are reasons for more complex organisms to be more successful in certain environments.
I think you have a misunderstanding of evolution due to you saying "why would they mutate into things that can be killed by the same bacteria they came from?". I don't know when this supposedly occurs. Sure some of the organisms might have more basal characteristics to the common ancestor but that doesn't make them the exact same organism.
I am not a physicist so I can not answer these. I could attempt to contact my brother for the answers because he is a physicist.
Stars do the job. They are huge pressure machines because of the large amount of gravity and they break apart atoms which allow for the formation of newer, larger elements. Our sun turns hydrogens into helium and it is a fairly small star compared to others. An interesting side note, helium was first discovered by a spectrum analysis of the sun.
Atoms interact with each other through the electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction forces. They can bind together in many ways such as sharing or donating electrons from one to another. All of this is easy to look up and even test yourself.
Most people, especially scientists in the field, are not going to claim that these compounds came together by random chance and formed life. It is known that the necessary aminoacids and nucleotides that life uses do form in certain conditions, and these conditions were much more common on the early earth. These aren't randomly forming. There are a series of processes that bring these together and they all follow physical rules which is why creating them in a lab is repeatable. It has also been discovered that self-replicating compounds can form in these environment. They usually form when an area is being constantly flooded, dried up, and flooded again. I do not know why they form under these conditions chemically as I am not a chemist, but I have read peer reviewed scientific papers about them which adds to the credibility of this concept for me. After that it is still a long process to getting to an early thing we would call life. However once you have self replicating systems in environments that are full of the stuff it needs to replicate you get processes occurring that are similar to evolution. This occurs because the replicating compounds do sometimes make errors which sometimes cause them to be less stable but other times more stable for the environment. Eventually you get to systems of these molecules that work together as a sort of colony similar to the colonial bacterial or colonial protists but with each unit being much more simple. After several other processes these would come together to become what most scientists would consider to be life.
Remember that bacteria are giants in complexity and that scientists are not saying that the first self-replicating compounds that led to life were anything near the complexity of modern bacteria.
Well they are probably just being harmed by bacteria that are more basal to its common ancestor. Bacteria are always competing with each other for resources and some evolve ways of harming other bacteria to take their resources from them, even kill them to do so. If you are talking about how life eventually became multicellular than you need to understand a lot of complex concepts, such as endosymbiotic relationships, that allowed for prokaryotes to become eukaryote.
Mistakes in replicating the genetic information, genetic material from other sources being mixed into it by horizontal gene transfer, and even new information being placed in by viruses. These are all sources for change. Sometimes they are harmful and sometimes they aren't. Sometimes the changes are slightly harmful but not harmful enough to kill off the organism. The organism and its descendants survive and eventually changes that will change the somewhat harmful change into something useful. I have digressed, back to the main point, these changes can occur and they will be passed on if useful, neutral or not harmful enough to kill off the line. These changes can accumulate and be selected for or against under different circumstances.
There is no guiding force. The bacteria don't know where their changes are going to take them. The bacteria don't think about how they are going to change. If there is a niche to be filled and a change arises to fill that niche than those individuals will have an advantage to survive. The selection process doesn't just produce the best of the best, it produces replicating structures that are able to survive in the environment. If it is able to survive than it will. There are reasons for more complex organisms to be more successful in certain environments.
I think you have a misunderstanding of evolution due to you saying "why would they mutate into things that can be killed by the same bacteria they came from?". I don't know when this supposedly occurs. Sure some of the organisms might have more basal characteristics to the common ancestor but that doesn't make them the exact same organism.
Even more questions.
How do you create a living organism from a non living organism?
What are mutations? They are random errors or defects in the cell’s DNA chemical structure. If evolution is mutation of a species then we as humans are pretty much a genetic abnomality. Where is the scientific proof that mutations have been beneficial in evolution? As far as I know there aren't any. Millions and millions of genetic mutations occuring would put evolution of a species to a direct halt. My guess is with all these mutations going on at some point in the cycle reproduction would be impossible. The ability to breed would end due to years of currupt mutations. Species would become extict over time, and life as we know it would eventually end.
How do you create a living organism from a non living organism?
What are mutations? They are random errors or defects in the cell’s DNA chemical structure. If evolution is mutation of a species then we as humans are pretty much a genetic abnomality. Where is the scientific proof that mutations have been beneficial in evolution? As far as I know there aren't any. Millions and millions of genetic mutations occuring would put evolution of a species to a direct halt. My guess is with all these mutations going on at some point in the cycle reproduction would be impossible. The ability to breed would end due to years of currupt mutations. Species would become extict over time, and life as we know it would eventually end.
I understand evolution just fine. Nothing becomes big bang. Big bang becomes energy. Energy becomes matter. Matter becomes atoms. Atoms becomes elements. Elements join to compounds. Compounds become plasms. Plasms become protiens. Protiens become life. Life get's bigger. Fish becomes lizard becomes bird becomes monkey becomes human.
I understand that matter and pressure equals nuclear fusion inside stars. That hydrogen and helium were the first elements and they were pressurized and fused to become bigger ones. But what I am saying is, if that all came from nothing, that is some feat to have just 'exploded from nothingness'. It's absurd to think it just happened. Absolutely ridiculous.
What I meant to ask was 'how', in the sense that, how does all that come from NOTHINGNESS??
I understand that matter and pressure equals nuclear fusion inside stars. That hydrogen and helium were the first elements and they were pressurized and fused to become bigger ones. But what I am saying is, if that all came from nothing, that is some feat to have just 'exploded from nothingness'. It's absurd to think it just happened. Absolutely ridiculous.
What I meant to ask was 'how', in the sense that, how does all that come from NOTHINGNESS??
I went into it. The field is called abiogenesis.
By what typical standard?
Whether or not a mutation is beneficial, 'neutral', or harmful depends on the environment that it is in.
Examples of mutations that are considered to be beneficial;
Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli., CCR5-delta 32 mutation in humans which protects from aids, the mutation that led to nylonase allowing a bacteria to eat nylon, anti-myostatin mutation, adaptation to growth in the dark by Chlamydomonas (a green algae), and there are much more.
The adaptation to the dark of the green algae was actually done in an experiment spanning over 600 generation, though became adapted in less time than that, and was a combination of many mutations over those generations.
The anti-myostatin mutation can be benefit in some situtations and harmful in others. It usually depends on the amount of resources that the animal has and what kind of niche it is filling. Myostatin limits the natural growth of muscles and is in high amounts in most humans. However anti-myostatin mutations are not harmful in this day and age in 1st world countries because of the vast amount of resources we have. The end result is humans who have double the normal muscle mass of the majority of people even without doing exercise.
Mutations usually don't happen by the millions in a single generation, but if they did they would usually end up being harmful.
The bad mutations are weeded out due to natural selection. The ones with harmful mutations don't usually get to breed or replicate when there is so much competition so the mutation doesn't get passed on.
What transition do you want to see stages for?
Yes, if this is the case than it shouldn't be possible to argue about it on a naturalistic basis.
By what typical standard?
Whether or not a mutation is beneficial, 'neutral', or harmful depends on the environment that it is in.
Examples of mutations that are considered to be beneficial;
Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli., CCR5-delta 32 mutation in humans which protects from aids, the mutation that led to nylonase allowing a bacteria to eat nylon, anti-myostatin mutation, adaptation to growth in the dark by Chlamydomonas (a green algae), and there are much more.
The adaptation to the dark of the green algae was actually done in an experiment spanning over 600 generation, though became adapted in less time than that, and was a combination of many mutations over those generations.
The anti-myostatin mutation can be benefit in some situtations and harmful in others. It usually depends on the amount of resources that the animal has and what kind of niche it is filling. Myostatin limits the natural growth of muscles and is in high amounts in most humans. However anti-myostatin mutations are not harmful in this day and age in 1st world countries because of the vast amount of resources we have. The end result is humans who have double the normal muscle mass of the majority of people even without doing exercise.
Mutations usually don't happen by the millions in a single generation, but if they did they would usually end up being harmful.
The bad mutations are weeded out due to natural selection. The ones with harmful mutations don't usually get to breed or replicate when there is so much competition so the mutation doesn't get passed on.
What transition do you want to see stages for?
Yes, if this is the case than it shouldn't be possible to argue about it on a naturalistic basis.
Well, to be honest, the only question everyone I've asked has dodged is the simplest one of all; 'How did the universe explode, when there was no force behind it? How does everything come from nothing?'
Answer that with a solid, fool-proof answer, and you've got me. Until then, good luck. Cause you can never explain that away.
Answer that with a solid, fool-proof answer, and you've got me. Until then, good luck. Cause you can never explain that away.
Why did it? Because the nature of the forces in the universe allows for it. You can believe that a creator put those forces in place so that this could happen if you want to but I don't see that as a necessity.
I was talking about the theory of evolution. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The big bang has nothing to do with that. Additionally, the big bang theory doesn't necessitate something coming from nothing.
That is a very vague and poor explanation and doesn't even get into the mechanism.
The 'big bang' evidently did occur. Unless you can offer up a different explanation for the cosmic microwave background radiation and red-shifted galaxies. However, that does not mean that anything exploded from nothingness because that is not a factor in the theory though some people in the field have considered that idea.
Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. It doesn't have to for evolution or abiogenesis to occur. A god, or gods, could have created the universe and made the earth on the first day and evolution and abiogenesis could still be true.
Its unknown if a moon is needed to support life. Its unknown what range of pressure, planet size, and distance from a star is needed to allow for the processes to take place to form life even when we are just considering life that has a similar structure to life on earth.
I was talking about the theory of evolution. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The big bang has nothing to do with that. Additionally, the big bang theory doesn't necessitate something coming from nothing.
That is a very vague and poor explanation and doesn't even get into the mechanism.
The 'big bang' evidently did occur. Unless you can offer up a different explanation for the cosmic microwave background radiation and red-shifted galaxies. However, that does not mean that anything exploded from nothingness because that is not a factor in the theory though some people in the field have considered that idea.
Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. It doesn't have to for evolution or abiogenesis to occur. A god, or gods, could have created the universe and made the earth on the first day and evolution and abiogenesis could still be true.
Its unknown if a moon is needed to support life. Its unknown what range of pressure, planet size, and distance from a star is needed to allow for the processes to take place to form life even when we are just considering life that has a similar structure to life on earth.
Of course the big bang has to do with evolution. Evolution by definition means 'the gradual development of something'. So, the big bang is where evolution began. The Big Bang theory clearly says that existence came from a 'singularity' and that 'a singularity is a zone in time in space which DEFIES OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS'. And that space did not even exist before the big began
I think that's all I need to hear. It goes against physics. Case closed.
Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36.
Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.
Mark Eastman, Chuck Missler, The Creator: Beyond Time and Space, (1996) p. 11.
W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.
See http://www.halos.com/reports/ext-2003-022.pdf
See http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-rosetta.pdf and http://www.halos.com/reports/ext-2003-021.pdf; see also http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-redshift.pdf and http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-affirmed.pdf
I think that's all I need to hear. It goes against physics. Case closed.
Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36.
Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.
Mark Eastman, Chuck Missler, The Creator: Beyond Time and Space, (1996) p. 11.
W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.
See http://www.halos.com/reports/ext-2003-022.pdf
See http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-rosetta.pdf and http://www.halos.com/reports/ext-2003-021.pdf; see also http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-redshift.pdf and http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-affirmed.pdf
And yes, I also agree that abiogenesis could occur afterwards. I also think that the theories of evolution and expansion can coincide with Christianity. In fact even more so after reading those books telling me that the expansion from a singularity defies physics and that space was not in existence before the 'big bang'.
Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions Matthew W. Powner, Beatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland. Nature, Vol. 460, May 13, 2009.
“Systems chemistry on early Earth.” By Jack W. Szostak. Nature, Vol. 460, May 13, 2009.
One transition wouldn't prove evolution. It would just be a supporting piece of evidence. The genetic evidence, in my opinion, is a lot more convincing and for sure than the fossil record. However both are convincing.
The fossils of members of the genus Ardipithecus show a good transition from the common ancestor between apes and humans that is more on the human line. This line might not have directly led to humans but it is more human-like than modern chimps and more human-like than the common ancestor from what we can tell from other ape fossils along that line.
Archaeopteryx is another great transitional form between non-avian dinosaurs and birds. Archaeopteryx was originally classified as a bird but this is now under dispute because there are fossils of dinosaurs not considered to be birds that are more closely related to birds morphologically. One of these are the group Troodontidae. If Archaeopteryx is considered a bird and Troodontidae than it would make birds a polyphyletic grouping. Archaeopteryxis a clear transition from non-avian dinosaurs to the aves.
Ambulocetus is a clear transition from land dwelling mammals to whales and dolphins.
The fossil record with transitions.
I already said sorry for my poor communication. I was referring specifically to the theory of evolution is a model in biology and has nothing to do with the big bang. The theory of evolution can still hold up without the need for a big bang to start the universe.
I agree. I just don't think it fits with a literal interpretation of Genesis.
“Systems chemistry on early Earth.” By Jack W. Szostak. Nature, Vol. 460, May 13, 2009.
One transition wouldn't prove evolution. It would just be a supporting piece of evidence. The genetic evidence, in my opinion, is a lot more convincing and for sure than the fossil record. However both are convincing.
The fossils of members of the genus Ardipithecus show a good transition from the common ancestor between apes and humans that is more on the human line. This line might not have directly led to humans but it is more human-like than modern chimps and more human-like than the common ancestor from what we can tell from other ape fossils along that line.
Archaeopteryx is another great transitional form between non-avian dinosaurs and birds. Archaeopteryx was originally classified as a bird but this is now under dispute because there are fossils of dinosaurs not considered to be birds that are more closely related to birds morphologically. One of these are the group Troodontidae. If Archaeopteryx is considered a bird and Troodontidae than it would make birds a polyphyletic grouping. Archaeopteryxis a clear transition from non-avian dinosaurs to the aves.
Ambulocetus is a clear transition from land dwelling mammals to whales and dolphins.
The fossil record with transitions.
I already said sorry for my poor communication. I was referring specifically to the theory of evolution is a model in biology and has nothing to do with the big bang. The theory of evolution can still hold up without the need for a big bang to start the universe.
I agree. I just don't think it fits with a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Last edited: