Evolutionism and creationism Poll

[Donkeyfish07]

Dr. George Wald, Evolutionist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Science

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." George Wald

I respect that guy because he at least admits it. Abiogenesis isn't possible, the rest of the theory (I'm not speaking of a species ability to adapt, I'm talking about evolution from single celled primitive life into complex forms that we see today) hinges on random mutation. One has to believe that our complex biological systems are purely random, no design whatsoever. Nobody really believes it's possible for beings like ourselves to just spontaneously assemble randomly. This is why Natural Selection is so over emphasized and the claim is made that it somehow makes it "non-random" when there is no input given to the organism by Natural Selection (Proponents of the theory know that people will not accept the theory at all if the random aspect of it is emphasized). All Natural Selection means is that a species will die if it cannot survive and reproduce at a sufficient rate. That's common sense. It doesn't change the fact that you must believe that we are products of randomness and that life spontaneously arose by itself (with all evidence pointing to the contrary).

It's clear that people who believe the theory only believe it because they choose to. Some take a middle ground because they are overly influenced by secular science but most don't like the philosophical implications that it makes if one is to accept the existence of a creator. I for one respect George Wald, because at least he has enough respect for reason to admit that fact.

 

[NateDaGrimes]

and why would some christians choose evolution? are they doubting the creater.. do they have no faith that the world was made by his image

 

[TheKringledOne]

Dr. George Wald, Evolutionist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Science

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." George Wald

That is a common quote that gets thrown around. It is actually a paraphrased version of a much longer quote, and a poorly paraphrased one at that. Here are some parts of his actual statement that will show off the major differences in his position and the position that the initial quote seems to imply.

"What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the belief that living organisms arise spontaneously under present conditions. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted that they do so no longer." -George Wald

George Wald is stating that spontaneous generation was only disproved in present day conditions but that the experiments done by Louis Pasteur do not apply to all possible conditions, including the ones that are believed to have been common on the early earth. Wald is emphasizing this because it shows that there is a misconception about the manner that spontaneous generation was disproved.

"Our everyday concept of what is impossible, possible, or certain derives from our experience; the number of trials that may be encompassed within the space of a human lifetime, or at most within recorded human history. In this colloquial, practical sense I concede the spontaneous generation of life to be "impossible". It is impossible as we judge events in the scale of human experience.
We shall see that this is not a very meaningful concession. For one thing, the time with which our problem is concerned is geological time, and the whole extent of human history is trivial in the balance. We shall have more to say of this later." -George Wald

Wald is pointing about that even though it is claimed to be impossible based on the current condition experiments, and experiences people have in the modern environment, it does not follow that it was impossible, or even unlikely, in the early earth conditions.

I respect that guy because he at least admits it. Abiogenesis isn't possible, the rest of the theory (I'm not speaking of a species ability to adapt, I'm talking about evolution from single celled primitive life into complex forms that we see today) hinges on random mutation. One has to believe that our complex biological systems are purely random, no design whatsoever. Nobody really believes it's possible for beings like ourselves to just spontaneously assemble randomly. This is why Natural Selection is so over emphasized and the claim is made that it somehow makes it "non-random" when there is no input given to the organism by Natural Selection (Proponents of the theory know that people will not accept the theory at all if the random aspect of it is emphasized). All Natural Selection means is that a species will die if it cannot survive and reproduce at a sufficient rate. That's common sense. It doesn't change the fact that you must believe that we are products of randomness and that life spontaneously arose by itself (with all evidence pointing to the contrary).

The reason that natural selection is emphasized so much is that it is the key force that gives the illusion of design. The accumulation of random mutations leading to genetic diversity within a group is the major factor in what makes the lifeforms look as though they are designed for a specific task. The random mutations simply give diversity in a group even if it makes individuals not as functional in their current environment. I think its also important to point this out; just because a mutation is slightly harmful does not mean it will get completely removed from the gene-pool, it just means that it is going to have a lower frequency in the population. In my experience, both random mutation and natural selection are given quite a bit of emphasis in biology classes but the theory clearly states that natural selection is the reason the organisms have their functionality.

okay okay.. lets come to an agreement that evolution and athiesm is a crutch for the weak.
people use that crutch so they can do what they want.

Evolution and atheism doesn't give people the ability to do whatever they want. Some might use evolution as a way to justify a worldview that allows them to avoid certain rules that are used in different worldviews.

truth is... the word of god may be written by man, but the books you athiest evolutionist are reading books by man.. soo how should we trust them? its like how should we know if there is a God if that author is just writing a book that may have no facts. how should we know if the dude was right about evolution.. they never been million/ billion years.

The science behind evolution is based on the methodology that the people who did the experiment used and not what they believed themselves. In science, it doesn't matter what you know but how you know it. When someone trusts the outcome of scientific experiments done by other people they are putting more trust in the methodology and the repeatability of the results. When you put trust in an author talking about claims that involve the supernatural, there is no way to try and check whether or not what they were saying they know is true. In science, however, you are able to check whether or not their results hold up to our own experiences when attempting to repeat the experiments which led them to their conclusion.

and why would some christians choose evolution? are they doubting the creater.. do they have no faith that the world was made by his image

Its usually a matter of the methods that God used to create humans in it's imagine rather than doubting that God did it.

 

[Donkeyfish07]

and why would some christians choose evolution? are they doubting the creater.. do they have no faith that the world was made by his image

It's drilled into Children's minds early on in School and we grow up with the influence of the theory in art and television as well.

 

[Dotann]

For me, just because God said he created the heavens and the earth in the bible which is whole truth and nothing but the truth. I stand on it. I take it all every word of that book and i will regard it as complete and literal doctrine in my opinionor i take none of it. I leave nothing out! Not ever the smallest syllable. If God says He spoke the world into creation and existence, then who am i to argue?

I will just use the childlike faith that He gave me and trust Him to believe Him. Believe Him in all that He says and all that He did, does and will do. For if i use doubt in one thing, thinking the impossible, then what am i a god to think myself superior, knowing more than Him? I hardly think not?

God created the world with His words as he spoke it and it was PERIOD! That is all i need to know. I dont need scholars to prove it to me in order to make it so. I trust Him and He has proven Himself to me that he has kept His word true and faithful. So why should i doubt now?

Besides, i trust God over man and man's understandings and ideas or theories any day. For man has shown they are not faithful, they walk in doubt, are untrustworthy and remain unacountable much of the time... They have many short comings and many faults. They have lied, cheated and stealed, and made false witnesses against loved ones as well as neighbours, pretended to be god and took Gods name in vain! They cursed Him and attacked his children!
So much so in fact that we needed a Savior who loved us all so much he came here and paid for each and every one of us who believed and accepted Him as such on that same childike faith as well, and that same Word that in in question above dictates about how all those will have their name written in the Lambs book of life and will live for ever more in eternity with Him! Amen!

So why, then after all of this, would someone such as i choose to believe in mans ideas such as evolution or accept Gods Word in creation who by the way has proven himself %100 to me as being faithful to me completley?

I choose God!!! = CREATION

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The entire poll is flawed. There are all kinds of evolution that have NOTHING to do with Darwinian/neo-Darwinian general evolutionary theory.

For example:

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.

7. Temporary Evolution: Changes that occur under certain conditions and revert back to their original form afterwards.

As you can clearly see, a person can believe in micro-evolution (which is an observable phenomena) without believing in general evolutionary theory. For this reason, the poll is flawed.

 

[Dotann]

Number 1-7 are all therories. Theory is a fancy way of saying guess and i dont hold my belief on mans guesses

Oh and your right, the poll is flawed cause man made it. Man is flawed... God is not...

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

A guess would be along the lines of a hypothesis which is different than a theory or a law. Typically, a theory begins as a hypothesis. It may or may not be empirically proven. If it ever is, then it becomes a law.

What is the Difference between a Theory and a Hypothesis?

The poll is flawed because of a logic error, not because a man made it.

Number 1-7 are all therories. Theory is a fancy way of saying guess and i dont hold my belief on mans guesses

Oh and your right, the poll is flawed cause man made it. Man is flawed... God is not...

 

[Nautilus]

Number 1-7 are all therories. Theory is a fancy way of saying guess and i dont hold my belief on mans guesses

Oh and your right, the poll is flawed cause man made it. Man is flawed... God is not...

So how do you discount micro-evolution which literally is occurring everyday?

 

[Donkeyfish07]

So how do you discount micro-evolution which literally is occurring everyday?

I think most people only assume Macro level when it's being compared with creationism. Nobody would dispute micro I don't believe.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Microevolution is observable so it would be ignorant to dispute it in my opinion, but I have had discussions with Neo-Darwinists that argued microevolution was a made-up concept by creationists. Their reasoning was that there is only evolution and that what we call "microevolution" was in fact general evolution in process within species so they denied the entire concept of microevolution.

I explained to them that the terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iuri'i Filipchenko in Variabilität und Variation, which was an early attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution, and that Filipchenko was a Darwinian evolutionist but that had no impact on them.

I guess you meet all kinds.

I think most people only assume Macro level when it's being compared with creationism. Nobody would dispute micro I don't believe.

 

[TosinAsLeader]

As of right now it is Theistic Evolution, but I am starting to find more evidence to a young earth so who knows? Just not strong enough.

 

[EllieArrow]

it's not a matter of belief. I accept the theory of evolution because it is the best explanation for biological diversity on Earth and it is supported by an enormous amount of evidence. I believe in god but i dont believe in a god that would trick us.

 

[spacefreak]

i know GOD created everything, with that said i think scientist have the evidence right in front of them but come up with the wrong conclusion, like the big bang is similar to what happened because GOD used his own energy to make everything so he would have sent out is energy and formed it to what we have today

 

[spacefreak]

how would GOD trick us, it clearly says in the bible that GOD created everything

 

[spacefreak]

how would GOD trick us, it clearly says in the bible that GOD created everything


this is to elliearrow

 

[NateDaGrimes]

you guys are just silly.. there is no such thing as evolution! never has been never will be... evolution is just created by an ill man who is psycho.. keep this up i'll start laughing at pathetic attempts to prove evolution.

 

[NateDaGrimes]

it's not a matter of belief. I accept the theory of evolution because it is the best explanation for biological diversity on Earth and it is supported by an enormous amount of evidence. I believe in god but i dont believe in a god that would trick us.

soo god created us by the dust of the earth. what happens if we die? we become dust later on because thats what we are... man was made from the dust of the earth that God spoke to bring the particles into form of man.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You know there's a whole universe between theistic evolution and young earth creationism. There are old earth creationists, progressive creationists, gap theorists, etc...

I'm not selling anything here because though all of these creation interpretations are at odds and cannot all be right, one can hold to any of them and be a Christian.

Just want you to be aware of the many views on your journey. Though many organizations exist, here are the leading organizations for each of the three largest creation views:

Answers in Genesis (Young Earth Creationism)
Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

Reasons To Believe (Old Earth/Progressive Creationism)
Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith Converge

Biologos (Theistic Evolution)
Home | BioLogos


I'd also recommend:

Evidence For God From Science
Evidence for God from Science

And reading through 'The Reality and Life Institute':
http://www.christianshelpingourworld.org/introduction


Peace.

As of right now it is Theistic Evolution, but I am starting to find more evidence to a young earth so who knows? Just not strong enough.

 

[TosinAsLeader]

you guys are just silly.. there is no such thing as evolution! never has been never will be... evolution is just created by an ill man who is psycho.. keep this up i'll start laughing at pathetic attempts to prove evolution.

A few things wrong with the post, but I will keep it simple. Can you disprove that G-d could have or may have used evolution to create? I like the fact that most of your comments are nothing but spam. I wouldn't be surprised if you did not respond.