Creation Theory

Nebula · Post by **Nebula** » Feb 4th, 2008, 10:38 pm

zzontar wrote:I guess for some, believing there's a God is about as believable as believing we evolved from a hot molten ball is to others.

Who said God didn't make the hot molten ball?

zzontar · Post by **zzontar** » Feb 4th, 2008, 10:44 pm

You've got me there...

bdbnkr · Post by **bdbnkr** » Feb 5th, 2008, 2:14 am

nolanrh wrote:Evolution is NOT random chance. Mutations are random but those that cause us to evolve are not selected "randomly". In fact they are guided, not by a creator but by natural selection. The scientific community has accepted natural selection as the guiding factor based on scientific method.

Nolan if you are going to debunk other peoples theories you should at least understand the ones you are being a proponent of 1st. The purely scientific theory of evolution is based entirely on random chance.

Darwins original theory was based on something similar to what you suggest (i.e. giraffes got longer necks by constantly stretching to reach for leaves).

The theory currently accepted by most of the scientific community is based purely on random mutations occuring (some beneficial, others not). Those that help the species survive become more prevelant through natural selection (ie the giraffes that have longer necks survive better as they more easily reach food and fewer starve).

The odds of evolution causing the development of life on earth in the relatively short timespan that life has existed are less than slim to none. Additionally the odds of life developing from primordial goo (the right combination of amino acids etc) are even lower than those of evolution occuring on its own.

I am an Evangelical Christian and an Evolutionist. I believe the term is theistic evolution...

As we have discussed elsewhere I believe that all creation points to God. The more I learn about the complexity of the universe and life the more my belief in a creator is affirmed.

Cheers...

Big ned · Post by **Big ned** » Feb 5th, 2008, 8:34 am

BD welcome to the forum.

Your views are very close to what I believe as well. I've studied Zoology at length and have come to the conclusion that evolution does happen and specifically within a species. But taking Darwin's theory and then stating that man came from a single cell spontaneously zapped out of some primordial soup is just too random and mathematical probabilities of it happening approach zero faster than the speed of light.

The scientific method is very important to us humans trying to discover truth... However, it many times does not produce truth simply because certain things are reproducable.

I have stated many times on this forum... I believe true science and true religion will always agree... why? because they are both truths and the truth doesn't vary, it simply is. We just need to find it.

nolanrh · Post by **nolanrh** » Feb 5th, 2008, 8:47 am

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear but I am fully aware that the mutations are random. I illustrated so with this statement:

"Mutations are random ..."

bdbnkr · Post by **bdbnkr** » Feb 5th, 2008, 9:17 am

nolanrh wrote:I'm sorry if I wasn't clear but I am fully aware that the mutations are random. I illustrated so with this statement:

"Mutations are random ..."

You also stated that the process is "not random chance". If the mutations that allow evolution to take place are completely random then whether or not they are beneficial or not is also random. You cannot have a process driven by random chance that is not random as well.

nolanrh · Post by **nolanrh** » Feb 5th, 2008, 10:15 am

bdbnkr wrote:
nolanrh wrote:I'm sorry if I wasn't clear but I am fully aware that the mutations are random. I illustrated so with this statement:

"Mutations are random ..."

You also stated that the process is "not random chance". If the mutations that allow evolution to take place are completely random then whether or not they are beneficial or not is also random. You cannot have a process driven by random chance that is not random as well.

Wrong.

Pretend I have a bag with 10 blue balls and 10 red balls. Say I take out 5 balls randomly. I should have some random distribution of red and blue balls. If I then apply the selection criteria that I will only choose blue balls to give to my friend Jenny. The outcome is that Jenny ends up with blue balls no matter what random distribution initially came out of the bag.

The random distribution of balls represents random mutations, my selection criteria of only blue balls is analogous to Natural Selection and the outcome of Jenny only ever receiving blue balls represents a non-random outcome to a randomly seeded process.

Of course this is a black and white example *ahem*... red and blue... of course in evolution there are shades of gray... or purple?

Nolan

bdbnkr · Post by **bdbnkr** » Feb 5th, 2008, 10:42 am

nolanrh wrote:Wrong.

Pretend I have a bag with 10 blue balls and 10 red balls. Say I take out 5 balls randomly. I should have some random distribution of red and blue balls. If I then apply the selection criteria that I will only choose blue balls to give to my friend Jenny. The outcome is that Jenny ends up with blue balls no matter what random distribution initially came out of the bag.

The random distribution of balls represents random mutations, my selection criteria of only blue balls is analogous to Natural Selection and the outcome of Jenny only ever receiving blue balls represents a non-random outcome to a randomly seeded process.

Of course this is a black and white example *ahem*... red and blue... of course in evolution there are shades of gray... or purple?

Nolan

You did note the "shades of grey" in evolution process and appreciate that.

I have to say I disagree with that analogy. Saying that beneficial = blue is far to simplified. For a creature to receive the right mutation, at the right time and in the right place is still controlled completely by random chance. We we would be talking about millions of differently colored balls as posibilities. Your analogy clearly shows a non-random outcome from a random process but I do not believe that it fits with evolutionary theory. The theory of natrual selection represents a random outcome from a random process. In Your analogy there was a "plan" for which balls would be given to Jenny. It is the point I have been trying to make. In order for natrual selection to be realistically possible it would require a "plan". A plan requires a planner.

nolanrh · Post by **nolanrh** » Feb 5th, 2008, 10:50 am

In the case of evolution you're right, there are billions upon billions colors and the process for determining which balls to pass to Jenny isn't nearly as good at determining which balls to pass as I am.

But if you acknowledge that you must acknowledge the possibility of us getting here as via Natural Selection as the guide as greater than 0.

Unfortunately, I see no evidence that it is a creator guiding evolution so I place the probability of it being a creator at 0.

Therefore, I must side with natural selection based on the conclusion that an extremely small chance is still greater than no chance.

...

This is the point in the discussion where you say that the Creator exists outside of our world and we can't ever hope to explain him.

bdbnkr · Post by **bdbnkr** » Feb 5th, 2008, 10:54 am

Big ned wrote:BD welcome to the forum.

Your views are very close to what I believe as well. I've studied Zoology at length and have come to the conclusion that evolution does happen and specifically within a species. But taking Darwin's theory and then stating that man came from a single cell spontaneously zapped out of some primordial soup is just too random and mathematical probabilities of it happening approach zero faster than the speed of light.

The scientific method is very important to us humans trying to discover truth... However, it many times does not produce truth simply because certain things are reproducable.

I have stated many times on this forum... I believe true science and true religion will always agree... why? because they are both truths and the truth doesn't vary, it simply is. We just need to find it.

Thanks Ned,

I should be clear that I am a believer that Evolution was the way all life (including man) developed. I just do not think it is possible for it to have happened on its own. We can see it happening within a species, like you stated, but I also believe that it creates new species. We will not see this occur as the time it takes is far to long for us to have witnessed in any substancial form during human history. But just because we cannot see it happening does not mean it does not happen.

I just cannot accept that it happened on its own... the odds are just long. A creator seems to be the only logical explanation for the process. I can't see Him either. But that does not mean that He does not exist.

bdbnkr · Post by **bdbnkr** » Feb 5th, 2008, 11:37 am

nolanrh wrote:Unfortunately, I see no evidence that it is a creator guiding evolution so I place the probability of it being a creator at 0.

Therefore, I must side with natural selection based on the conclusion that an extremely small chance is still greater than no chance.

...

This is the point in the discussion where you say that the Creator exists outside of our world and we can't ever hope to explain him.

My hunch is that you have never really looked for evidence of Him. It is all around us all of the time.

As to the Creator existing outside of or world... that is not exactly what I said. I claim He exists outside of Nature, Time and Space. The reason I believe this is because I see no logical way the Creator of nature, time and space exist within it. The potter is not part of his pot.

As of yet there have been no reasonable experiments and no fossil record demonstrating how life could develop from primordial goo on its own. No evidence at all. Yet you have no problem accepting that.

I understand and relate to all of your arguments. I am a former hard core atheist myself and it wasn't until I was willing to accept the possibility of a God that I started to find and consider the evidence of a God.

Nebula · Post by **Nebula** » Feb 5th, 2008, 11:39 am

bdbnkr wrote:
nolanrh wrote:Unfortunately, I see no evidence that it is a creator guiding evolution so I place the probability of it being a creator at 0.

Therefore, I must side with natural selection based on the conclusion that an extremely small chance is still greater than no chance.

...

This is the point in the discussion where you say that the Creator exists outside of our world and we can't ever hope to explain him.

My hunch is that you have never really looked for evidence of Him. It is all around us all of the time.

As to the Creator existing outside of or world... that is not exactly what I said. I claim He exists outside of Nature, Time and Space. The reason I believe this is because I see no logical way the Creator of nature, time and space exist within it. The potter is not part of his pot.

As of yet there have been no reasonable experiments and no fossil record demonstrating how life could develop from primordial goo on its own. No evidence at all. Yet you have no problem accepting that.

I understand and relate to all of your arguments. I am a former hard core atheist myself and it wasn't until I was willing to accept the possibility of a God that I started to find and consider the evidence of a God.

Yet, is not same evidence you say is lacking of of how life could develop from goo also lacking of a God that started the whole shebang?

bdbnkr · Post by **bdbnkr** » Feb 5th, 2008, 11:59 am

writerdave wrote:Yet, is not same evidence you say is lacking of of how life could develop from goo also lacking of a God that started the whole shebang?

If you took what I said in context you would have understood that I was responding to Nolan when he said,"Unfortunately, I see no evidence that it is a creator guiding evolution so I place the probability of it being a creator at 0."

He implied that I believed in things that no eveidence exists for. I was merely stating that so did he.

As to there being no evidence of God. You should have said that there is no evidence that you find credible. There is plenty of evidence that many people do find credible... however it would require having an open mind.

If you read more of this thread you will see that I am an evolutionist and and Evangelical Christian. I do not see science and God as being opposed. In fact the more I learn about the complexity of life and the universe the more convinced I am that there is a God.

Nebula · Post by **Nebula** » Feb 5th, 2008, 12:01 pm

And my point is that you are requiring others to have a certain type of evidence but you clearly do not require the same of yourself.

It boils down to belief, I guess.

bdbnkr · Post by **bdbnkr** » Feb 5th, 2008, 12:27 pm

writerdave wrote:And my point is that you are requiring others to have a certain type of evidence but you clearly do not require the same of yourself.

It boils down to belief, I guess.

Maybe you should go back and re-read what I wrote. I was making that point to Nolan. I have no expectation of others having to provide a higher level of proof than I do.

I was trying to make him realize that his beliefs were based on no more evidence than my own. Now you come back and try to tell me I am doing the same thing????