🧙 The Tolkien Forum 🧝

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

Evolution vs. Creation

Elessar II

The Clark Kent of ME
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
138
Reaction score
1
Location
Wherever the Action Is
Ok, here it is. A thread debating on Evolution vs. Creation.
Now, I personally believe evolution to be an insanely ridiculous notion, created by man to kick God out of life.
I personally believe that we were created by God on the sixth day of history.
Now all of you evolutionary theorists, I want to hear about evolution from your perspective because I can't make heads or tails of it.:confused: :)
 

Eriol

Estel
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
3
Location
Ithilien
Ah, you don't want me to type all of what I said in those threads I indicated to you again, do you?

Read the threads and come with specific questions, and I'll do my best to answer. You seem to be angling for a debate from a scientific standpoint; check "Thoughts on Darwinian Evolution" then.
 

Eriol

Estel
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
3
Location
Ithilien
Evolution never stops. All life forms are 'in the process of evolution'.

Definition of evolution -- taken from that thread which I still advise you to check, it would save a lot of questioning ;):

Populations of living beings change over time, and these changes are transmitted to their descendants.

Just that. This is "hypothesis 1" of Darwin, the second hypothesis being that Natural Selection was the most important (though not the only) mechanism in bringing this result about.

Hypothesis One is what I am calling "Evolution". And therefore, "the process of evolution" means change in the populations of living beings over time, and a change inherited by their descendants. According to that definition, there are too many examples of populations changing over time to be listed here :D.

Dogs, cats, doves, cows, sheep... -- all domestic animals have changed over time, and the change has been inherited by their descendants.

Woolly elephants, woolly rhinoceroses, saber-toothed tigers, all shared common ancestors with modern elephants, rhinoceroses, and big cats.

Though I think your question was pointed more at "transitional forms" -- animals with intermediate characteristics.

There you go:

Archaeopteryx
The reptile-mammal transition
Land-based ancestors of cetaceans (whales and dolphins)
Bacterial adaptation to antibiotics
Insect adaptation to poisons and inseticides

etc. etc. etc. I could give you huge lists of examples of "evolution in action" -- change in populations being transmitted to their descendants.
 

Elessar II

The Clark Kent of ME
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
138
Reaction score
1
Location
Wherever the Action Is
I could give you huge lists of examples of "evolution in action" -- change in populations being transmitted to their descendants.
If you're meaning micro-evolution, yes I do agree with you. But the renowned theory of macro-evolution, however, is completely impossible and unbased.
BTW, have you heard of all the assumptions evolutionists make?
Ridiculous.
 

Eriol

Estel
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
3
Location
Ithilien
The "reknowned theory" of macroevolution... does not exist. It is a figment of the imagination of creationists. Darwin never separated macro from micro. Modern evolutionists never separated macro from micro. I see no reason for us to do it in this thread ;).

Will you ever check those threads? Just so I know if I must re-type everything I said in them :).

To say "macroevolution is impossible", you must

a) define macroevolution (something that does not lie within evolutionary theory proper).

b) explain what makes it "impossible" (a very strong word, and I'm willing to bet a lot of money that you won't be able to do it :D. I suggest you change it to "wildly improbable", it is at least an achievable goal).

Yes, I have heard of all the assumptions that evolutionists make (remember, I'm one of them). But what is even more ridiculous is the assumptions that creationists make about evolution ;). You would think they would study the matter before criticizing a theory. Not all creationists fit under this unflattering description, of course... but so far you haven't shown me why YOU do not fall under it, Elessar. You simply assert, without even a reasoning to back up your assertions.

I wouldn't want you to spend some years to study the evidence, I just want you to realize that you don't know what you are talking about (step 1) and then to show a willingness to learn (step 2) in order to disbelieve (if you still want to) with data instead of assumptions (step 3).

If you want to discuss whether Evolution is compatible with Christianity, it is a good subject and we could talk about it. But if you want to attack Evolution from a scientific standpoint, you're badly outgunned.

You should come back with more ammo :).
 

Gandalf White

Gone Missing
Joined
Nov 21, 2001
Messages
2,182
Reaction score
5
Location
There and back again
Yes Elessar my friend, you've chosen the wrong person to pick an argument with! Eriol could run circles around us any day, no matter who was right! :eek: :)

Knowing that you're new here, you probably have no idea what thread Eriol is talking about. So here's the link; I believe it is the correct one.

I won't jump into the argument just yet, but I do have a question for you, Eriol. I might have missed it, but what is your position on the 'Big bang?' Do you believe that God created the Earth and its animals, and then evolution took over, or did God orchestrate a Big bang, or was there just a Big bang? (Or anywhere in between, for that matter.)
 

Eriol

Estel
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
3
Location
Ithilien
I hardly even began to ran circles here :D. I gave him that link before, but thanks GW :).

My position on the Big Bang... well, God orchestrates everything, including Evolution. Just as human history is governed by God (we call it Providence), so is the history of the Universe.

So, my position is that the Big Bang was caused by God; and after the Big Bang the Universe developed according to the known laws of physics (not that we know all of them, of course :D), up to the point where a planet was formed around this star and life was created on it.

(By the way, I have no idea of how did life actually begin. And it is not a matter of evolutionary theory anyway... origin of life remains very much a mistery to me and to science. Conversely, the fact that it is a mistery does not force us to admit that it was miraculous. It only forces us to admit that we don't know enough about it :)).

Then, life developed according to the known laws of evolution (but with God's government behind it, just as it was behind the formation of the Solar System, and as it was behind the history of the Roman Empire).

Billions of years later, a curious ape rose (quite literally :) ). And this ape was then instilled with a spirit (and I'm quite sure that this was "miraculous", i.e., not a result of the laws of evolution). God did that.

There it is, in a nutshell.

We are spiritual animals. Our biological nature is a result of evolution. Our spirit is not.
 

Elessar II

The Clark Kent of ME
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
138
Reaction score
1
Location
Wherever the Action Is
Yes Elessar my friend, you've chosen the wrong person to pick an argument with! Eriol could run circles around us any day, no matter who was right!
I believe you're right GW. Although I do know what I'm talking about, there's no doubt that Mr. Eriol has a far deeper knowledge of his beliefs.
However, Eriol, I have heard of a lot of people like you, who, although are "Christians" believe in evolution. One of these was an outspoken evolutionist by the name of Dr. Jobe Martin, who, after being challenged by some of his pupils to look deep into the theories of evolution and the truths of the Bible, found that he was wrong after all, and became a devout Creationist. I challenge you to read his book, "The Evolution of a Creationist". It is really eye-opening.

(And, Yes I did go to the link, whew!, you figuring on writing a book? :D )

BTW, Eriol, how do explain the Bible's interpretation of Creation, if you believe it to be the divine Word of God?
 

Eriol

Estel
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
3
Location
Ithilien
Well, first of all I'd like to note that the " " around Christian are hardly fair. I don't claim that you are a lesser kind of Christian because of your beliefs. I am a Catholic. Does that make me a "Christian" (as opposed to a full Christian), in quotes, in your view, even if I were a Creationist? Even though we may disagree on some details we are both Christians, without " ".

Also, the matter of Creationism x Evolutionism is a very, very minor matter in Christianity. The real issues in Christianity are sin, salvation, grace... the "good news". The origins of humans are almost irrelevant in that context.

So there is no need to get mad :). And if you've heard of "a lot of people like me", believe me, I've heard of many more "people like you"... and if we were to stop at classifying each other none of us would have learned anything.

The question on the Bible was answered on the "Question on the Bible" ;) thread. Genesis is a myth. Now I'll spend the next 10 to 15 posts explaining why a myth is not a lie, why a myth is a way to tell very important truths :D.

There is no error in the Genesis, properly interpreted as a myth.

Let me point out that the immense majority of theologians agrees with me on the matter of Genesis' mythical character. It is also the position of the Catholic Church, which holds the greatest collection of theologians among the denominations (2000 years of theologians ;)).

There are those who believe the Catholic Church holds a monopoly of error, and who will thus disregard the suggestion of a mythical Genesis from the start. Are you one of them?

This question was extensively debated between me (on one side) and Thorin, Elendil3119, BranMuffin... and perhaps some others... in that "Question on the Bible" thread. I don't want to convince anyone that this interpretation is correct; I merely wanted to show to them (and to you) that it is not contradictory to Christianity.

You may not believe in what I said, and I'll have no quarrel with you. But if you claim that what I said is contradictory with Christianity, then you should be able to prove it. Contradictions are very easy to show. Likewise, if you claim that evolution is "impossible", show it.
 

Elessar II

The Clark Kent of ME
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
138
Reaction score
1
Location
Wherever the Action Is
So there is no need to get mad . And if you've heard of "a lot of people like me", believe me, I've heard of many more "people like you"... and if we were to stop at classifying each other none of us would have learned anything.
Who's getting mad?:)

And I didn't mean to "classify" you, I'm sorry if you got that impression.

Well, first of all I'd like to note that the " " around Christian are hardly fair. I don't claim that you are a lesser kind of Christian because of your beliefs. I am a Catholic. Does that make me a "Christian" (as opposed to a full Christian), in quotes, in your view, even if I were a Creationist? Even though we may disagree on some details we are both Christians, without " ".
My definition of a Christian (as well as the Bible's definition of a Christian) is one who has come to the realization of the saving grace of Jesus Christ, repented of their sins and
accepted Him as their Savior. ( Now if Jesus descended from a monkey then my name is J.R.R. Tolkien!)

The question on the Bible was answered on the "Question on the Bible" thread. Genesis is a myth. Now I'll spend the next 10 to 15 posts explaining why a myth is not a lie, why a myth is a way to tell very important truths .
Don't bother. The fact of the matter is, I'd rather believe the prophet Moses who had an intimate relationship with God and was inspired by God to write the Genesis than a mere scientist named Darwin who, several milleniums later, decided to come up with a theory to oppose it.

There are those who believe the Catholic Church holds a monopoly of error, and who will thus disregard the suggestion of a mythical Genesis from the start. Are you one of them?
Yes, I do disregard a mythical Genesis from the start, but not because the Catholic religion DOES have a monopoly of error.
Why would Moses come up with some mythical account of creation after writing several other books that were accurate up to the letter? Also, in the Scripture, it clearly states that the Bible is the divine Word of God. Why would God come up with a myth?
It doesn't make sense.
(And don't get me wrong I'm not prejudice against the Catholic religion. I have known several people from that religion and find them to be good, honest, people. :) )
 

Eriol

Estel
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
3
Location
Ithilien
Originally posted by Elessar II
My definition of a Christian (as well as the Bible's definition of a Christian) is one who has come to the realization of the saving grace of Jesus Christ, repented of their sins and
accepted Him as their Savior.
A good definition. I fit into it. So that's settled :).

( Now if Jesus descended from a monkey then my name is J.R.R. Tolkien!)
Why is the notion of a Jesus descended from a monkey so much more horrible than the notion of a Jesus descended from dust? You are going dangerously close to a well-known heresy here, denying Christ's humanity. When the Incarnation took place the Uncreated, Perfect Being assumed the mantle of Humanity, with all of its flaws. Whether they come from dust or monkeys is beside the point.

Do you deny that Jesus was a human being? Do you think he was some sort of avatar, of emissary, of angel, without human flesh and human mind and human soul?

Don't bother. The fact of the matter is, I'd rather believe the prophet Moses who had an intimate relationship with God and was inspired by God to write the Genesis than a mere scientist named Darwin who, several milleniums later, decided to come up with a theory to oppose it.
Sigh... Darwin did not come up with a theory "to oppose it'. He came up with a theory to explain the observations of Nature.

God is not only the author of the Bible, He's the author of Nature, too. If you choose the Bible over Nature, you're accusing God of being deceptive. There is no reason for us to choose one over the other. "Truth does not contradict Truth" (St. Augustine).

Yes, I do disregard a mythical Genesis from the start, but not because the Catholic religion DOES have a monopoly of error.
Why would Moses come up with some mythical account of creation after writing several other books that were accurate up to the letter? Also, in the Scripture, it clearly states that the Bible is the divine Word of God. Why would God come up with a myth?
It doesn't make sense.
See how you are equating myth with lie?

God would come up with a myth because it is the best way to teach some very important concepts (much more important than the origin of human beings, by the way).

Genesis teaches us that:

a) God created the world from nothing (ex nihilo)
b) He created both spiritual and physical beings
c) Sin was introduced into mankind by an external agent
d) Mankind fell into sin by disobeying God's command
e) God made a covenant with mankind after that

...

etc.

Now, if you think that Moses should have written a philosophical treatise to expound these truths, you are wrong. The best way to teach is by myths. Recall Jesus and his parables. Stories that drive the point home are God's favorite way of teaching.

Genesis is not meant to be a scientific treatise. It was never considered one.

Note that to say that Genesis is mythical does not mean saying that it is mistaken or wrong. It means simply that we have to interpret it correctly, with the help of the Holy Spirit (as well as the rest of the Bible). Do you remember when Philip helped the man who wanted to read the Scriptures? (in Acts). "If no one will explain it to me, how will I understand?". That's a Biblical precept for reading the Scriptures correctly, for you ;). It's not cut and dry. It needs interpretation.

(And don't get me wrong I'm not prejudice against the Catholic religion. I have known several people from that religion and find them to be good, honest, people. :) )
Good, and I didn't think you were prejudiced against Catholics, I just asked if you were :).
 

Elessar II

The Clark Kent of ME
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
138
Reaction score
1
Location
Wherever the Action Is
Ahh... I see that the only subject we are divided on is the origin of the earth.

Why is the notion of a Jesus descended from a monkey so much more horrible than the notion of a Jesus descended from dust?
Because in the Bible it clearly states that we are formed out of the dust of the earth, not that we are descended from the lineage of the gorilla. Never once, does the Bible even hint at mentioning evolution.

Do you deny that Jesus was a human being?
No, I firmly believe that Jesus Christ was God in human form.

Sigh... Darwin did not come up with a theory "to oppose it'. He came up with a theory to explain the observations of Nature.
That's the problem whenever man tries to explain God, there is always going to be error.

OK, so you believe Genesis to be a myth, and assuming I do not equate myth with lie (which I don't) There's still so much that flows out of Genesis into the rest of the Bible, i.e. Satan's downfall, the lineage of man, etc... that a lot of things evolutionists claim doesn't seem to fit into the story of Genesis.

You're a tough cookie Eriol, you have a lot of knowledge behind your beliefs. But have you tried to see creation from my perspective. I have tried in the past to see evolution through yours and I cannot. (Also I still challenge you to read "Evolution of a Creationist". It would do a better job explaining my beliefs than I could.)
 

Helcaraxë

The Grinding Ice
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Location
North of the Sundering Seas
Originally posted by Elessar II
If you're meaning micro-evolution, yes I do agree with you. But the renowned theory of macro-evolution, however, is completely impossible and unbased.
BTW, have you heard of all the assumptions evolutionists make?
Ridiculous.

Pray tell, exactly how is it impossible and ridiculous? If it it indeed impossible and ridiculous, creation theory is equally (if not far more) impossible and ridiculous.

Secondly, the bible is a book. Nothing more. It's a good book, that can teach us important ethical truths. But I challenge you to prove that the Bible is truly the Holy Word of God. I challenge you to prove God's existence. I challenge you to prove Jesus's truth. I'll be surprised if you can. (No offense meant).

(This is why I am a skeptic:D )

MB
 

Narya

~He-he-he~
Joined
Apr 22, 2002
Messages
1,286
Reaction score
21
Location
Somewhere in Asia
Do I join this debate?? Hmmmm, I wonder....

Well, let me just say a few words....

EVOLUTION is still a theory. Never proven, and most of it's "evidences" are fallacious (i.e. Missing Link?? Get your records straight, the bone was a fraud). Second thing is if you believe that Evolution happened, that only means one thing, you have a monkey for an uncle (Joke! I know it's corny, but I can't get over that one).

Furthermore, according to the Bible, this is exactly what Satan the devil wants us to believe: That there is no God, and that we are here on our own, to act as our own God (Genesis 3:1 - 5 - conversation with EVE, please take note of the statement made, "...for God knows that on the day you eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil your eyes will be open to the world, and you will become like God, knowing good and bad.") And if you believe in that, then Satan has triumphed over you indeed.

I know I'm gonna get lynched for this, but, so this will be my first and last post.:D
 

Narya

~He-he-he~
Joined
Apr 22, 2002
Messages
1,286
Reaction score
21
Location
Somewhere in Asia
Originally posted by MorgothsBane
Pray tell, exactly how is it impossible and ridiculous? If it it indeed impossible and ridiculous, creation theory is equally (if not far more) impossible and ridiculous.

Secondly, the bible is a book. Nothing more. It's a good book, that can teach us important ethical truths. But I challenge you to prove that the Bible is truly the Holy Word of God. I challenge you to prove God's existence. I challenge you to prove Jesus's truth. I'll be surprised if you can. (No offense meant).

(This is why I am a skeptic:D )

MB
Sorry couldn't help it...ummm...just one question MB, do you believe in the Webster Dictionary? or the Encarta perhaps? or the Science Books from school? Because if you do, I'll bring back the question to you, those are JUST books(well one is a CD version of an encyclopaedia)..NOTHING MORE. Why then do you believe and put faith in them? They are man-made. Men make mistakes. Men are inclined to write only what is comfortable to them. Like I said, Evolution is still a theory, hasn't been proven yet, otherwise it would have been a law. And Evolution only came from the mind of a MAN - CHARLES DARWIN. And even he failed to prooved it, that's why it isn't a law yet. And new evidences have come up pointing that the missing link was in fact a hoax. Also new evidence shows that carbon dating is not reliable, not accurate. Where is the solidity in that notion now? The concept of creation hasn't changed a bit. From the beginning till today, it remains the same. And it is built on solid foundation unlike Evolution, which still has to prove itself plausible.

There are countless evidences of Jesus's existence, and if he trully isn't real, why has he so much influence in the world today? Only real people such as Jesus have a wide and deep impact on human civilization. Even you, a skeptic, knows about him and his work. otherwise you wouldn't question them.

Ok this IS my last post. Byee!:D
 

Helcaraxë

The Grinding Ice
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Location
North of the Sundering Seas
Originally posted by Narya
Sorry couldn't help it...ummm...just one question MB, do you believe in the Webster Dictionary? or the Encarta perhaps? or the Science Books from school? Because if you do, I'll bring back the question to you, those are JUST books(well one is a CD version of an encyclopaedia)..NOTHING MORE. Why then do you believe and put faith in them? They are man-made. Men make mistakes. Men are inclined to write only what is comfortable to them. Like I said, Evolution is still a theory, hasn't been proven yet, otherwise it would have been a law. And Evolution only came from the mind of a MAN - CHARLES DARWIN. And even he failed to prooved it, that's why it isn't a law yet. And new evidences have come up pointing that the missing link was in fact a hoax. Also new evidence shows that carbon dating is not reliable, not accurate. Where is the solidity in that notion now? The concept of creation hasn't changed a bit. From the beginning till today, it remains the same. And it is built on solid foundation unlike Evolution, which still has to prove itself plausible.

There are countless evidences of Jesus's existence, and if he trully isn't real, why has he so much influence in the world today? Only real people such as Jesus have a wide and deep impact on human civilization. Even you, a skeptic, knows about him and his work. otherwise you wouldn't question them.

Ok this IS my last post. Byee!:D

No, no! Stay!!:D

(you're assuming I do put faith in those books...I don't.:))

But how is the Bible built on solid foundations? For all we know, it could have been written by some self-righteous merchant in ancient rome who had too much time on his hands.

As to your first question..that's a slightly different thing. Yes, I agree that there is no true proof that Webster or Encarta have true information (what kind of a skeptic would I be if I believed that?:D ). However, I think that the truth of a dictionary is irrelevant. Language is about communication. As long as we understand each other linguistically, and have a standard system, it doesn't matter whether that standard system is CORRECT or not, because it seems to work regardless of its truth. As for encarta, the same is true. Even if the world we percieve exists only in our minds (only in our perception), than it is still irrelevant whether it is correct.;) The reason for this is that even IF this world that we percieve is not the true reality, it is ONE reality, A reality. The information in Encarta is provable in THIS reality, be it the true one or not. The percieved reality is the only reality that is relevant to our lives, and thus, as Encarta provides provable information as to the perceived reality, it is relevant.

MB
 

LĂşthien SĂ©regon

Registered User
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
415
Reaction score
0
I don't think humans are descended from monkeys, I've always thought they merely share the same ancestor?

I think that evolution is fairly obvious – not just by looking at past fossils and dating the spread of animals and the changes that occurred at the same time, but just by looking at the subtle variations within animals of the same species living in different locations ( subspecies ).

For example, tigers ( I know, I’m always going back to big cats, but oh well, why not? :D ). Look at the difference between a Siberian tiger and a Sumatran tiger. The Siberian tiger lives in an extremely cold climate in Siberia and the northern part of China, whilst the Sumatran tiger resides in the relatively hot island of Sumatra in Indonesia. At some stage, the ancestral population of the two must have spread and moved into different regions. As a result, these two types of tigers look physically different, even though they are the same species. The Siberian tiger is much larger, for a start, because larger animals retain heat more easily. To add to this, it has a 5-cm thick layer of fat beneath the skin, which acts as insulation. Its fur is long and thick, and is lighter in colour than that of the Sumatran. However, the Sumatran tiger is much smaller, as an adaptation to living in a hotter climate. Its fur is much shorter, and much darker, seeing as it doesn’t live in the snow.

These changes occurred because of tiger evolution, otherwise there would be no difference between these subspecies of tiger. There are five living subspecies of tiger: ALL of them are different in some way. Evolution is in a constant state of flux and change. Even the overall population of tigers itself was thought to have gradually appeared around 2 million years ago - all cats, sabre-toothed and modern, evolved as a result of the gradual changes in the small carnivore called the proailurus, around 23 million years ago. If they hadn't, there would be fossils of cats dating before this time - none have been found at all.
 

Thread suggestions

Top