The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Talk:Creation vs. evolution

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.

It seems that there are some fundamental errors in this article...

However, creationists find themselves at odds with evolutionists in regards to several hallmarks of the general theory of evolution. Most notably, these include:

* Origin of life through abiogenetic mechanisms. * Mutations as a credible source of population diversity. * Common descent of all life on Earth.

* The Big Bang as a driving force for cosmic evolution.

I thought the ToE only included biological evolution.

Creationists generally feel that these aspects of the general theory of evolution are simply unsupported by the scientific method, and largely the result of atheistic philosophy. As such, the belief that evolution alone is responsible for all organisms on earth is better classified as evolutionism.


Macroevolution is testable. For example, evolutionists will say that a pair of chromosomes fused together between the transition of ape-to-man evolution, of course we reject this claim though.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0531chimp.asp

RichardT 16:47 5 January 2007 (EST)

To RichardT: I have heard evolutionists make the same disclaimer you noted--namely that the theory of evolution, properly speaking, treats only biological evolution. But their obstinate refusal to consider Divine creation as a mechanism for the origin of life, belies that disclaimer.
Most evolutionists are abiogeneticists as well--they insist that life came from non-life. They cite the Miller-Urey experiment as their "proof." It is not a "proof," and indeed it is not even a good showing--for no one has ever established that the earth ever, at any time in its history, had an atmosphere consisting of methane, hydrogen, and ammonia, which were the gases that Miller and Urey started with.
Now--true enough--some evolutionists reject abiogenesis as untenable, even given the wildly distorted estimates for a great age of the earth that the geologists routinely give them. (However, note that radiometric dating, their usual authority for an old earth, often produces non-correlating and inconsistent dates.) These men then promulgate such theories as panspermia (the earth brushed a comet's tail containing organic matter) and directed panspermia (an advanced civilization fired a brace of bacteria-and-blue-green-alga-laden missiles in all directions, and one crashed to earth). And they do it for one reason only: they cannot accept the idea of God--cannot because, to quote Scripture:

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be d____d who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. II_Thessalonians 2:10-12 (KJV)

--Temlakos 20:11, 5 January 2007 (EST)


Media

Does anyone find the way evolution is promoted and creationism is ridiculed through shows like The Simpsons and Family Guy sneaky and underhanded? Not to mention The Sopranos episode where a young evangelical pastor is made to look like an idiot who can't answer the questions posed against him. At this site, all these evolutionists are coming together and praising the show for villainizing creationism. One of them even said, "This is an excellent sign. Creationism is being ridiculed and villainized in popular culture." A perfect summary of how evolutionists are desperate to indoctrinate people with the idea that creationists are evil villains who wish to take over the world but can't even answer the questions evolutionists ask them! This is of course inconsistent with reality; just try asking AiG those questions, and they'll have you read the Answers Book, which would do more than just answer that silly question. What does this tell you about the sneaky and underhanded methods of indoctrinating people that "scientists" use? Scorpionman 09:35, 26 January 2007 (EST)

I have found this to be the case for a long time. I must observe, however, that for the evolution side to use as their vehicle a television drama in which a salaried assassin in an organized criminal syndicate is the protagonist represents a new low.
But I would urge you (and anyone else interested in this topic) to read my statements about evolutionism in science fiction and in theater. The latter I define broadly to include anything that "stages a scene" whether on a traditional stage, in film, or on television. Evolution in action--or in some cases evolution in stagnation or even in reverse--have been staples of science fiction for years. I recall a show that had as its premise a "new species" of man, a species whose members were suddenly going to war with the rest of humanity. I recall another show running an episode that featured a race called the "Progenitors," who had seeded the galaxy with a brace of missiles--the directed panspermia scenario.
If anything is new, then the un-worthies of modern theater have joined with their counterparts who manage the news, to attack creationist directly. This is because their explicit proposition, depiction, and portrayal of evolution is now selling very poorly if at all. And so we get examples of argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ab auctoritate, and other logical fallacies.
What's underhanded about it is their refusal to admit that they might be wrong, and their a priori rejection of contrary findings. And this will likely continue from now to--well, I admit that eschatology is out of scope in this project, but I'll let you guess my meaning.--Temlakos 09:53, 26 January 2007 (EST)
@ Temlakos

To be fair, if we admited we might be wrong, as you suggest evolutionists do, then we would not find consolation in faith! I think we can only hold them up to standards we ourselves meet. If we don't then we can, correctly, be charged as hypocrites.

Yes, I see what you mean. It'll only end when Jesus returns. I hope that comes soon, because I'm sick of hearing what these dogmatic bigots are saying! Scorpionman 20:09, 26 January 2007 (EST)

Sadly,

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. II_Timothy 3:1-5 (KJV)

--Temlakos 21:13, 26 January 2007 (EST)

Of course, try telling that to an evolutionist and it will just give him another Bible verse to misquote and ridicule. It won't detract from its truth, though! Scorpionman 18:11, 27 January 2007 (EST)

I started up an article to tackle this issue.

--RichardT 00:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Can I change this?

Creationists agree that organisms evolve through time, and in fact, would take few exceptions to the basic mechanisms of biological evolution as put forth by Charles Darwin. Creationists would also agree that the processes of genetic recombination and natural selection can result in the formation of new species. In fact, creationists believe that extremely rapid evolution occurred after the Flood to create the species that we see today from the smaller number of species that were on the ark.

I want to change the word "evolve" for "change", because we definitely do not believe that organisms change in the same way that evolutionists believe they change. Your sentence "Creationists would also agree that the processes of genetic recombination and natural selection can result in the formation of new species" is in my honest opinion misleading, it makes it sound as if we believed that this could account for new information in the genome resulting in new species, can I have your permission to rephrase this?

Also, I do realize that in the following paragraph you wrote as a differing point between creationists and evolutionists "Mutations as a credible source of population diversity.", but I think if one were to read the previous paragraph without the aid of the following, they would think that we actually believed that evolution could happen in the unobserved past.

-- RichardTTalk 18:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

The wording in the sentences you referenced has been carefully chosen, and it is probable that no changes would be allowed.
Genetic recombination is known to produce new alleles, which are ultimately the driving force behind population diversification. Some say this is not the creation of new information - others disagree. --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Ashcraft, in your article Evolution; God's greatest creation, you argue that new alleles come from a designed mechanism of variability from environmental pressure. I wouldn't call it "evolution" if the mechanism isn't mutations. I still would like to change the wording so as to not mislead the reader.


Also, would you say that Timothy Wallace is mistaken in this article when he says that "Evolution Has Never Been Observed"? I always thought his article was right on, but it seems to me that you disagree.

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#observe

-- RichardTTalk 22:02, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

The change that creationists now agree has taken place (i.e. speciation and diversification of populations like the galapagos finch) was called "evolution" long before DNA was ever discovered. We wont be using a different word to describe that sort of progressive biological change just because we disagree with the genetic mechanism. --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

There are some things that I don't understand about your article though, you seem to be arguing that it is theoretically possible for evolution to happen in 4.6 billion years and that the "baramin" concept is only there because of our a-priori assumption of creation. Correct me if I'm wrong.

-- RichardTTalk 15:58, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

No - I've never argued that - and not sure what statements you are referring to. If you are talking about this article (the article this talk page is about), then provide a quote. --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I meant to say in your article "Evolution; God's Greatest Creation".

Why has the process of “evolution” been given credit to explain a common ancestry of all organisms? Simple: there is a similarity between the nature of the creation and the process of evolution. God created groups of similar organisms (many birds, many bugs, many microbes, many plants, etc, etc, which is exactly what evolution produces. It has produced groups of similar organisms such as a group of fox species, genera of wolves, jackals, and all came from a single pair of canine. Although we know many kinds were created, we still can not define the created kinds because the ability of an organism to evolve into similar groups is tremendous.

-- RichardTTalk 16:10, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss the content page associated with it. Please read the CreationWiki discussion policy page. --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

But it is related to the topic, I'm trying to understand your view/this article's of evolution, it's potential, and it's mechanisms. (particularly how far can you go with mutations)

-- RichardTTalk 23:13, 20 July 2007 (EDT)