Creation OR Evolution

[Quemtal]

Hi everyone. I stumbled across this site quite by accidence, though I’m terribly glad I did. It’s a lively and open site in which one may expound one’s views, and may hear myriad other opinions.
Reading many of the discussions however, something shocked me: the number of members who seem to believe in evolution/long-age earth and yet call themselves Christians. I’m new to the site, so maybe this issue has been explicitly dealt with elsewhere (if so, please inform me); but if not, it’s one I would like to raise. I’m a Christian, and only a young one at that (eighteen-years-old). The world constantly bombards us with long-age earth points of view, and I must choose whether to believe these or not. I choose to base my thinking upon the infallible Word of God—that God said what He meant to say. If God meant to say He used evolution and millions of years, He would have written Genesis very differently.
Below I’ve given just a few reasons (there are many more) why I believe that to be a Christian on MUST believe in a literal Genesis to be a Christian.
I would just like to hear what others think about this topic. What are your views, beliefs, &c?

Some people say that the Genesis account of Creation is only an allegory or a metaphor. If this is so, a new translation of the Bible is necessary:

‘Then the Lord God formed the metaphor from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the metaphor became a living creature’ Genesis 2.7

‘Through one Metaphor sin entered the world…’ Romans 5.12

‘Enoch, seventh from a Metaphor’ Jude 14

‘The son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli… Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Metaphor, which was the son of God.’ Luke 3.23-28

‘Thus it is written, “The first Metaphor became a living being; the last Metaphor became a life-giving spirit.”’ 1 Corinthians 15.45

Would you consider such a translation to be accurate? I hope your answer is no. So if the Bible doesn’t say this, why do some Christians?
Without a literal belief in Adam, there is no literal belief in Jesus, which is absolutely necessary to be saved. The truths of the Gospel are reliant upon the HISTORY of Genesis 1-11. Without a first Adam, there can be no last Adam! An allegorical or metaphorical reading of Genesis is incompatible with the Gospel. And anyway, how metaphorical could we be? If you don't take 'the first man Adam' literally, how is it you can take 'GOD CREATED the first man Adam' literally?

Millions of years and evolution place death before the Fall. But death cannot have occurred before the fall, otherwise (yet again) the Sacrifice od Christ is negated.

As Christians, we must follow the example of Christ. But Christ was not an evolutionist (I know, it didn't exist then as it does now). Also, he wasn't a long-earther (they did exist then). When Jesus was asked about marriage (Matt. 19.3-6), he quoted Genesis 1.27 and 2.24. Jesus knew that without the history of Genesis, then there was no foundation for His teaching--and without the teachings of Christ, there is no Christianity.

Many read the Bible by reading into it. They put thoughts between the lines, thoughts that are not in God’s Word. And as a result there are evolutionists who call themselves Christians.
So please let’s read the Word for what it says, not what we want or expect it to say. Let’s allow the Bible to shape our view of the world, and not let the world shape our view of the Bible. Let’s keep in mind the words that first deceived Man, the words of Satan in the Garden, ‘Did God really say…?’ If we try to add to God’s Word as did Eve, then we too will fall. Remember Paul’s plea in 2 Corinthians 11.3, ‘But I’m afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.’
Here’s an exercise to try: First, read Proverbs 1.5-6, ‘Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not in your understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him…’ Then, read the Creation account in Genesis, but lay aside all outside thoughts, all your own ideas and notions. Read it, not INTO it.
Thank you for bearing with me so long (if you made it this far). I know it’s a long post, but I thought it necessary, and still there’s so much I’ve left out. I want to hear your thought and opinions on this matter. Thank you.

[Samurai Tailor]

Well from what I have read of evolutionary articles, the eye evolved from an eyespot that aided organisms in finding hte way to the surface. I don't see how an eye would help that much, a simple sense of touch would be all you need.

That is odd. To me, it is obvious that the ability to detect movement at a distance - something generally beyond the scope of tactile senses - would be a tremendous advantage for several reasons.

Well, that is the coined term. I've read it in paleontology records as well as in my Biology book. The word "explosion" is always used. It is as if punctuated equilibrium worked overtime.

Sorry, I have no quarrel with the choice of descriptors per se. The problem is that it has a vernacular meaning that suggests a virtually instantaneous event. In fact, there was at least 15 million, and perhaps as much as 45 million years, during which the phyletic expansion took place.

It is a situation similar to the Big Bang - call it an "explosion of space-time" enough times and the popular conception will be an A-Team special effect.

I've read a lot about it in Biology books, it isn't made up. The fossilization sequence does exist. Although, more complex organisms are a little higher up.

Of course. I am not saying it is not a tangible, remarkable phenomenon. But it is not a completely unfathomable mystery that defeats evolutionary theory singlehandedly as some creationists would have us believe.

[Titan]

That is odd. To me, it is obvious that the ability to detect movement at a distance - something generally beyond the scope of tactile senses - would be a tremendous advantage for several reasons.

How would the first animal to develop this truly comprehend its uses. If it is merely a tool that aids it in detecting a possible predator or prey then why was it so successful. Would the extra light detection not confuse it, thereby causing it to fear both mate and predator?

The problem is that it has a vernacular meaning that suggests a virtually instantaneous event. In fact, there was at least 15 million, and perhaps as much as 45 million years, during which the phyletic expansion took place.

I wish you wouldn't use the term "in fact" because the creationists have just as much of an explanation. In the same manner as Mt. St Helen's covered the earth will layers, a world wide flood would give the appearance of millions of years of evolution through the massive mud slides and dust settling.

Of course. I am not saying it is not a tangible, remarkable phenomenon. But it is not a completely unfathomable mystery that defeats evolutionary theory singlehandedly as some creationists would have us believe.

Of course, you are absolutely correct. Keep in mind though some evolutionary fossils are used to "singlehandedly" defeat creationism. One such fossil was Ambulocetus which you probably have already seen, if not these are some pictures:
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea. ... +Evolution

[MagusYanam]

I wish you wouldn't use the term "in fact" because the creationists have just as much of an explanation. In the same manner as Mt. St Helen's covered the earth will layers, a world wide flood would give the appearance of millions of years of evolution through the massive mud slides and dust settling.

I'm not convinced of this. If there were some world-wide flood of the type described in Genesis, the result would be massive erosion and a deep layer of undifferentiated sediment covering the entire earth's surface, true. But 'the flood' doesn't explain the entire geological record going all the way back to Precambrian times. My dad's a geophysicist who works with this stuff all the time - some rocks would have required tens of millions of years of extreme conditions to become what they are today. A forty-day flood, even on a world-wide scale at 30,000 feet above the current sea level would be drastically insufficient to explain any sort of geological record, except possibly for some sedimentary formations.

Then of course, there are the dating issues. Radiometric methods are widely used and considered accurate, and young-earth theories have to come up with unrealistic added justifications to match the theory to the explanandum - for example, 'When God created the universe (6000 years ago), he created the rocks so they would appear 1.5 billion years old', or something similar.

[Samurai Tailor]

How would the first animal to develop this truly comprehend its uses. If it is merely a tool that aids it in detecting a possible predator or prey then why was it so successful. Would the extra light detection not confuse it, thereby causing it to fear both mate and predator?

I am fairly certain that rudimentary eyes preceded sexual reproduction by some time. In any case, mate-seeking is often accomplished by methods other than visual contact with some kind of chemical sensor being the most common.

I wish you wouldn't use the term "in fact" because the creationists have just as much of an explanation. In the same manner as Mt. St Helen's covered the earth will layers, a world wide flood would give the appearance of millions of years of evolution through the massive mud slides and dust settling.

The St. Helens example is a smokescreen (pun intended). The "flood model" is so unapologetically bad at explaining the geological column, varves, the Grand Canyon, really all but a tiny handful of physical features, that to even mention its merits is simply an exercise in futility.

Of course, you are absolutely correct. Keep in mind though some evolutionary fossils are used to "singlehandedly" defeat creationism. One such fossil was Ambulocetus which you probably have already seen, if not these are some pictures:
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea. ... +Evolution

Nay, that is wrong. At no point did evolutionary theory rely on a single piece of data for legitimacy. Furthermore, at no point has evolutionary theory sought to oppose creationism.

Evolutionary scientists realize that evolution rises or falls on its own ability to explain observations. It is creationists, almost universally, who erroneously believe that falsifying evolution is equivalent to demonstrating creationism.

[Jose]

Now, I believe in evolution I just don't want to be a blind follower. Lets consider the eye. A species of cave fish lost the use of eyes because they "No longer needed it". This made me curious because it was said that animals developed light spots so that they could differentiate which way the sun was shining from. So if one cave fish gains a small amount of eyesight and it helps him survive just a little then why would the species have been able to lose it so easily, couldn't some aspect of it benefit them?

The main issues have been addressed, but I'll throw in my 37 cents' worth. In the absence of light, there is no advantage to having eyes. Therefore, any mutations that interfere with eye development are not disadvantageous. Instead, if they remove an organ that (1) costs energy to produce and maintain, and (2) provides an orifice that infectious organisms can use to gain entry, then the mutation may well be an advantage. Different populations of cave beasties have lost eyes to greater or lesser extent, depending on which mutations happen to have occurred.

As to the potential advantage of the ability to distinguish light from dark, there are lots of possibilities. Plants can do it, for example. They have several different photoreceptors (besides chlorophyll) that provide signals to guide their growth and development. Even some fungi have light-dependent circadian rhythms. For many animals, the sudden appearance of a shadow provides a stimulus to hide, because there might be a predator. It's safer to hide than not to.

The fossilized sequence in the Cambrian explosion can be baffling as it appears that many organisms appeared all at once in the strata. This was easily answered that "Evolution had a period of rapid growth." Of course, they could be correct, but one must look past their own preconception, their own bias and say "Is that really a plausible answer?"

As has been noted, the Cambrian "explosion" followed many millions of years of evolution of soft-bodied animals. In geological terms, 10 million years is short enough to be an "explosion." What distinguishes the beginning of the Cambrian from the end of the Precambrian (in our record-keeping system) is that animals developed hard parts (shells) that are easily fossilized. Why would shells "suddenly" (over several million years) become important? The current thinking is that really efficient predators became more common.

Yeah, it was said that there must have been a period of rapid evolution. That was before the discovery of the Ediacaran or Burgess Shale sites. Now there is evidence (rather than just speculation) about the millenia preceding the Cambrian "explosion." It looked pretty much like any time period, but the animals didn't have hard parts, so they were fossilized only rarely.

To turn the tables. Creationists do the same just as often. Why are the bacteria lower in the rocks than all other forms of life? Some say that it is because they sink faster, or give some answer like that. But is it plausible.

That's the theory of "hydrological sorting of ecological niches." The Flood is said to have moved everything around to give us both the vertical sorting and the horizontal sorting that we see in the fossil record. Vertical sorting = trilobites on the bottom, mammoths on the top. Horizontal sorting = trilobites in Cincinatti, crinoids in Bloomington, ferns in Switz City, clams in Russel, mosasaurs in Oakley, dinosaurs in Denver, etc. etc. Indeed, it does not seem plausible. But, if we imagine the Hand of God stirring the waters, why not?

Nay, that is wrong. At no point did evolutionary theory rely on a single piece of data for legitimacy. Furthermore, at no point has evolutionary theory sought to oppose creationism.

Evolutionary scientists realize that evolution rises or falls on its own ability to explain observations. It is creationists, almost universally, who erroneously believe that falsifying evolution is equivalent to demonstrating creationism.

I think this is an accurate description. It is important to remember that, at the time evolution was first proposed, it was so wildly different from expectation that it took many lines of reasoning to convince anyone that it might be plausible. This continues today. In fact, evolution is probably the theory, of all that exist in science, that is supported by the greatest number of different lines of evidence.

Creationists do, indeed, argue that falsifying a single piece of data will refute evolution, and by default, prove creation. The default condition isn't logical, but the basic notion is actually valid. We always say that "it would only take one piece of evidence to disprove evolution" -- such as human fossils in the Cambrian. Therefore, it is reasonable, if your life's work is to disprove evolution, to seek such evidence. The problem is that the evidence must satisfy some fairly stringent criteria, among which is the inability to explain the findings by other means. Polonium haloes? They are explained by radioactive gas seeping into cracks in the rocks. The Paluxey footprints? A dinosaur running (plus a bit of chisel work by a human). The human incisor in a dinosaur footprint? It's the tooth of a Sheepshead fish. And so it goes. I have no problem with the method. The problem is presenting the conclusions as fact, when they have not been adequately tested.

I wish you wouldn't use the term "in fact" because the creationists have just as much of an explanation. In the same manner as Mt. St Helen's covered the earth will layers, a world wide flood would give the appearance of millions of years of evolution through the massive mud slides and dust settling.

I'm not convinced of this. If there were some world-wide flood of the type described in Genesis, the result would be massive erosion and a deep layer of undifferentiated sediment covering the entire earth's surface, true.

This is an interesting prediction, Titan, and an interesting refutation, MagusYanam. Fortunately, we have a thread devoted to the Flood in which these kinds of issues are explicitly examined. Here, we took creationists at their word, and agreed that the Flood Hypothesis should be examined as a valid explanation of the world. What do we find if we examine this hypothesis to the best of our ability? I invite the creationists to examine the predictions made by the hypothesis, and to offer the data that show that the predictions are, or are not, met.

[Titan]

Instead, if they remove an organ that (1) costs energy to produce and maintain, and (2) provides an orifice that infectious organisms can use to gain entry, then the mutation may well be an advantage. Different populations of cave beasties have lost eyes to greater or lesser extent, depending on which mutations happen to have occurred.

How about we make a list of pros and cons of the eye:
Pro:
Spotting predators (which would most likely have already existed)
Finding mates (which was obviously occurring before that)
Finding the surface (merely measurements of pressure can do that)
[Feel free to add stuff]
Con:
Infections
Energy costing
Weak spot
Confusion
[Also feel free to comment or add]

For many animals, the sudden appearance of a shadow provides a stimulus to hide, because there might be a predator. It's safer to hide than not to.

What if the animal was a mate? They just hid from a mate and can no longer reproduce.

As has been noted, the Cambrian "explosion" followed many millions of years of evolution of soft-bodied animals. In geological terms, 10 million years is short enough to be an "explosion." What distinguishes the beginning of the Cambrian from the end of the Precambrian (in our record-keeping system) is that animals developed hard parts (shells) that are easily fossilized. Why would shells "suddenly" (over several million years) become important?

Mt Saint Helens showed that rapid burial can easily occur. Shouldn't it also be noted that such a conclusion is a possibility.

Indeed, it does not seem plausible. But, if we imagine the Hand of God stirring the waters, why not?

Which follows my previous point, everything is possible in the realm of speculation.

[Jose]

Instead, if they remove an organ that (1) costs energy to produce and maintain, and (2) provides an orifice that infectious organisms can use to gain entry, then the mutation may well be an advantage. Different populations of cave beasties have lost eyes to greater or lesser extent, depending on which mutations happen to have occurred.

How about we make a list of pros and cons of the eye:
Pro:
Spotting predators (which would most likely have already existed)
Finding mates (which was obviously occurring before that)
Finding the surface (merely measurements of pressure can do that)
[Feel free to add stuff]

These advantages are all things that require light. In the depths of a cave, where there is no light, these advantages do not exist.

Con:
Infections
Energy costing
Weak spot
Confusion
[Also feel free to comment or add]

This is, perhaps, a good enough list. On the surface world where there is light, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages for most animals. In the dark, the advantages disappear, so the disadvantages become the more powerful selective agent.

For many animals, the sudden appearance of a shadow provides a stimulus to hide, because there might be a predator. It's safer to hide than not to.

What if the animal was a mate? They just hid from a mate and can no longer reproduce.

They can (and do) always peek out from their hiding place, and find out who it is. If it's a friend, they can go out to greet them. And, has been noted before, many animals use olfactory cues rather than merely visual ones. Of course, if they've been eaten, they are assured of never mating again; if they haven't been eaten, they have another shot at it. This is pretty strong selection not only for eyes, but for the instinct of hiding when the slightest unexpected motion occurs.

As has been noted, the Cambrian "explosion" followed many millions of years of evolution of soft-bodied animals. In geological terms, 10 million years is short enough to be an "explosion." What distinguishes the beginning of the Cambrian from the end of the Precambrian (in our record-keeping system) is that animals developed hard parts (shells) that are easily fossilized. Why would shells "suddenly" (over several million years) become important?

Mt Saint Helens showed that rapid burial can easily occur. Shouldn't it also be noted that such a conclusion is a possibility.

There is no question that rapid burial occurs. Indeed, it is thought to be an important part of fossilization. The dead thing that lies on the surface and rots, and is torn apart by scavengers, and eventually disintegrates altogether, makes lousy fossils. Rapid burial produces much better results.

In many cases, the nature of the burial can be determined from the rock surrounding the fossil. Volcanic ash produces a different type of rock when it falls on land or when it falls on a lake and sediments through water. Sand and silt produce different qualities of rock. It is interesting that all types of sediment seem to have been deposited by The Flood--terrestrial volcanic ash above and below deep-ocean limestone, sandstone typical of that created by sedimentation through water and sandstone typical of that created by blowing dunes, coarse-grained rock and fine-grained shale on opposite sides of a fossilized reef, just like we see now with reefs. And all of these different kinds of rock have fossils of the types appropriate for those ecological environments and the ages in which they were deposited.

Indeed, it does not seem plausible. But, if we imagine the Hand of God stirring the waters, why not?

Which follows my previous point, everything is possible in the realm of speculation.

You make my point for me. To conceive of the Hand of God stirring the waters, we speculate on the miraculous methods he used. To build geological and evolutionary theory, we find data and attempt to explain it by means of known mechanisms that are themselves developed from data.

[Titan]

These advantages are all things that require light. In the depths of a cave, where there is no light, these advantages do not exist.

However, all the "pros" have distinct problems.

This is, perhaps, a good enough list. On the surface world where there is light, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages for most animals. In the dark, the advantages disappear, so the disadvantages become the more powerful selective agent.

How would the pros outweight these negatives even if the animal was close to the surface?

They can (and do) always peek out from their hiding place, and find out who it is. If it's a friend, they can go out to greet them. And, has been noted before, many animals use olfactory cues rather than merely visual ones.

Do you believe that they would be capable of such distinctions with mere eye spots? I was curious as to when the sense of smell arose, how much earlier than the eye spot?

[fire_of_Jesus]

oh i love the LORD JESUS CHRIST SO MUCH!!!

[fire_of_Jesus]

is it only me or does anyone else wonder why people still believe that a meteriode kill the dinosaurs? if that is true that exsplotion would have killed everything else! and thats a fact!!!!

for more info contact me.