Why We Believe in Creation & Not Evolution

[Reg]

The reason I started this thread is to start another discussion for nolongerchristian and others to comment on. The other one is getting rather long and I didn't want this one buried.

I have a book with that title written by Fred John Meldau I purchased quite awhile ago. It is filled with hundreds of examples of the earth's many creatures.

Here is a noteworthy example:

The Enigma of the Sea horse

There are some very strange creatures in the sea. We have no idea of how many they are and what they are! Many live way down in the depths and never ever come near the surface. Some survive miles down in the water, Miles? You ask. Yes, in the Challenger Deep of the Marianas Trench in the north west Pacific, the water is 36, 197 feet deep. This is 12,065 yards or just under 7 miles. Can you imagine that? Seven miles of water straight down. And there are living creatures at a depth at which it would seem to be impossible to survive. The pressures are unbelievable.

Well, we aren’t going to talk about such creatures today. We would just like to draw your attention to the sea horse. You have undoubtedly seen them in an aquarium and parents delight in pointing them out to their children. They really are quite comical.

A bizarre creature which has the arching neck and head of a horse, the swelling chest of a pouter pigeon, the grasping tail of a monkey and the colour changing power of a chameleon. It has eyes that pivot independently, so that when one eye scans the surface, the other can be directed underwater. To top off this fantastic make-up the male is equipped with a kangaroo-style pouch from which the little ones are born.

The four inch long sea horse is the only fish that swims upright! It has a special “gas bladder” that enables it to keep its upright position. If the bladder is damaged and it loses even a very small amount of gas, it sinks to the bottom there to lie helpless until death overtakes it, or the bladder rapidly heals.

An amazing feature of the sea horse is that it is the male that “goes into labour and gives birth to its young. This very strange division of the sea horse’s reproductive functions are unparalleled in nature and are the peak of this tiny fish’s paradoxical make-up.

It is the female sea horse which provides the eggs. During the sexual approach, the female actively pursues the male, deposits her eggs in a pouch on her mate’s belly, and then swims away. In the pouch the eggs are nourished on the father’s blood for 45 days. After a series of parental convulsions with every muscle brought into play the pouch is emptied and the baby sea horses are born. How many? Anywhere from 300 to 600.

The sea horse is an enigma. What is its purpose? Where does it fit in the evolutionary concept of things? The answer here is that it doesn’t. Evolution can in no way explain the sea horse. Can those who preach the theory, which is all it is, of evolution answer why does it exist? What is its purpose? Did it ever have a purpose? What is the reason for the idiosyncratic reproduction processes? What about its manner of swimming? It’s the only sea creature which does this.

Really, the sea horse is in the same category as the platypus as far as evolution is concerned. An enigma that baffles and frustrates all the theories that try to account for it.

Does evolution then have a sense of humour. You would surely need one to believe that it has a sense of anything.


And here's the Duck-billed Platypus.

Creationism and the Platypus
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html

My favourite is the Hummingbird. We have a feeder at our cottage and it always amazes me to observe them.
http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/hummingbirds.html

Another thing one has to consider is pollination by bees primarily.

Pollination process
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9135655AAWhx6X

This article mentions this also.

Cooperation or Competition: Symbiosis vs. Evolution

Another remarkable form of symbiosis is the relationship between bees and plants.

While collecting the precious nectar that provides their hives with food, bees pollinate dozens of species of flowers and agricultural crops. Without this vital pollination, orchards could produce little if any fruit, and fruit trees would not survive for long. How can these plants exist without first being pollinated by bees? On the other hand, how could bees exist without first being provided with the necessary nectar as food? Clearly, both life forms depend on each other for their existence.

In addition, the bee has to carry out pollination in a precisely specific way for the process to work. If the bee visited other species of flowers at random, pollination could not occur, since the pollen of one species of flower does not fertilize another species. Somehow the bee knows to visit only one plant species at a time and at the right season.

Everything in this symbiotic relationship has to be timed exactly right for it to work-and we can be thankful it does. We can enjoy delicious fruits thanks largely to the untiring work of these tiny creatures that unknowingly carry out exactly the right type of pollination that enables many fruits to develop.
http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/e.../cooperat.html

[Willow]

Do we believe in evolution within a species?
I have to confess to believing in both creation and adaptive evolution.To me they don't contraindicate each other.

[Hope 98]

If believing in Evolution requires that I follow the theory to a conclusion that the whole universe is the result of some bizarre accident, I can't do it. I see too much evidence of intelligent design, through my generally unscientific way of thinking.

However, I can't follow a belief in creation to a universe only 6000-7000 years old that was created in 7 literal days of 24 hours each. I do have a somewhat logical mind sometimes.

But most important, I don't think it's critical to any other aspect of my faith to believe one way or another on this particular issue.

I believe the Bible was written about who and why rather than when and how. It makes a lot more sense to me that way, though it won't necessarily work for everyone.

[nolongerchristian]

I've known a lot of christians who accept evolution as the way in which God created everything...
Though I've also seen christians who argue against evolution as a way for God to have created because it would mean that God is never done creating...since evolution never ceases. Even now.


I just got done with an Environmental Class to become my unit's ECO or Environmental Compliance Officer...anyway, one of the guest speakers was an archeologist who showed us some slides with pictures of artifacts they dug up in my area that are from local natives from 10 to 12,000 years ago...



Concerning Reg's post, one great source of info I got was from a brilliant guy who goes by the username Thunderf00t on youtube.
He has a series specifically on creationism vs evolution. I can get you the link to the "play-all" button for his 26 part series....

Just be forwarned, it will take you a couple hours to go through everything he presents.
Also, put on your alligator skin because he gets a little feisty and throws a bit of insult into his verbage...though it is within context and usually in defense to the fundamentalist christians of youtube who attack him all the time.

[Spiny Norman]

I don't know any Christians who deny adaptive evolution. Humans have been utilising it (selective breeding) for thousands of years. The question of whether random mutation + natural selection is capable of generating all the diversity of body plans and "kinds" that we see is a whole other thing. I used to believe evolution was capable of that, but I don't any longer (as of a couple of years ago).

[nolongerchristian]

Originally Posted by Spiny Norman

I don't know any Christians who deny adaptive evolution. Humans have been utilising it (selective breeding) for thousands of years. The question of whether random mutation + natural selection is capable of generating all the diversity of body plans and "kinds" that we see is a whole other thing. I used to believe evolution was capable of that, but I don't any longer (as of a couple of years ago).

Yep. The numbers of those who deny adaptive evolution are dwindling...

The "kinds" as you say is where the hang-up lies for most, though there are organizations that are starting to embrace this as well...(am I right by saying that the catholic church's official stance is in agreement with evolution?)

I don't really want to get into long-winded conversations here going back and forth arguing the points of ID vs Evolution...but can you point me to possible online resources that would show the evidences that you've found to dissuade you from the stickler?

[Reg]

Originally Posted by Hope 98

If believing in Evolution requires that I follow the theory to a conclusion that the whole universe is the result of some bizarre accident, I can't do it. I see too much evidence of intelligent design, through my generally unscientific way of thinking.

However, I can't follow a belief in creation to a universe only 6000-7000 years old that was created in 7 literal days of 24 hours each. I do have a somewhat logical mind sometimes.

But most important, I don't think it's critical to any other aspect of my faith to believe one way or another on this particular issue.

I believe the Bible was written about who and why rather than when and how. It makes a lot more sense to me that way, though it won't necessarily work for everyone.

I'm with you on this Hope. Not to get into it here. But Google 'The Gap Theory'. It may give you some answers.

I've gotten into this with a Fundy. He takes the Bible too literally. It's like he fears to use his critical thinking process, like it will be a lack of faith to question what he's always been taught.


For example: Age of the Stars are Millions, Billions of years old.

He contends that all creation including the stars were made in a literal 6 day period approx 6,000 years ago.

Ge 1:16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. [He made] the stars also.

In light (no pun intended) of this scripture I asked him how come we can see light from stars that are a lot older than that?

It takes a lot longer than 6,000 years for the light from them to even reach us. Many are way over 6,000 years. They are millions & billions of years old and yet we can see that light that is reaching us from them now, millions+ of years later. That means they must have existed that long.

"The remarkable array of galaxies is only revealed in close-ups of the picture, which also show countless foreground stars associated with NGC 300. While NGC 300 is just 7 million light-years away, the mean distance of the background galaxies is 8 billion light-years."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...es_020813.html

That is proof that the universe is very old. The earth being part of that.

Here's a link that gives another explanation of this.

Did God Create Everything in Six 24-Hour Days?
http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/six24hrdays.htm

Keep your thinking cap Æon.

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Spiri...BibleTerms.htm

[riverdove]

I'm not a lot into this, but here's something from my dh who has a keen interest in this subject area.

To me the place to start in an understanding of creation is scripture, and John Walton, Old Testament prof. at Wheaton College, claims that Genesis is not about making things, but rather about bringing order out of disorder. He develops idea that bara' usually translated as "created," and only attributed to God, means to establish a role or function rather than make a physical thing. Then attempting to get a scientific theory of the how of origins, as opposed to why, out of Genesis is a mistake. You can find a talk by Walton at

http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/resea...03/Sci_Sym.swf

If I understand Walton correctly, he rejects biological evolution because of its dependence on chance in the creative process, where Genesis is all about purpose and order. But the time scale etc. involved would not trouble him. The fact of an expanding universe converted Einstein from an atheist to a theist, although not an orthodox believer in any religion. Penzias and Wilson, who got a Nobel prize for detecting th cosmic background radiation,
agree that big bang model fits well with scripture.

http://www.evidenceforchristianity.o...k=view&id=3594

and here are a couple other short things with a few interesting details
related to their discovery.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Stu...Gap-Theory.htm

http://www.questioningchristian.org/...roppings_.html

To me, it is very hard to understand where the universe comes from at all without a creator to start it off. A steady state universe, or even an oscillating universe with repeated big bangs, strikes me as a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

My favorite site for a wide variety of thoughtful materials on evolution
and creation is

http://www.reasons.org/

[Reg]

Originally Posted by riverdove

I'm not a lot into this, but here's something from my dh who has a keen interest in this subject area.

To me the place to start in an understanding of creation is scripture, and John Walton, Old Testament prof. at Wheaton College, claims that Genesis is not about making things, but rather about bringing order out of disorder.......

and here are a couple other short things with a few interesting details
related to their discovery.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Stu...Gap-Theory.htm

To me, it is very hard to understand where the universe comes from at all without a creator to start it off. A steady state universe, or even an oscillating universe with repeated big bangs, strikes me as a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Exellent links riverdove. As far as the Gap Theory goes, the link only touches on it. Like I said, Google 'The Gap Theory'. There is a lot about it that the link doesn't even touch. Specifically, what does vs 2 really means? Why did the earth become without form (tohu) and void (bohu)?

In verse 2 the word "was" [Heb: 'Hayah' = 'became'] also found in vs 9:15 & 19:26

The words "form & void" [Heb: 'Tohu & Bohu' = 'confusion & emptiness' ] also found in Isa 34:11 are the same Heb words 'Tohu & Bohu'. Literally it means the earth became an indistiguishable ruin.

The earth was reduced to a state of confusion & emptiness because of Satan's sin of rebellion against God (Ezek 28:15-17; Isa 14:12-15 ).

By observing the surfaces of the moon and the planets, they are literally pockmarked with craters. Is this the result of some cataclysmic war in the heavens? And then there's the asteroid belt. There seems to be a lot of tohu and bohu in the heavens.

The second law of thermodynamics alone is proof enough for a Creator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics and evolution
http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html.

By simple observation alone in one's everyday life this can be noticed. Everything left on it's own will not improve but will eventually breakdown, & decompose into simplier compounds. (ei: Cars rust, dead bodies turn to dust. ) Things wear out unless maintained. This law points to the fact that the Universe is runnng down, like a wound watch. The theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are at complete opposite ends of the scale. Note that one is a theory and the other is a law.

[Reg]

Originally Posted by Willow

Do we believe in evolution within a species?
I have to confess to believing in both creation and adaptive evolution.To me they don't contraindicate each other.

I for one do in the adaptiveness. But only within species.