Creation vs evolution? What do you belive?

Question

How can you belive in the theroy of evolution when science has disproved it so many times. What do you think about the second law of thermaldynamics called entropy? That everything goes from a state of orginization to a state of chaos. Evolution says the oppisite... how does that work? Where are all of the transitional fossils?
Watch the video by Ron Carlson called Evolution vs Creation
God created the world in my world view what do you belive? How can you get life from non living matter, when life only comes from life? Creation or Evolution a big confict what do you think?

Answer 1

Creation
God made Man
He did not make fish and then fish turned into turtle then into monkey then into ape then into..etc

Answer 2

I am a Christian and have no problem with evolution. Further, I believe either you are ignorant and spouting off stuff you simply do not understand. Maybe you lack the math or you just look at a few words and think it must be true, or you are a liar and Satan is the Father of Lies.

So for starters, the second law of thermodynamics applies to any closed system, but the Earth is not a closed system. Energy is constantly being added by the Sun. The passage to lower energy states is the ordering process in biology. In other words, for entropy to work as energy is added, it needs to come to local order. In the biological processes this is called evolution. The second law of thermodynamics, if you view the solar system as a closed system (which it isn't either though it could be viewed as close), means that evolution should occur. The formula for the second law is the indefinite integral of 1/T dq = -N where T is absolute temperature, -N "equivalence-value" of all uncompensated transformations involved in a cyclical process, and dq is the change in the quantity of heat. This does not in any way preclude evolution. And, I would note, there are mathematical critics to the second law. It only applies to closed systems, but the vary act of measuring opens the system making it impossible to ever view if the law actually works.

Second, there are no transitional fossils because evolution says all life is in continuous transition. All fossils are transitional fossils, including your bones someday.

Science has never disproved evolution. There isn't a single valid, peer reviewed, bit of research to support that idea.

There is no major church that accepts your point of view and probably none outside the United States. With everyone telling you that you are wrong, globally, both Christian and otherwise, why do you insist on remaining ignorant, is your faith that weak that you cannot accept the majesty of the universe? Is your God so primitive and weak that natural law cannot happen and magic mojo must? Do you really believe all they tell you in Church, when all the other churches say such a teaching is false?

Please go to college and take biology courses, physics courses and math courses and teach your co-religionists so this can go away finally.

One other note, there are quite a number of cases where biologists have seen macroevolution happen, where new species spontaneously formed. There is a large number of journal articles describing the creation of new species where they did not exist before. Further, humans have genetically altered species into completely new species, you can check the US Patent Office for those.

Answer 3

I think you're out of it. I don't think science was created. Everything that is has always been and when humans started to attempt to understand these things logically, it became known as the field of science. By understanding the properties of our earth and universe, we have been able to produce things that would have never occurred naturally, such as aircraft. An airplane is built using natural materials and the wing shape takes advantage of the wind by creating a pushing force on the bottom of the wing and a suction force on the top of the wing, We have learned a lot about nature so far, but there is never a shortage of new things to learn. We have all been raised with the notion of a supreme being but many of us have rejected that notion based on the flaws of having such a being. You are trying to fit reality into the God box and it just doesn't fit. You are trying to rationalize that 7 days could have meant more than 7 days because science does not agree with 7 days. You are correct that the bible does not have only one meaning. It has as many meanings as an individual can create. The important meaning is not what you think it means, but what the writer meant when he wrote it. The bible proves itself not a reliable source of knowledge. It is absolutely not a science book, nor is it even a history book. It is a book written by men long ago sharing some of their culture, some of it's history, some of their beliefs, but is has many fictional stories. Genesis is mostly fictional. There was no Adam and Eve, nor was there a Noah's ark and worldwide flood. Even the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is mostly fictional. It is true that they were destroyed by nature, but the rest is a made up story as to why the two towns were destroyed. We have witnessed this happening even in our life time with hurricane Katrina. It was a natural act but there were certain christians claiming it was the wrath of God, just like Sodom and Gomorrah. No matter how you look at it, it is always about the natural not the supernatural.

Answer 4

I definitely subscribe to evolutionary theory. Note that evolution merely deals with the development of life, and not its origins. For the latter, evolution is typically paired up with another theory.

As far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, even thermodynamics accepts that one can have subsets of order within a larger, chaotic whole. Ironically enough, this is one of the philosophical defenses that is often used to argue in favor of the existence of a supreme being.

As far as transitional fossils go, how many do you need? They keep finding more and more of them. They've had a couple significant discoveries this year. (See below link for an example.)

As far as how life can come from non-living matter, I'd argue it's likely a natural process. The universe is thought to be filled to the brim with the basic building blocks for life.

Perhaps evolution is merely part of a grander machination. The watchmaker made the watch, yet a watch still needs gears to run. (Assuming it's one of those older watches - at very least, it would need microchips or whatnot.)

Answer 5

Science hasn't disproved it at all. That's a common misconception spread by YECs.

The 2nd law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems only, the Earth is an open system with a constant energy source from the Sun.

Transitional fossils are a misnominer - all fossils are transitional. And there are "missing-links" as people put it, YECs just prefer to look the other way and continue to beat the odd 1% of fossils that turned out to be fakes.

You get life from non-living matter due to the nature of chemical reactions - they are not chaotic. There has been proof for life to come from simple base elements since the 50's when amino acids were created in a closed system using only base elements and static as an energy source.

Creation vs Evolution is only a major conflict in the US. A majority of the rest of the world is eager to accept evolution as it is taught in schools as a fact. Only Turkey is less willing to accept evolution than the US.

Search4truth - everything you copy+pasted there is propaganda - a lie designed to look like the truth in order to convince you that it is. There is no truth in it. Evolution doesn't base it's roots in atheism or secular humanism, that's a common fallacy spread by the Discovery Institute. Nor has the Supreme Court rules in any such favour - another lie by DI.

Answer 6

I believe in a combination. I believe that the entire universe manifested out of God, however I believe that it evolved to the point that it now exists that it will continue to evolve during the preservation period until it begins dissolution back into God. Everything contains the divine spark of God. Prakriti (matter) and purusha (spirit) first manifested out of God. Purusha has stayed constant while prakriti has continually changed. Eventually from purusha came prana (life force) which entered some prakriti. Nothing has been outside of God's gaze and grace and karma.

I do not see any conflict between evolution (the scientific observation that species seems to have continually adapted on microevolutionary levels which ultimately resulted in a macroevolutionary array of species) and creation (the spiritual belief that the universe was created by God).

"What do you think about the second law of thermaldynamics called entropy? That everything goes from a state of orginization to a state of chaos." -are you implying that the world is more organized now as a result of evolution and thereby seemingly less chaotic because of the numerous species that inhabit the world or that because we are in a state of chaos that evolution makes no sense because it implies that there is organization in God's planned universe? From my understanding of evolution, based on my own readings, it never implies that evolution is somehow "organizing" anything, but that at one time there was "organization" and that now things are continually evolving into more and more designs which only create even more chaos in the enviroment from which species must yet further adapt (thus it is an unending process of adaptation).

But I'm a Hindu and Hindu sacred texts don't have any problems with the scientific theory of evolution since they themselves speak about the evolution of not only life, but of the entire universe as it manifested out of God.

Answer 7

Mate, did you do physics in school? Then it should be obvious that the entropy "argument" is baseless propaganda.... by such logic snow flakes couldn't form... ok I'll explain it reeaaal sloooow.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one. Or to put it another way, that total entropy in a closed system will not decrease.

1) The earth is not a closed system. Sunlight shines on it and heat radiates from below, and outwards. But even if it was a closed system (which it is not), pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere.

2) Entropy is not the same as disorder as people normally use the word. There is no trend of chaos in the natural world!!! crystals, snow flakes, mud-cracks etc etc

As to transitional fossils, the world is full of them!!! The fossil record shows nothing but systemmatic change. Every species that doesn't go extinct is a transitional fossil!!

And the Theory of Evolution says NOTHING about how life first arose.

Ask yourself why would people need to lie to "debunk" evolution?

Answer 8

Personally, I believe in both.

An insect-eating bat, for instance, hunts by using high pitched sounds to echo-locate his prey. This echo-location requires that he be able to 1) make the sounds, 2) hear the returned echo and, 3) process that information in his brain. To my knowledge as a serious student of biology, there are no "nearly bats", "almost bats", or "proto-bats". This, by simple deductive reasoning, leads to a single point of creation wherein a bat simply "became".

On the other side of the coin, evolution is proven daily in every hospital which uses anitbiotics. By using antibiotics we are able to kill infecting microbes which are sensitive. However, since we have started using anitbiotics, the microbes have changed; they have evolved resistances to our antibiotics. In the 1960's it was exceedingly rare that we had a case of staph which couldn't be killed by penicillin or one of its derivatives. Today, we routinely deal with 'superbug' infections of methacillin resistant staph A (MRSA) and vancomycin resistant enterobacter (VRE). Both MRSA and VRE were unheard-of just 30 years ago. This leads to the logical conclusion that the 'superbugs' have evolved from the weaker strains which came before.

If that's a little too tough to picture, then I'll use a disease process with which most people are at least generally familiar: tuberculosis (TB). In the 1990's we were able to treat TB with antibioitcs and had a success rate in the very high 90% range. (Nothing in medicine is 100% except mortality - EVERYONE will die eventually.) Recently, TB has made a roaring comeback (no pun intended). The medicines that we used just 10 years ago are useless against this new TB bug because it adapted to our medicines; it evolved.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that life was created by something that we, as simple humans, cannot begin to understand. All one has to do is to study genetics and see how many intricate processes must take place at exactly the right time with exactly the right mechanism to see that this is beyond doubt a design. If that is too much, then think about how each cell in your body must have 2 genetic codes to survive; one for your body makeup and the other for you to be able to process food into energy thru your mitochondria.

Is it by design?

Without question in my own mind and soul.

Do I think that anyone at all has The Answer or even the dimmest glimmer of understanding of The Creator on this humble little wet rock, circling an average star, on the outskrts of an average galaxy among billions of galaxies?

Please. That's so mind-blowingly egocentric it is beyond absurd.

Let the book wavers wave their books chanting that **they** have The Answer - whether the books are religeous or scientific in nature. I'm just going to enjoy the thrill of being alive and be the best person I can be. If that's not good enough for your god, well, that's fine, because it is for mine. :D

Answer 9

Oddly enough, I've only encountered the use of the second law of thermodynamics as a creationist argument tangentially, in a book by someone who actually went and met a professor of Creation Theory in the States called Dr Duane Gish. However, it was fairly simple to unravel.

The definition of the Second law of Thermodynamics used by Gish, and I suspect by you too, says that
"All things tend towards entropy". All very nice, and it makes evolution impossible.
The problem is that the full definition of the 2nd law is "In a closed system, all things tend towards entropy." Which doesn't make evolution impossible at all. Possibly the four most important words in a scientific/theological debate turn out to be "In a closed system". Why? Well, essentially because no-one has proved that that is what we're talking about when we talk about the universe, so evolution is entirely possible.

Is there a God? Possibly. Do I believe it created the universe? Again, it's not impossible, but in the absence of hard scientific evidence for one thing, I tend towards another, for which there is abundant, though not conclusive physical evidence.

My own personal belief is that we evolved, as many evolutionists believe, from a smaller creature in the wake of the dinosaur extinction. I believe we evolved all manner of useful things like a hip arrangement that let us walk upright and a thorax that let us make complex sounds that we used as language, and then - and this is where I go "off the rails" of traditional evolutionary theory - I believe we looked at the universe, and essentially "sensed" its multi-dimensional nature without "knowing" it, and evolved a mechanism to help us interract with it - a spirit, if you will - a kind of personality recorder that could travel in the multi-dimensional universe while still remaining tethered to our physical body. As we began to die off, I believe the spirit refused to degenerate, but was freed from its physcial constraints. Over time, I believe the spirits of our experience coalesced into one essence, which does not degrade, and which remembers every experience brought to it from new spirits. Meanwhile, we have become increasingly aware of its exisence and because it is so utterly "alien" to our daily lives, we have venerated it and given it the mantle of some creator-god. Essentially if you boil it down, I believe that man created god and not vice versa, but I believe we ACTUALLY created "god", rather than simply inventing the idea of god.

Am I right? Who can say. Ultimately belief doesn't need to be right, belief just needs to be a comfort. May yours be comforting to you as mine is to me.

Peace.

Answer 10

You don't "believe" in Evolution, you just examine it as a scientific theory, which can be proved wrong, like any other scientific theory, but which is, up to now, the most satisfying way to explain the diversity of species, and is consistent with fact and observations.

On the other hand, you're entitled to believe in some kind of Creation, but no one can prove it right or wrong.

My advice would be to see the Universe as some kind of extremely complicated clockwork created by whoever you want, Evolution being one of the mechanisms of this clockwork. S.J. Gould had a very interesting view on it in "Rocks of Ages", you should read that.

This way, everybody is happy and scientists can keep on working seriously, without having to fight useless fights against obscurantism.

Answer 11

Evolution is without a doubt the most hated theory ever published.

So many people who are a hell of a lot smarter than us would love to sink it. That includes scientists aswell who would become instantly world famous if they could disprove evolution. The fact that it is still here and going strong after a hundred years of being attacked right from day 1 is proof enough for me.