Improper Use Of Evolution

[Milk 0]

You know how you go to certain topics, and they read: Evolution vs. Creation or something of the sort? Well, I sorta wanted to ramble about this.

 

It bothers me, because Evolution is something that happens, while Creation is how something began. Correct?

 

Generally, when people think of the term evolution, they think of humans evolving from monkeys. While this is one explination of how humans came to be, it's not describing evolution as a whole. I think some of us tend to become selfish, thinking that humans are the only ones that change can occur in, because our minds are able to do so much more than the minds of our fellow earthling creatures (animals), so we think that evolution is directly talking about humans. But it's not. Evolution is the change of genetic information in a population over generations/time. Right? It talks about all animals. All plants, fungi, bacteria, everything. It's how a population adapts to the environment around it.

 

I hate seeing "Evolution vs Creation" because they're two totally different things. If it was, "Humans evolving from monkeys Vs. Creation" or "The Big Bang Theory vs. Creationism", then that would be more accurate. Is it not?

 

I'm not 100% sure about the whole creation thing, but I thought creation was the theory that God created humans and the world around us in 7 days, as they are now. Yes? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Anyways, I just wanted to point this out, and wanted to advise others, that if you do make a topic about this sort of thing, to never confuse evolution with the human evolution from monkeys. Evolution vs. Creation is like comparing a rock to a shoe. They're totally different (aside from the fact that they are both solids). I dunno, it just bothers me sometimes. >_>

 

And another point. During the arguments in these topics, people also tend to make unjust points against evolution. The thing is, some of these points are easily refuted because the people who make these points don't realize the difference between a theory and well....not a theory.

 

Questions? Comments? Concerns? =)

[JaVe 0]

Creation is what organisms willingly do theirselves but i do also agree that creation is also in terms of the theory that 'a' god created humans and the earth in just 7 days.

[clagnol 0]

You're looking at the situation as a Martian would see it, to borrow an expression from my sociology professors. You're not taking into account the implications of evolutionary theory and the subsequent politicization of this theory.The fact is that the whole notion of evolution undermines Christian fundamentalism. You can either accept that organisms have always been the same, as the Bible suggests when read literally, or you can accept that organisms, generation by generation, change into other organisms. You cannot believe both.Perhaps you would prefer "evolution vs. creationism" be replaced with "empirical knowledge vs. biblical literalism"?

[Milk 0]

Yeah....I dunno. I suppose you're right. I didn't really see that creationism was talking about the whole....animals etc.. But I dunno. I'm still a bit sketchy about the phrase. I had thought about it a bit and they're both pretty conceptual. Blargh. Cause, creation....is the making of humans and animals and whatnot how they are today, and evolution is the change in those specimens how they are today. Haha....I turned into what I most hated. I did exactly what I hated people doing. >.> I guess I looked too into the evolution thing and not quite the creationism thing. Spring break gets to you huh....

[JaVe 0]

I guess the two phrases are sketchy etc but i do find that claqnol has a point.

[Wyllt 0]

clagnol definately has a point. Creationism is not just the theory that god created man in 7 days, but rather that god created EVERYTHING in 7 days, the stars, the world, the animals, everything. Creationists believe that at the end of those 7 days the creation of the universe was done, the world was perfect.Evolution states the exact opposite, evolution states very clearly that the species of the world are constantly evolving. The two are clearly at odds with each other, so it is natural to see that they are opposing theories.Of course I have my own theory that states that both are possible (I'm not an overly religeous man mind you, but I used to be). My theory is quite simple. The first problem to overcome in reconsiling the two theories is that god created everything in seven days. This is a pretty tough hurdle to overcome, but not when you stop and think. Genesis tells that god created the heavens and the earth in seven days, however the language is actually quite vague when you sit down and read it. It is more implied than stated that it was 7 earth days. God is supposed to be omnipotent and imortal, why would we assume that the passage of one day for a mortal frail human would be the same as the passage of one day for a omnipotent imortal being? The only reason to assume that is because Genisis was written by a man, however I would like to pose the question of assuming the bible is correct, who passed on the story to be written in the bible, it must have come from somewhere, since the old testement was old when Jesus was said to have walked the earth than you would have to assume that someone else heard the story direct from the source at some time. Can an omnipotent immortal being truely understand how long a day is? I know he is supposed to be omniscient as well so he must have understood it, however the story was written by man, the the man properly record what the story should have been? So basically I am saying what is a day to a god? If you take away the basic assumption that time is relevent to the discussion of creationism vs. evolution then there is no argument. It could be said that God is STILL working on his creation, and that is why evolution is STILL occuring. The problem is strict believers in the bible assume that the writing in Genisis is literal, yet they ignore the fact that there are several different versions of the creation of the world that do not completely agree with each other. So if they are willing to overlook that why not redefine some basic assumptions about the wording in its entirety?

[iGuest 3]

So if the monkeys evolved into the humans ...then where the hell did the monkeys come from? I'll never understand this crap.

[Milk 0]

So if the monkeys evolved into the humans ...then where the hell did the monkeys come from?    I'll never understand this crap.

70740[/snapback]

It's a theory that all animals and all plants, etc, all came from one, common ancestor, that eventually branched off several different ways, allowing animals to adapt to the environment, whether terrestial, arial, or sea.

 

Monkeys probably evolved from something simpler, which evolved from something simpler, etc, until the simplest thing exists, a cell organelle. or something of the sort. Like, the first organism to exist on the earth was probably a tiny little cell, which eventually turned into say....a bacteria. The bacteria would branch off into something more "complex" so that there were more functions available to better survive/have a chance of reproducting better in a certain environment.

 

It's all just branched mumbo jumbo. But I'm sure you get my point.

 

Don't ask where the first organism came from, because evolution itself does not explain that, or attempt to explain it. It's possible that creationism and evolution tie in together, like.....

 

Creationism put the one organism on the earth, and then evolution takes it from that. I mean, who knows what the book of genesis really means anyways. It all depends on how you look at it.

[spawn_syxx9 1]

Evolution is the random progression of a species through which the ones that survive in nature will procreate and pass on traits that are more reliable and work so that the species survive in their particular environment. It has nothing to do with actual change or the will to change. It just is a mistake that happens to be a positive rather than a negative.

[no9t9 0]

I don't want to debate whether evolution or creation theory is correct because there is absolutely no proof for either. Getting back to the original topic, I don't see the problem with calling it evolution. It is implied that it is evolution THEORY.I don't know why you believe that people think evolution theory only refers to evolution of man. That has never been the meaning. Just as someone mentioned earlier, creationism isn't just about God creating the earth or people, it is about God creating EVERYTHING. This is the same with evolution theory. Everything in the univerise has evolved over time to exist as we know it today.

[HoRuS 0]

True those theories are based on THEORIES aka thoughts of who knows who.For all I know we could have been evolved from roaches or maybe even genetic manipulated monkeys Theories, theories theories... Lets live today instead of the past... It doesnt matter where we came from but where we are going right?Peace

[zippy77 0]

Well I think I have the theory of all theories.I think I am completely crazy and all of you, this web site, the computer, the house, the world, and the entire universe are all just a figment of my own imagination.LOL And remember the answer to life the universe and everything is 42!

[iGuest 3]

Ok smart *bottom*, then if the monkeys changed into humans over time back then, how come the cycle doesn't happen anymore?Answer that one. Sorry, I just find it amusing that the theory of evolution annoys you....Maybe god evolved from a monkey?? DUN DUN DUNIt's like how many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?...The world may never know.

[moldboy 0]

It could be said that God is STILL working on his creation, and that is why evolution is STILL occuring.

I like that, I always said that maybe god created the not a mokey but some other prehistoric human, and then we modern humans evolved from it! But I do like that, after all time is all relative, just think it the earth was spinning on it's axis faster, and around the sun slower, and the rules of time still applied, then a year would be A LOT longer!

The problem is strict believers in the bible assume that the writing in Genisis is literal...

When in fact it quite literaly can't, I'm no religious scolar, but I'd say that genisis is a suggestion of what might have been. Think about this, in the story of creation (note I called it a story, I'm catholic, and we all call it a story, everything in the Bible is a story!) got is said to having said Let there be light (we all know that one) then something like let there be a dome to seperate the water above from the water below. Now firstly we define sky as above, if there was no dome to seperate the sky from ground there would be no above, you'd probably get lost, like in heavy fog. But more importantly, remember as a kid when you would lie on your back and look up and imagine the boats in the sky, that would be because we thought the sky was made of water. Now that we have grown up a little we know that the sky isn't made of water, yet the bible say's there is a dome to seperate the water in the sky from the water below, this dome would be the skyline. Hence forth according to the bible there is just as much water in the sky as there is in the ocean! Why would an early man write this (assuming there was no devine intervention) because the ocean is blue, when infact it isn't it simply looks blue as a reflection of the sky! and because early man couldn't go to the sky he assumed that both were blue because of the water.
Consider this a vent inside a vent!

[Milk 0]

I don't want to debate whether evolution or creation theory is correct because there is absolutely no proof for either.  Getting back to the original topic, I don't see the problem with calling it evolution.  It is implied that it is evolution THEORY.

 

I don't know why you believe that people think evolution theory only refers to evolution of man.  That has never been the meaning.  Just as someone mentioned earlier, creationism isn't just about God creating the earth or people, it is about God creating EVERYTHING.  This is the same with evolution theory.  Everything in the univerise has evolved over time to exist as we know it today.

71473[/snapback]

Did you not read any of the posts at all? This topic was done so long ago. You make it sound like you only read the first post, and not very well at all. But then in your second paragraph you say that you did read the backposts.

I got disproved so long ago, why continue to repeat what people said? I never said evolution refers only to humans, I said evolution consisted of all of life. I believe I thought creation referred only to humans. Of course, I know it didn't, but I had just blanked out and somehow forgot since I was so focused on that subject anyways.

 

The pont of my first post wasn't my misconception of what creationism was. It was the fact that evolution is a process and creationism is the beginning and that's it. Now, taking granted that creationism isn't still happening, it currently is not a process. What I meant to say in my post, was that evolution is the process of which populations change over generations, while creationism was how these creatures were placed on earth/whatever.

 

Meaning, the lollypop taken out of a package neatly wraped is not the same as the licking of the lollypop. The beginning is 'creationism' and the licking is the 'evolution'.

 

With that, we can even combine the two theories and say that creationism happened first and is done for now, and evolution is carrying out the continuation of creationism. Of course, this is only one thought process. People who are still condenced in their religion and continue to think that we are as we were millions of years ago (when humans first existed???) and we have not changed a bit, since God is so almighty and perfect.

 

It could be said that God is STILL working on his creation, and that is why evolution is STILL occuring.

haha, that's a good way of looking at it though. I like =)

 

Anyways, no9t9, I just felt a bit offended of how you just came on like that. Of course, if you were not talking to me, then my deepest apologies. I just wanted to set things straight....

 

But then if you were accurate in your post, then my mind must have changed quite a bit from the time I typed up my first post and I'm implementing my current ideas into here. If that's the case, I'll give you a lollypop.