Does evolution contradict creationism?

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

"This theory was only credible for about 30 or 40 years. And it is YOU guys that have to invent incredible variations of this theory to account for the real evidience of the fossil record which (against all your protests) still indicates the sudden appearance (creation?) of species. And no transitory species that are not simply labeling games by the devout."

Nice use of gratuitous assertions.

What contradictory evidence do you have that life was created specially by God in each instance? Why would God need to work that hard? Why would God make the Earth change so much that whole "kinds" like the dino kind disappeared and he had to specially create a whole bunch of other things?

The fact that there is continuum of transition among species and that they are hard to tell apart when close in relationship and that scientists argue about the extent of closeness, validates evolution.

It would appear to me that it is your side that uses games and rhetorical tricks to argue, since you have no evidence or facts on your side.

ToE does not "pretend" to explain speciation. It explains speciation insofar as our knowledge goes at this time. ToE postulates that a single cell is the common ancestor of all life on Earth. This is a Theory incorporated in the ToE called the Theory of Common Descent.

Your previous two posts were telling me that ToE does not incorporate the idea (theory) of where life came from, but right here you tell me it does...sigh!

There is not as much evidence for this as there is for the fact of evolution. There are other explanations that could work,

Name them!

but so far all indications are that a single cell developed into all the life you see on Earth. God was pretty smart to be able to do this, wasn't he?

NO! The indications are that single-celled life first existed in the early seas, reduced the early atmosphere to an oxygen bearing atmosphere, capable of supporting multicellular life. Then about half a billion years ago life exploded into existence on this earth in almost all its basic forms...NOT a slow progression of ever more complex life. That is the evidence. Yours is an interpretation of that evidence, through an already convinced mind that evolution is a "fact!" Maybe it did work that way, but the evidence is against ToE and for special creation. If God is the problem for science, then don't even mention Him, but at least interpret the data as it is, not as you want it to be...that is not science.

s--ToE does not "pretend" to explain speciation. It explains speciation insofar as our knowledge goes at this time. ToE postulates that a single cell is the common ancestor of all life on Earth. This is a Theory incorporated in the ToE called the Theory of Common Descent.

j--Your previous two posts were telling me that ToE does not incorporate the idea (theory) of where life came from, but right here you tell me it does...sigh!

The Theory of Common Descent postulates all life came from an original one celled form. It DOES NOT speculate what created that first form.

Is the reason you feel threatened about it that it does not postulate special creation, a continuing intervention by God? Then I would suggest to you that you change your notions of what Genesis means.

Don't you think God is smart enough to create a system and leave it alone? He could intervene anytime he wants, but since He is non-temporal it would make no difference as far as we are concerned.

"NO! The indications are that single-celled life first existed in the early seas, reduced the early atmosphere to an oxygen bearing atmosphere, capable of supporting multicellular life. Then about half a billion years ago life exploded into existence on this earth in almost all its basic forms...NOT a slow progression of ever more complex life. That is the evidence. Yours is an interpretation of that evidence, through an already convinced mind that evolution is a "fact!" Maybe it did work that way, but the evidence is against ToE and for special creation. If God is the problem for science, then don't even mention Him, but at least interpret the data as it is, not as you want it to be...that is not science."

I am afraid the above is not supported by evidence. But as the article said, one could postulate other manners of descent for instance that there were several lines of descent rather than just one etc.

There is no evidence that life exploded onto the scene suddenly, unless you define suddenly as 100 million years. Also, since almost none of the life forms from the Cambrian exist today, that supports evolution rather than some poofing. No one has observed poofing, except in San Francisco and that is something entirely different...;-)

Yes to God can do it anyway He wants. Whether God was some harried busybody creating every detail of life I don't know. Probably not. Seems to me God makes living things, including other beings of a high order. Maybe they had something to do about the blueprints of life. Everything (biological) on this earth appears to have been designed, and that at certain distinct stages. Thus blue-green algae to condition a proper atmosphere. When that is ready then the introduction of most of the forms of life...all at once. Later we have mammals and the environment that they are best suited for. Almost as if the earth was being specially prepared for us.

I have stated my theological opposition to ToE. Simply that it discounts and stands in opposition to the doctrine of original sin and redemption. That may not mean anything to you. But if I accept that premise, then eventually I have no need of a Redeemer. It is why much of Christianity is weak. Just like the early Church, once you dilute the truth with the surrounding pagan belief systems, you loose the power and miracles of the early Church. You get the Dark Ages. Same thing IMO. You accept false theories, the pagan theory of ToE, of our day (disguised in the Priestly robes of science) and you weaken and eventually destroy your faith. You go ahead and do that, I refuse.

"I have stated my theological opposition to ToE"

To bad that has nothing to do with biology. Did you ever consider the theology is off base?

In any event, having you talking about theology and unable to admit any science that contradicts it is not worthy of discussion. I would advise you not to participate in threads where science is involved and you might lose your "faith".

You also might consider that if biology destroys your faith, your faith may need some improvement. It is illustrative of what I have noticed about many on your side of this "debate". They are afraid to accept the facts of science because they are afraid they will lose Salvation.

If they really understood Christian theology, they would know God's Grace does not work that way. It matters not if you believe science or not, you are only saved through belief in Jesus Christ.

God doesn't care if you think yom is 24 hrs or the Ark was real. He doesn't care if you think evolution was created by Him , either. He only cares about one thing.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.