In science we end with a conclusion In faith we start with 1

...As for Baddog1's post, no, Evolution is not a response to Creation. It is a response to the environment. Natural selection pressures and all that. Even if God did create everything in six days and we all evolved from what he created, Evolution would still not be in response to Creation. It would still be in response to the environmental pressures on organisms.

In response to you & farmer; I am talking about creation - not Creation.

Evolution is actually (and primarily) a response to creation for if nothing is created - there is nothing to evolve. If you choose to label 'creation' as an "environment" - I have no problem with that.

As to your assertion: "Even if God did create everything in six days and we all evolved from what he created, Evolution would still not be in response to Creation. It would still be in response to the environmental pressures on organisms" - do you consider the earth to be an organism, that evolves?

In that case, you will have to define what you mean by creation with a small c, because the sentence you stated in the below post made us assume you meant Creation with a big C.

baddog1 wrote:

As to your assertion: "Even if God did create everything in six days and we all evolved from what he created, Evolution would still not be in response to Creation. It would still be in response to the environmental pressures on organisms" - do you consider the earth to be an organism, that evolves?

I fail to see what your question has to do with anything.

vikorrs creation process would have to be an ongoing process as new environments present themselves. Unless he, Like RL, believes that everythibg that ever was, was created at once and then just appears at the right time.

farmerman wrote:

. . .Ignorance parading as a valid scientific principle is sad. SCience is always self correcting. How come the same doesnt occur in religious inquiries in science

Good question.

OF course, science is not always self correcting.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

In that case, you will have to define what you mean by creation with a small c, because the sentence you stated in the below post made us assume you meant Creation with a big C.

I did use a small c except when emphasizing this fact! Please re-read the related posts.

The basis of your argument is that environmental pressures on organisms precede evolution, even when considering Creation. Genesis 1:1 says - 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. The earth is an organism that was instantly evolving from the point of existence... Thus - evolution had to be "in response" to creation (and Creation).

No, you misunderstand me. I don't understand what you mean by creation. Do you mean mutations that give rise to new traits? That's not creation. That's mutation. If you mean that, then why not use the term that is already in use to avoid confusion? If not, then what do you mean by creation with a small c?

Creation is the act of God creating everything according to Genesis. How are organisms evolving in response to that?

The environment is not Creation with a capital C. If the Genesis account was true, which it is not, the environment was a result of Creation, but not the selection pressures of mutations in organisms. Say the environment was a knife. It was created by a man in a factory, and it was sold. Its owner stabbed someone to death. Was that man's death in response to the knife's creation?

And the Earth is not an organism, because it cannot reproduce. It has no organic component that allows it to replicate and create more of itself.

Yeah, you've just shown that you have no idea what you're talking about.

http://www.scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation.html
http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/fossil_formation.html

Thank you for playing. Please come again.

As time passes sediments bury the exoskeleton. The faster this happens the more likely fossilization will occur. Land and mud slides definitely help. River deltas are also good for quick accumulation of sediments. This further insulates our trilobite from decomposition

creation: "the act of making, inventing, or producing". 'What' is created does not matter, what matters is that creation happens.

You are correct about 'Creation'. And from the exact moment of creation (and/or Creation); organisms begin the process of evolution.

Although not the premise of this debate - we are both entitled to our opinions and beliefs about Genesis. As to your particular question about the knife, the correct answer is yes, partially.

Not all organisms reproduce, thus rendering your assertion incorrect.

Organism: "a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole."

baddog1 wrote:

creation: "the act of making, inventing, or producing". 'What' is created does not matter, what matters is that creation happens.

Yeah and how exactly is natural selection in response to that? I fail to see your logic. It looks like you're caught up in the 'Creation vs Evolution' drama and I am looking beyond that. The bigger picture tells us that prior to creation (or Creation), nothing else existed.

Quote:

You are correct about 'Creation'. And from the exact moment of creation (and/or Creation); organisms begin the process of evolution.

But it still doesn't mean the evolution is in response to creation/Creation. It has to be.

Quote:

Although not the premise of this debate - we are both entitled to our opinions and beliefs about Genesis. As to your particular question about the knife, the correct answer is yes, partially.

That's silly. The knife might not have been used to stab someone. Clearly the stabbing was not in response to the knife being made, it was in response to something the stabber wanted or the stabbee did. It is not silly - it is factual. If that particular knife were never created - that particular knife could never have been used.

Quote:

Not all organisms reproduce, thus rendering your assertion incorrect.

Organism: "a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole."

Oh I see, you're using the loosest definition. According to what/whose standards? I'm using Merriam Webster's definition. If you consider MW's standards to be "loose" - OK. It is still accurate. I've always found that definition to be the most rubbish definition in existence. I doubt that MW and the countless # of students who rely on their information would agree. It's so catch all as to become completely meaningless, as it means a computer becomes an organism, a lamp becomes an organism, a book becomes an organism. Everything fits that definition of organism.

Still, regardless, your logic on this issue is rather bizarre. Your description is subjective. I consider my logic on this issue to be fundamentally and scientifically sound.

Natural selection is the process by which the environment selects against or for certain natural traits. I still fail to see how the act of creation fits that definition.I am aware of what natural selection is - and did not dispute it. The natural fact remains though - that without creation (or Creation, depending on how you 'believe'), there would be no natural selection, evolution, or anything else for that matter.

color=red]It looks like you're caught up in the 'Creation vs Evolution' drama and I am looking beyond that. The bigger picture tells us that prior to creation (or Creation), nothing else existed.[/color]

It has to be.

It is not silly - it is factual. If that particular knife were never created - that particular knife could never have been used.

According to what/whose standards?

a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole

Natural selection is the process by which the environment selects against or for certain natural traits. I still fail to see how the act of creation fits that definition.I am aware of what natural selection is - and did not dispute it. The natural fact remains though - that without creation (or Creation, depending on how you 'believe'), there would be no natural selection, evolution, or anything else for that matter.

Oh, really? And what evidence do you have for that? What evidence do you have to prove that nothing else existed prior to Creation?

So, the words you posted here are in response to the creation of the computer and not what I said?

But it is silly. The knife was not used to stab someone in response to it being created. It was used to stab someone in response to the desire of the person that stabbed someone.

Likewise, your words are in response to my words, not in response to the language that came up with their very existence. When you post your words on this forum you are not responding as a result of English, you are responding as a result of what I said.

According to any standards. Just look at the definition.

Merriam-Webster wrote:

a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole

According to this definition, a computer is an organism. It is a complex structure of interdependent (speakers, mouse, keyboard) and subordinate elements (CPU, wires, RAM and so forth). A coat is also an organism, according to this definition; it is fabric, pockets and zippers all determined by their function in the whole.

There is nothing in existence that fails to fit that definition. So everything is an organism. A piece of paper is an organism. An atom is an organism. Even these very words on this screen become an organism.

Yes, but that's not the same as saying Evolution is in response to creation/Creation.

It's like saying, your argument with me is in response to the English language. It's not. It's in response to my thoughts and to facts that I know.

As to evidence that nothing existed prior to creation - I have as much evidence that science can provide at this point in time.

Quote:

So, the words you posted here are in response to the creation of the computer and not what I said?

I have no idea what you're referring to here.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

But it is silly. The knife was not used to stab someone in response to it being created. It was used to stab someone in response to the desire of the person that stabbed someone.

...Which was in response to the 'stabbing' person's preceding desire to procure a knife to stab someone. The knife did not magically appear. It was produced (created). Knives have a purpose(s), otherwise they would not be created. The purposes are varied, based on those who respond to their desires.

You're still not getting it. (Or perhaps I am not doing a good job of conveying it. :wink: ) So let's try it another way:

In as much as current scientific evidence reveals:

Did the English language exist prior to creation?
Did your ability to respond exist prior to creation?
Did you exist prior to creation?
Did anything exist prior to creation?

baddog1 wrote:

As to evidence that nothing existed prior to creation - I have as much evidence that science can provide at this point in time.

Which is...? As it's always been: Nothing!

Quote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

But it is silly. The knife was not used to stab someone in response to it being created. It was used to stab someone in response to the desire of the person that stabbed someone.

...Which was in response to the 'stabbing' person's preceding desire to procure a knife to stab someone. The knife did not magically appear. It was produced (created). Knives have a purpose(s), otherwise they would not be created. The purposes are varied, based on those who respond to their desires.

No one is saying the knife magically appeared, but just because it is there and was used, does not mean it is responsible

I said there was partial responsibility to the knife. Either you're intentionally ignoring the obvious, or you need a tutorial on deductive reasoning. ie: No knife - no knife-stab. It ain't that hard wolf!

Quote:

You're still not getting it. (Or perhaps I am not doing a good job of conveying it. :wink: ) So let's try it another way:

In as much as current scientific evidence reveals:

Did the English language exist prior to creation?
Did your ability to respond exist prior to creation?
Did you exist prior to creation?
Did anything exist prior to creation?

No.
No.
No.
Don't know. How can you be so sure of the 1st 3 examples and not the 4th? Makes no sense wolf. Are you playing coy? Let's try it another way: What has science proven to exist prior to creation? Anything?

What's your point? I still fail to see your point. I get that. You fail to see the point - no matter the evidence - you're not going to see it - by emotional choice.

As it's always been: Nothing!

I said there was partial responsibility to the knife. Either you're intentionally ignoring the obvious, or you need a tutorial on deductive reasoning. ie: No knife - no knife-stab. It ain't that hard wolf!

Did the English language exist prior to creation?
Did your ability to respond exist prior to creation?
Did you exist prior to creation?
Did anything exist prior to creation?