Creation vs evolution....I just dont get it..?

If the way science measures what happened is by comparing to to what is happening now...then who on earth ever thought up evolution?

now I do believe that things evolve..but, I guess I am more onto abiogenisis...big bang theories etc.,...

but, everything we see, touch...etc...has to be created....even for a scientist to run a hypothesis he must first CREATE what he thinks was the situation at that time...and without his hands creating...he could not test it...

so if we base the past on what we see in the present....and everything has to be created or made with hands....in some form or another...why on earth would anyone think that we just evolved from an expansion..some gasses, molecules and time without the aid of a creator of some kind???

we cant even redo it in a lab without reCREATING it????

I just cant seem to step over that hurdle...show me something that came to be without the aid of a creator or guiding hand, and I can buy that it might of happened once before.

@ gutbucket....I havent even gotten that far yet LOL

Creation: believes that humans were created from the image of God.

Evolution: believes that humans evolved from primates.

Look at the mirror. Do you look like a god or a monkey?

螒鈥犖┾劉

You are confusing the appearance of design for design. Do you really think that the path of a river is designed, or that it is simply the path that resulted from gravity and erosion. When you realize that form can be substituted for create, you will see that the things do not require a creator and that the properties of nature can result in things without intervention.

We have plenty of physical evidence that the Universe is expanding from a single point. Plenty of evidence that all the heavy elements are a product of stellar fusion. Plenty of evidence for the speciation that occurred on earth.
If you want spontaneous abiogenesis in lab conditions, there's plenty of examples, some more detailed and advanced, and others rather simple, but certainly enough to show the plausibility of the theory.

I don't understand why so many people believe that the theory of evolution somehow eliminates divine intelligence. Why is it so much easier to believe that the Creator arbitrarily imposed a six-day deadline on Itself and why would you assume that they were 24 hour days as we define them? In eternity, there's no rush, why not set it up to evolve instead of rushing the process?

Something complex that didn't have to be designed or created:

Snowflakes. They are formed using a completely natural process. If you look at them, they are so intricate that you would think they had to have been hand-carved, but we know that it would be completely absurd to think that God carved each individual snowflake. That's the same way that life eventually came about...through completely natural processes that have always existed using materials that have always existed.

"If the way science measures what happened is by comparing to to what is happening now..."

that's your error.

you've over-simplified.

this is an analogy but I think its a great one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRhD_hv5Y...

the tree in the forest analogy. try and imagine it from the perspective on a life form that from birth to death only lives in one second.

If abiogenesis theories and panspermia theories and big bang theories were all thrown in the trash tomorrow- there would be NO theories. Intelligent Design or Creation is not an option until evidence of a creator is brought to the table.

Consider this

Mysteries In Science
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zTXxpXOo...

The Young Age of the Earth
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

The Origin of Man by Dr. Duane Gish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3FZDysZK...

The Origins of Life
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

Creation In The 21st Century From Where did these Layers Come (From) 1 of 3 (Global Flood)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZyoXQJ5A...

Creation in the 21st Century - Overwhelming Evidence 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o226umqLd...

Skull Fossils - As Empty as the Evolutionary Theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yu5jN897...

Neanderthals - Smarter Then We Thought
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxL636n3w...

Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVvGByvp1...

It's simple. They physical laws of the universe are sufficient to cause life to happen. The matter behaves in a way that self-replicating molecules could have began very simply and evolved over millions of years to be what we see today. No magic is required post-Big-Bang.

Ev'rybody's talkin' 'bout
Revolution, Evolution, Masturbation, Flagellation, Regulation,
Integrations, mediations, United Nations, congratulations
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Some species propagate through cloning themselves. No creating involved.

Who created the creator?

Hurricanes... What hands create hurricanes ???

I live on a hill, that was made by plate tectonics.

Yes, but that still doesnt mean some grand old man of the sky created it.

You kinda got it.

Our evidence for the Big Bang is red shift. This means that our observations of space show electromagnetic radiation from other galaxies moving towards the red end of the spectrum- basically, everything in the universe is moving further apart.

We didn't have to create any conditions in a lab to see this- we just used things which were already there to look at space, and observed what was happening. So red shift is an example of scientists discovering something without having to create a situation in a laboratory.

I can also answer "whoever thought up evolution" for you. That, dear, was Charles Darwin :D

Asking for an example of something that hasn't been created as proof of science working is a bit silly. Science cannot disprove the existence of a deity- it doesn't really say anything about where all this came from, and leaves it up to the individual to decide whether it was God or something else or it just happened. In fact, physicists sometimes become religious after working in their field, because of the big questions it answers and especially those it doesn't.

the old organization implies creation gem. There are myrid examples of organization with no creator whatsoever. They can be demonstrated in the laboratory. Take a mixture of hydrogen, cyanide, water, methane--run ultraviolet light through it--you get complex molecules like amino acids, nucleotides (adenine--which is the most common of them), formaldehyde, a variety of organics more complex than the starting materials. Now--these materials are all found in insteller gases, and in the dust clouds surrounding protostars--(we can tell this via infrared spectroscopy). These would be materials expected to be found in the atmosphere and oceans of a primitive earth. With no ozone layer at that time---uv light is abundant. These more complex molecules required no creator--on the input of radiation from the sun.

Is your computer made of hydrogen? Is your house? Is your car? Are you made of hydrogen?

No, all those things are made of many different atoms of many different elements. But the universe started with just hydrogen. All those other elements were made in the hearts of stars, and we understand that mechanism, and no divine guiding hand is necessary.

Now, to create life, we need to create something that replicates itself, and has some random element to the replication. Natural selection will quickly take over to guide that replication - the things that survive to replicate best will populate the next generation.

So we need a chemical reaction that results in some way in a self-replicating form. It does NOT have to be a modern cell, it just has to replicate and have some randomness. Eventually one of these replicating things will mutate to draw energy from elsewhere, like the sun, and will live better than the ones that don't. Then another will mutate to shift position slightly, giving it better survival. And so on, for BILLIONS of years.

So let's talk probability a moment. We have in our solar system 3 planets that could have had climates capable of harboring bacterial life as we know it at some point in their past. We also have at least 2 moons that fit that description today (have liquid water).

So, assume we're higher than average. Let's say each star system has one planet or moon that could harbor life at some point in its history (some will have several, many will have none). And let's say that moon or planet has a trillion chemical interactions per day across the whole planet. And let's say the universe as a whole could only have harbored life in the past 5 billion years. So that's 5 billion years times 365 days time a trillion interactions times 100 billion stars in each of 100 billion galaxies.

When you consider that you have:
18,250,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000
chances to create a replicating set of molecules, is it really so improbable? I think it might possibly have happened more than once, but there's no evidence of that yet.

They compare what is happening now and physical evidence in archeology.

As for your assertion that EVERYTHING had to be created, I would disagree. Elements can change to form new material if the environment pressures it to do so without intelligent being's involvement. As far as how elements came to the universe, science doesn't make such claims. They are trying to unlock that mystery.

Recreating life in a lab is to understand potentially how life could have formed. If scientists perform the test realistically to model what could have happened in the past.

As far as something being created without a creator: water. Under correct conditions, Hydrogen and 2 Oxygen can bond. To understand and show this happens, we can do experiments in the lab.

"show me something that came to be without the aid of a creator or guiding hand"

Well, according to Christians (the same being true of a lot of religions), God (or some god) came to being without the aid of a creator.

It is an easy step to get over... there are two possible situations: 1.) Everything needs a creator 2.) Everything does not need a creator.

If 1 is true then you have infinite regression... there must be infinite creators because there can't be a first one so it is a pointless argument.

If 2 is true, then there is no problem, everything does not need a creator, whether this means there is a first god or whether this means the universe came into being without a creator.

Now, we can empirically prove the universe exists. We can not prove any god or gods exist. Using that information, the most likely scenario is that the universe came into being without a creator.

Don't step over that hurdle. Life always comes from life, always. it is called Bio-genesis. It was named because it is not theory. Life never comes from non-life. Evolution occurs within species all the time. Not from one to the other. How many generations of Fruitflies have they bread? Thousands upon thousands, and it is still a fruitfly.